34 Relationship of Blood-Borne Markers of Subclinical Infection and Residual Feed Intake Status in Brangus Heifers.

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 18-18
Author(s):  
K N Nielsen ◽  
C P Tadych ◽  
M A Edmondson ◽  
L A Kriese-Anderson ◽  
T D Brandebourg
2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 1112-1116 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Rincon-Del ◽  
H. Gutierrez- ◽  
E.D. Perez-Vazq ◽  
A. Muro-Reyes ◽  
L.H. Diaz-Garci ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 573-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Basarab ◽  
M. G. Colazo ◽  
D. J. Ambrose ◽  
S. Novak ◽  
D. McCartney ◽  
...  

Basarab, J. A., Colazo, M. G., Ambrose, D. J., Novak, S., McCartney, D. and Baron, V. S. 2011. Residual feed intake adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding frequency is independent of fertility in beef heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 573–584. This study examined the effects of residual feed intake (RFI), RFI adjusted for off-test backfat thickness (RFIfat) and RFI adjusted for off-test backfat thickness and feeding event frequency (RFIfat & activity) on heifer fertility and productivity. Beef heifers (n=190) were monitored for individual daily feed intake and feeding event activity over 108–112 d using the GrowSafe System® and assessed for age at puberty based on plasma progesterone concentration. Individual animal daily feed intake, feeding event activity and off-test backfat thickness were then used to calculate RFI, RFIfat and RFIfat & activity and group heifers as either negative ([−], RFI<0.0) or positive ([+], RFI≥0.0) for RFI. Heifers averaged 298 kg (SD=34) in body weight, were 276 days of age (SD=19) at the start of test, grew at 0.90 kg d−1 (SD=0.21), consumed 7.62 kg DM head−1 d−1 (SD=0.84) and had a feed conversion ratio of 8.93 (SD=2.43). Age (351 d, SD=43) and weight (367.3 kg, SD=45.0) at puberty were similar between [−] and [+] RFI heifers, but age at puberty was delayed in [−] RFIfat (P=0.04) and RFIfat & activity (P=0.08) heifers compared with [+] RFIfat and RFIfat & activity heifers. Efficient or [−] RFI heifer exhibited a lower pregnancy (76.84 vs. 86.32%, P=0.09) and calving rate (72.63 vs. 84.21%, P=0.05) compared with [+] RFI heifers. These differences were partially removed in [−] RFIfat and completely removed in [−] RFIfat & activity compared with their [+] RFI counterparts (pregnancy rate, 80.85 vs. 82.29%, P=0.80; calving rate, 75.53 vs. 81.25%, P=0.34). No differences were observed between efficient and inefficient heifers in calving difficulty, average calving date, age at first calving, calf birth weight, calf pre-weaning ADG, calf weaning weight and heifer productivity. However, [+] RFI heifers exhibited a 1.9-fold higher calf death loss compared with [−] RFI heifers (11.11% vs. 5.71%, P=0.24). This difference was more pronounced in [+] RFIfat and [+] RFIfat & activity heifers, which exhibited 2.2-fold (11.84% vs. 5.33%, P=0.15) and 3.0-fold (12.66% vs. 4.17%, P=0.06) higher calf death loss compared with [−] RFI heifers. There was no relationship of RFI adjusted for backfat thickness and feeding activity on fertility traits indicating that backfat thickness and feeding activity may be associated with feed intake and should be considered when selecting heifers for improved feed efficiency.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S160-S164
Author(s):  
Makae F Nack ◽  
Hannah M DelCurto Wyffels ◽  
Samuel A Wyffels ◽  
Timothy DelCurto

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.M. Rincon- Delgado ◽  
H. Gutierrez- ◽  
E.D. Perez-Vszq ◽  
A. Muro-Reyes ◽  
L.H. Diaz-Garci ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 2181-2187
Author(s):  
Ahmed A Elolimy ◽  
Emad Abdel-Hamied ◽  
Liangyu Hu ◽  
Joshua C McCann ◽  
Daniel W Shike ◽  
...  

Abstract Residual feed intake (RFI) is a widely used measure of feed efficiency in cattle. Although the precise biologic mechanisms associated with improved feed efficiency are not well-known, most-efficient steers (i.e., with low RFI coefficient) downregulate abundance of proteins controlling protein degradation in skeletal muscle. Whether cellular mechanisms controlling protein turnover in ruminal tissue differ by RFI classification is unknown. The aim was to investigate associations between RFI and signaling through the mechanistic target of rapamycin (MTOR) and ubiquitin-proteasome pathways in ruminal epithelium. One hundred and forty-nine Red Angus cattle were allocated to 3 contemporary groups according to sex and herd origin. Animals were offered a finishing diet for 70 d to calculate the RFI coefficient for each. Within each group, the 2 most-efficient (n = 6) and least-efficient animals (n = 6) were selected. Compared with least-efficient animals, the most-efficient animals consumed less feed (P &lt; 0.05; 18.36 vs. 23.39 kg/d DMI). At day 70, plasma samples were collected for insulin concentration analysis. Ruminal epithelium was collected immediately after slaughter to determine abundance and phosphorylation status of 29 proteins associated with MTOR, ubiquitin-proteasome, insulin signaling, and glucose and amino acid transport. Among the proteins involved in cellular protein synthesis, most-efficient animals had lower (P ≤ 0.05) abundance of MTOR, p-MTOR, RPS6KB1, EIF2A, EEF2K, AKT1, and RPS6KB1, whereas MAPK3 tended (P = 0.07) to be lower. In contrast, abundance of p-EEF2K, p-EEF2K:EEF2K, and p-EIF2A:EIF2A in most-efficient animals was greater (P ≤ 0.05). Among proteins catalyzing steps required for protein degradation, the abundance of UBA1, NEDD4, and STUB1 was lower (P ≤ 0.05) and MDM2 tended (P = 0.06) to be lower in most-efficient cattle. Plasma insulin and ruminal epithelium insulin signaling proteins did not differ (P &gt; 0.05) between RFI groups. However, abundance of the insulin-responsive glucose transporter SLC2A4 and the amino acid transporters SLC1A3 and SLC1A5 also was lower (P ≤ 0.05) in most-efficient cattle. Overall, the data indicate that differences in signaling mechanisms controlling protein turnover and nutrient transport in ruminal epithelium are components of feed efficiency in beef cattle.


2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (suppl_3) ◽  
pp. 428-428
Author(s):  
J Michal ◽  
H Neibergs ◽  
J Mutch ◽  
J Kiser ◽  
J Taylor ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document