Feed bunk management effects steer performance and behaviour
M. M. Della Rosa A E , J. R. Toffaletti B E F , M. S. Aello C and J. C. Burges C D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Instituto de Investigación Agropecuaria del Chaco Semiárido, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Chañar Pozo s/n, 4111, Leales, Argentina.
B Estación Experimental Agropecuaria El Colorado, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Avenida Carlos Pellegrini s/n, 3603, El Colorado, Argentina.
C Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Ruta Nacional 226, km 73.5, 7620, Balcarce, Argentina.
D Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Ruta Nac. 226, km 73.5, 7620, Balcarce, Argentina.
E These authors contributed equally to this work.
F Corresponding author. Email: toffaletti.jose@inta.gob.ar
Animal Production Science 60(11) 1442-1448 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN18614
Submitted: 28 September 2018 Accepted: 17 December 2019 Published: 19 March 2020
Abstract
Animal performance and behaviour in fattening steers using ad libitum or restricted feed-bunk management were evaluated. High store-capacity self-feeders with weekly recharge were used in ad libitum management (ADLIB), while manual twice-a-day delivery was used in restricted management (REST). Twenty-four steers were allotted to 12 pens and fed with a high corn-grain diet without roughage, and randomly assigned to one of the treatments. Animal behaviour was recorded every 5 min throughout 24 h for 3 days. No bunk-management effect was evident in bodyweight (P ≥ 0.95) or average daily gain (P = 0.91). Even though ADLIB resulted in higher dry-matter intake (P = 0.03), the animals spent less time per day eating feed than did those under REST (P < 0.01), with more eating sessions per day (P = 0.02), which were shorter (P = 0.06). Rumination time was greater (P = 0.07) under ADLIB than under REST, while the opposite was observed for time spent eating (P < 0.01). Resting time was longer in animals under ADLIB (P = 0.02), with more sessions per day (P = 0.06), than under REST. In conclusion, the two feed-bunk managements evaluated had no negative implications either for animal performance or behaviour.
Additional keywords: animal activities, beef cattle, corn grain, production.
References
Albright JL (1993) Feeding behavior of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 485–498.| Feeding behavior of dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Beauchemin KA (1991) Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy cattle. The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Food Animal Practice 7, 439–463.
| Ingestion and mastication of feed by dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1654175PubMed |
Beauchemin KA (2018) Invited review: current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 4762–4784.
| Invited review: current perspectives on eating and rumination activity in dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29627250PubMed |
Beauchemin KA, McAllister TA, Dong Y, Farr BI, Cheng KJ (1994) Effects of mastication on digestion of whole cereal grains by cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 236–246.
| Effects of mastication on digestion of whole cereal grains by cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 8138495PubMed |
Danscher AM, Li S, Andersen PH, Khafipour E, Kristensen NB, Plaizier JC (2015) Indicators of induced subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) in Danish Holstein cows. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 57, 39
| Indicators of induced subacute ruminal acidosis (SARA) in Danish Holstein cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26183694PubMed |
DeVries TJ, Von Keyserlingk M A G, Beauchemin KA (2005) Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 3553–3562.
| Frequency of feed delivery affects the behavior of lactating dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16162529PubMed |
Dias RS, Patino HO, López S, Prates E, Swanson KC, France J (2011) Relationships between chewing behavior, digestibility, and digesta passage kinetics in steers fed oat hay at restricted and ad libitum intakes. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1873–1880.
| Relationships between chewing behavior, digestibility, and digesta passage kinetics in steers fed oat hay at restricted and ad libitum intakes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21297056PubMed |
Elmore MRP, Elischer MF, Claeys MC, Pajor EA (2015) The effects of different flooring types on the behavior, health, and welfare of finishing beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 93, 1258–1266.
| The effects of different flooring types on the behavior, health, and welfare of finishing beef steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Erickson GE, Milton CT, Fanning KC, Cooper RJ, Swingle RS, Parrot JC, Vogel G, Klopfenstein TJ (2003) Interaction between bunk management and monensin concentration on finishing performance, feeding behaviour, and ruminal metabolism during an acidosis challenge with feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2869–2879.
| Interaction between bunk management and monensin concentration on finishing performance, feeding behaviour, and ruminal metabolism during an acidosis challenge with feedlot cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 14601891PubMed |
Faleiro AG, González LA, Blanch M, Cavini S, Castells L, Ruíz de la Torre JL, Manteca X, Calsamiglia S, Ferret A (2011) Performance, ruminal changes, behaviour and welfare of growing heifers fed a concentrate diet with or without barley straw. Animal 5, 294–303.
| Performance, ruminal changes, behaviour and welfare of growing heifers fed a concentrate diet with or without barley straw.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22440774PubMed |
Forbes JM (2003) The multifactorial nature of food intake control. Journal of Animal Science 81, 139–144.
Galyean ML (1999) Review: restricted and programmed feeding of beef cattle definitions, application, and research results. The Professional Animal Scientist 15, 1–6.
| Review: restricted and programmed feeding of beef cattle definitions, application, and research results.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
González LA, Manteca X, Calsamiglia S, Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Ferret A (2012) Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review). Animal Feed Science and Technology 172, 66–79.
| Ruminal acidosis in feedlot cattle: interplay between feed ingredients, rumen function and feeding behavior (a review).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Greter AM, Miller-Cushon EK, McBride BW, Widowski TM, Duffield TF, DeVries TJ (2015) Limit feeding affects behavior patterns and feeding motivation of dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 1248–1254.
| Limit feeding affects behavior patterns and feeding motivation of dairy heifers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25497811PubMed |
Lindström T, Redbo I (2000) Effect of feeding duration and rumen fill on behaviour in dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 83–97.
| Effect of feeding duration and rumen fill on behaviour in dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11080553PubMed |
MacRae JE, Armstrong DG (1968) Enzyme method for determination of alpha-linked glucose polymers in biological materials. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 19, 578–581.
| Enzyme method for determination of alpha-linked glucose polymers in biological materials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McPhee MJ, Oltjen JW, Famula TR, Sainz RD (2006) Meta-analysis of factors affecting carcass characteristics of feedlot steers. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3143–3154.
| Meta-analysis of factors affecting carcass characteristics of feedlot steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17032810PubMed |
Meissner HH, Smuts M, Coertze RJ (1995) Characteristics and efficiency of fast growing feedlot steers fed different dietary energy concentrations. Journal of Animal Science 73, 931–936.
| Characteristics and efficiency of fast growing feedlot steers fed different dietary energy concentrations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 7628969PubMed |
Miller-Cushon EK, DeVries TJ (2017) Feed sorting in dairy cattle: causes, consequences, and management. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 4172–4183.
| Feed sorting in dairy cattle: causes, consequences, and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28041726PubMed |
Murphy TA, Loerch SC (1994) Effects of restricted feeding of growing steers performance, carcass characteristics, and composition. Journal of Animal Science 72, 2497–2507.
| Effects of restricted feeding of growing steers performance, carcass characteristics, and composition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 8002469PubMed |
NRC (2000) ‘Nutrient requirements of beef cattle.’ 7th revised edn. (National Academies Press: Washington, DC)
Pritchard RH, Bruns KW (2003) Controlling variation in feed intake through bunk management Journal of Animal Science 81, 133–138.
Pritchard RH, Stateler DA (1997) Grain processing: effects on mixing, prehension, and other characteristics of feeds. Journal of Animal Science 75, 880–884.
| Grain processing: effects on mixing, prehension, and other characteristics of feeds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 9078508PubMed |
Rust SR, Main DG, Cunningham BT (1986) Effect of initial weight, intake level and growth promotants in Holstein steers. Journal of Animal Science 63, 433
SAS (1999) ‘SAS user’s guide. Version 8.0.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
Schirmann K, Chapinal N, Weary DM, Heuwieser W, von Keyserlingk M A G (2012) Rumination and its relationship to feeding and lying behavior in Holstein dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 3212–3217.
| Rumination and its relationship to feeding and lying behavior in Holstein dairy cows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22612956PubMed |
Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Moya D (2015) Relationship between feeding behaviour, ruminal pH, performance and welfare in feedlot cattle. Invited paper. In ‘V simposio internacional de nutrição de ruminantes: perspectivas de interação econômicoambiental na produção intensiva de carne (5th Brazilian nutrition conference)’, (Eds De Beni Arrigoni M, Ludovico Martins C, Domingues Millen D, Perdigão A, Floret da Costa C, Dutra Estevam D, de castro Pereira I) Dracena, S Paulo, Brazil, 8–9 April 2015. pp. 70–89 .
Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Atwood S, McAllister TA (2002) Relationships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 76, 179–188.
| Relationships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schwartzkopf-Genswein KS, Beauchemin KA, Gibb DJ, Crews DH, Hickman DD, Streeter M, McAllister TA (2003) Effect of bunk management on feeding behavior, ruminal acidosis and performance of feedlot cattle: a review. Journal of Animal Science 81, 149–158.
Wheeler WE, Noller CH (1977) Gastrointestinal tract pH and starch in feces of ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 44, 131–135.
| Gastrointestinal tract pH and starch in feces of ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
