Dataset Information

Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

ABSTRACT: In the future, water may not be as readily available due to increases in competition from a growing human population, wildlife, and other agricultural sectors, making selection for water efficiency of beef cattle increasingly important. Substantial selection emphasis has recently been placed on feed efficiency in an effort to reduce production costs, but no emphasis has been placed on making cattle more water efficient due to lack of data. Thus, the objective of this study was to calculate water efficiency metrics for cattle and evaluate their relationship to growth, feed intake (FI), and feed efficiency. Individual daily FI and water intake (WI) records were collected on 578 crossbred steers over a 70-d test period. Animals with low water intake ate less feed, had lower gains, and were more water efficient (as defined by water to gain ratio, W/G, and residual water intake, RWI). However, the amount of water consumed by animals had minimal phenotypic relationship with feed efficiency (residual feed intake [RFI], R2 = 0.1050 and feed to gain ratio (F/G) ratio R2 = 0.0726). Cattle that had low DMI consumed less water, had lower gains, had lower RFI, and had higher F/G. The level of feed consumed had minimal relationship with water efficiency. WI, W/G, RWI, and ADG had moderate heritability estimates of 0.39, 0.39, 0.37, and 0.37, respectively. High heritability estimates were observed for DMI and RFI (0.67 and 0.65, respectively). Feed to gain had a low heritability estimate of 0.16. WI had a strong positive genetic correlation with W/G (0.99) and RWI (0.88), thus selecting for decreased WI should also make cattle more water efficient. The genetic correlation between WI and ADG was 0.05; thus, selecting for low WI cattle should have little effect on growth. There is a low to moderate genetic correlation between WI and DMI (0.34). RWI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.89) and F/G ratio (0.42) and is negatively genetically correlated with RFI (-0.57). Water to gain and F/G had a strong positive genetic correlation (0.68). RFI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.37) and F/G (0.88). Minimal antagonisms seem to be present between WI and ADG, although it should be noted that standard errors were large and often not significantly different from zero due to the small sample size. However, care should be taken to ensure that unintended changes do not occur in DMI or other production traits and incorporation of WI into a selection index would likely prove to be the most effective method for selection.

SUBMITTER: Ahlberg CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6915210 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

Ahlberg Cashley M CM Allwardt Kristi K Broocks Ashley A Bruno Kelsey K Taylor Alexandra A Mcphillips Levi L Krehbiel Clint R CR Calvo-Lorenzo Michelle M Richards Chris J CJ Place Sara E SE Desilva Udaya U Vanoverbeke Deborah L DL Mateescu Raluca G RG Kuehn Larry A LA Weaber Robert R Bormann Jennifer J Rolf Megan M MM

Journal of animal science 20191201 12

In the future, water may not be as readily available due to increases in competition from a growing human population, wildlife, and other agricultural sectors, making selection for water efficiency of beef cattle increasingly important. Substantial selection emphasis has recently been placed on feed efficiency in an effort to reduce production costs, but no emphasis has been placed on making cattle more water efficient due to lack of data. Thus, the objective of this study was to calculate water ...[more]

PMID: 31740941

Similar Datasets

Project description:Water is an essential nutrient, but the effect it has on performance generally receives little attention. There are few systems and guidelines for collection of water intake (WI) phenotypes in beef cattle, which makes large-scale research on WI a challenge. The Beef Improvement Federation has established guidelines for feed intake (FI) and ADG tests, but no guidelines exist for WI. The goal of this study was to determine the test duration necessary for collection of accurate WI phenotypes. To facilitate this goal, individual daily WI and FI records were collected on 578 crossbred steers for a total of 70 d using an Insentec system at the Oklahoma State University Willard Sparks Beef Research Unit. Steers were fed in five groups and were individually weighed every 14 d. Within each group, steers were blocked by BW (low and high) and randomly assigned to one of four pens containing approximately 30 steers per pen. Each pen provided 103.0 m2 of shade and included an Insentec system containing six feed bunks and one water bunk. Steers were fed a constant diet across groups and DMI was calculated using the average of weekly percent DM within group. Average FI and WI for each animal were computed for increasingly large test durations (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, and 70 d), and ADG was calculated using a regression formed from BW taken every 14 d (0, 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 d). Intervals for all traits were computed starting from both the beginning (day 0) and the end of the testing period (day 70). Pearson and Spearman correlations were computed for phenotypes from each shortened test period and for the full 70-d test. Minimum test duration was determined when the Pearson correlations were greater than 0.95 for each trait. Our results indicated that minimum test duration for WI, DMI, and ADG were 35, 42, and 70 d, respectively. No comparable studies exist for WI; however, our results for FI and ADG are consistent with those in the literature. Although further testing in other populations of cattle and areas of the country should take place, our results suggest that WI phenotypes can be collected concurrently with DMI, without extending test duration, even if following procedures for decoupled intake and gain tests.

Project description:The beef cow-calf sector accounts for 70% of feed consumed and greenhouse gases emitted for the beef industry, but there is no straightforward method to measure biological efficiency in grazing conditions. The objective of this study was to evaluate a mathematical nutrition model to estimate the feed intake and biological efficiency of mature beef cows. Data from dams (N = 160) and their second and third progeny (312 pairs) were collected from 1953 through 1980. Individual feed intake was measured at 28-d intervals year-round for dams and during 240-d lactation for progeny. Body weights of progeny were measured at 28-d intervals from birth to weaning, and of dams at parturition and weaning each production cycle. The milk yield of dams was measured at 14-d intervals. Dam metabolizable energy intake (DMEI) and milk energy yield (MEL) of each cow were predicted using the Cattle Value Discovery System beef cow (CVDSbc) model for each parity. Biological efficiency (Mcal/kg) was computed as the ratio of observed or predicted DMEI to observed calf weaning weight (PWW). Pearson correlation coefficients were computed using corr.test function and model evaluation was performed using the epiR function in R software. Average (SD) dam weight, PWW, DMEI, and observed MEL were 527 (86) kg, 291 (47) kg, 9584 (2701) Mcal/production cycle, and 1029 (529) Mcal, respectively. Observed and predicted DMEI (r = 0.93 and 0.91), and observed and predicted MEL (r = 0.58 and 0.59) were positively correlated for progeny 2 and 3, respectively. The CVDSbc model under-predicted DMEI (mean bias [MB] = 1,120 ± 76 Mcal, 11.7% of observed value) and MEL (MB = 30 ± 25 Mcal, 2.9% of observed value). Observed and predicted progeny feed intake were not correlated (r = 0.01, P-value = 0.79). Observed and predicted biological efficiency were positively correlated (r = 0.80 and 0.80, P-value ≤ 0.05) for parity 2 and 3, respectively, and the CVDSbc model under-predicted biological efficiency by 11% (MB = 3.59 ± 0.25 Mcal/kg). The CVDSbc provides reasonable predictions of feed intake and biological efficiency of mature beef cows, but further refinement of the relationship between calf feed intake and milk yield is recommended to improve predictions. Mathematical nutrition models can assist in the discovery of the biological efficiency of mature beef cows.

Project description:Adequate drinking water is essential to maintain acceptable production levels in beef cattle operations. In the context of global climate change, the water scarcity forecasted for the future is a growing concern and it would determine an increase in the use of poorer quality water by the agricultural sector in many parts of the world. However, consumption of high-salt water by cattle has consequences often overlooked. A meta-analysis was carried out to assess the impact of utilizing high-salt water on dry matter (DMI) and water intake (WI), and performance in beef cattle. The dataset was collected from 25 studies, which were conducted between 1960 and 2020. Within the dataset, the water quality was divided into three categories according to the ratio of sulfates (SO4) or sodium chloride (NaCl) to total dissolved solids (TDS): 1) TDS = all studies included (average SO4:TDS = 0.4); 2) NaCl = considered studies in which water salinity was dominated by NaCl (average SO4:TDS = 0.1); and 3) SO4 = considered studies in which water salinity was dominated by SO4 (average SO4:TDS = 0.8). Results showed that DMI and WI were negatively affected by high-salt water consumption, although the magnitude of the effect is dependent on the type of salt dissolved in the water. There was a quadratic effect (P < 0.01) for the WI vs. TDS, WI vs. NaCl, DMI vs. TDS, and DMI vs. NaCl, and a linear effect (P < 0.01) for WI vs. SO4 and WI vs. SO4. Average daily gain (ADG) and feed efficiency (FE) were quadratically (P < 0.01) affected by high-salt water, respectively. This study revealed significant negative effects of high-salt water drinking on beef cattle WI, DMI, and performance. However, the negative effects are exacerbated when cattle drink high-sulfate water when compared with high-chloride water. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first approach to evaluate animal response to high-salt water consumption and could be included in the development of future beef cattle models to account for the impact of water quality on intake and performance. In addition, this meta-analysis highlights the need for research on management strategies to mitigate the negative effects of high-salt water in cattle.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The identification of genetic markers associated with complex traits that are expensive to record such as feed intake or feed efficiency would allow these traits to be included in selection programs. To identify large-effect QTL, we performed a series of genome-wide association studies and functional analyses using 50 K and 770 K SNP genotypes scored in 5,133 animals from 4 independent beef cattle populations (Cycle VII, Angus, Hereford and Simmental×Angus) with phenotypes for average daily gain, dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test body weight and residual feed intake. RESULTS: A total of 5, 6, 11 and 10 significant QTL (defined as 1-Mb genome windows with Bonferroni-corrected P-value<0.05) were identified for average daily gain, dry matter intake, metabolic mid-test body weight and residual feed intake, respectively. The identified QTL were population-specific and had little overlap across the 4 populations. The pleiotropic or closely linked QTL on BTA 7 at 23 Mb identified in the Angus population harbours a promising candidate gene ACSL6 (acyl-CoA synthetase long-chain family member 6), and was the largest effect QTL associated with dry matter intake and mid-test body weight explaining 10.39% and 14.25% of the additive genetic variance, respectively. Pleiotropic or closely linked QTL associated with average daily gain and mid-test body weight were detected on BTA 6 at 38 Mb and BTA 7 at 93 Mb confirming previous reports. No QTL for residual feed intake explained more than 2.5% of the additive genetic variance in any population. Marker-based estimates of heritability ranged from 0.21 to 0.49 for residual feed intake across the 4 populations. CONCLUSIONS: This GWAS study, which is the largest performed for feed efficiency and its component traits in beef cattle to date, identified several large-effect QTL that cumulatively explained a significant percentage of additive genetic variance within each population. Differences in the QTL identified among the different populations may be due to differences in power to detect QTL, environmental variation, or differences in the genetic architecture of trait variation among breeds. These results enhance our understanding of the biology of growth, feed intake and utilisation in beef cattle.

Project description:This study evaluated 53 primiparous cows (36.8±1.23 months old and 484±40.9 kg of body weight) performance tested (GrowSafe® System) from 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation in order to obtain daily dry matter intake (DMI). The animals received a high-forage diet (forage-to-concentrate ratio of 90:10). Milk production of the cows was evaluated three times by mechanical milking and the energy-corrected milk yield (ECMY) was calculated. Energy status (through the indicators glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and ?-hydroxybutyrate), protein status (indicators albumin, urea, and creatinine), mineral status (indicators calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium), and hormonal status (indicators insulin and cortisol) were estimated four times throughout lactation. The residual feed intake (RFI) of cows was calculated considering DMI, average daily gain (ADG) and mid-test metabolic weight (BW0.75) obtained in early lactation (from 22±5 to 102±7 days), and the animals were classified as negative (most efficient) or positive RFI (least efficient). The RFI model explained 53% of the variation in DMI. The mean DMI, ADG, ECMY, and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight were 12.47±2.70 kg DM/day, 0.632±0.323 kg/day, 10.47±3.23 kg/day, and 36.6±5.39%, respectively. Negative RFI cows consumed 11.5% less DM than positive RFI cows, with performance and metabolic profile being similar to those of positive RFI cows, except for a lower milk protein content and higher blood cholesterol concentration. In conclusion, negative (most efficient) and positive RFI (least efficient) Nellore cows, fed an ad libitum high-forage diet, produced similar amounts of milk, fat and lactose and had similar subcutaneous fat thickness, weight, calf weight as a percentage of cow weight, and blood metabolite concentrations (except for cholesterol). Therefore, there are economic benefits to utilizing RFI in a cow herd since cattle had decreased DMI with similar overall performance, making them more profitable due to lower input costs.

Dataset Information

Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

Publications

Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets