Effects of moderate feed restriction on energy expenditure by 2-year-old crossbred Boer goats

Tovar-Luna, I.; Goetsch, A.L.; Puchała, R.; Sahlu, T.; Carstens, G. E.; Freetly, H. C.; Johnson, Z. B.

doi:10.1016/j.smallrumres.2006.07.016

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this superior gain could not be attributed to DMI because intake values were not different (P>0.01) between restricted and ad libitum groups, but possibly due to the better feed efficiency of the realimented lambs and/or the decreased heat production during the restriction and its continuation during realimentation (Ryan, 1990;Yambayamba et al, 1996). These results are in agreement with those of Turgeon et al (1986) and Kabbali et al (1992b), but not with those of Greeff et al (1986) and Homem et al (2007), who reported that rapid gain during realimentation was associated with increased feed intake. The apparent inconsistency may be explained by the differences in restriction levels, the composition of the diets, the periods of restriction and realimentation, and the physiological age and time that restriction started (Hornick et al, 2000).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…After refeeding the 30 kg lambs, feed efficiency (g gain.kg -1 DMI) was slightly improved (P>0.01) by 4.2 and 10.9% for the 0.75 and 0.60 ad libitum groups and (P<0.01) by 22.6 and 53.5% for the 36 kg lambs, respectively compared with ad libitum fed lambs. Enhanced feed efficiency during compensatory growth has been reported in several studies (Turgeon et al, 1986;Ryan, 1990;Kabbali et al, 1992a;Homem et al, 2007).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Compensatory growth is manifested in the ability of animals previously restricted in feed intake to outgain their better counterparts when given free access to good quality feed. Higher feed intake after a period of feed restriction has been reported (Greeff et al, 1986;Homem et al, 2007), whereas other studies have shown that feed intake does not increase after a period of feed restriction (Turgeon et al, 1986;Kabbali et al, 1992b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on feed performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Forty Najdi ram lambs weighing 26.6±0.3 kg were utilized in this experiment to determine the effects of feed restriction followed by realimentation and body weight at the onset of feed restriction (30 and 36 kg body weights) on performance and carcass characteristics; feeding and restriction levels were ad libitum, 0.75 and 0.60 of the ad libitum intake. All lambs were slaughtered after 14 weeks of experimentation. The results showed that, during the feed restriction phase, average daily gain (ADG) and feed efficiency decreased as the level of restriction increased. During the realimentation phase, the 30 kg lambs gained weights and consumed dry matter (DM) similarly to the ad libitum group, whereas the ADG for the 36 kg lambs of both 0.75 and 0.60 ad libitum groups were 20 and 43.8% faster than the ad libitum group, respectively. At the end of the trial, final body weight and overall ADG of the realimented 30 kg groups were lower than ad libitum group, whereas the ADG of the 36 kg groups were not different compared with the ad libitum group. Although empty body, hot and cold carcass, empty stomach compartments, empty intestines and liver weights for the 36 kg groups were not affected by feed restriction followed by realimentation, weights of visceral fat depots, subcutaneous fat and tail fat decreased much more than those of the ad libitum group. Carcass composition of the realimented 0.75 and 0.60 ad libitum groups tended to have 5.1 and 8.8% less lean tissue than the ad libitum group when the restriction started at 30 kg, respectively. On the other hand, the realimented lambs of both 0.75 and 0.60 ad libitum groups tended to be 5.1 and 2.8% leaner than those of the ad libitum group when restriction started at 36 kg body weight, respectively. Feed restriction of up to 40% for a 5-week period followed by a 4-week period of refeeding in 36 kg lambs is economically feasible and does not offset production.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on feed performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The noticeable depression in liver weight during restriction was probably related to a decrease in oxygen consumption by the liver and hepatic blood flow (Burrin et al, 1989). Also, it has been shown that moderate feed restriction resulted in appreciable changes in the metabolism of the liver tissue (Tovar-Luna et al, 2007). In other reports, liver weight was not affected by a period of feed restriction followed by realimentation (Mahouachi and Atti, 2005;Shadnoush et al, 2011;Abouheif et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Effect of different feed restriction regimens on lamb performance and carcass traits

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Fifty Najdi ram lambs weighing an average of 38.1±0.5 kg were utilized in this study to determine the effects of feed restriction level with or without subsequent realimentation on lamb performance and carcass composition. Lambs were allotted randomly and equally into five groups. The groups were fed a control diet ad libitum; two groups fed 0.90 and 0.80 of ad libitum intake throughout the eight-week period of the trial (R), and two groups fed 0.90 and 0.80 of ad libitum intake for a six-week period followed by two weeks of realimentation (RR). All lambs were slaughtered after eight weeks of experimentation. Average daily gain (ADG) for the 0.90 and 0.80 ad libitum groups decreased by 7.6 and 26.9% during restriction, whereas the lambs during realimentation period had 35 and 30.5% faster ADG and 27.5 and 21.8% better feed:gain ratios than the control, respectively. At the end of the trial, final, empty and hot carcass weights and overall ADG of the 0.90 ad libitum RR group did not differ from control. Feeding performance values of the 0.80 ad libitum R group were the lowest among the treatments. The studied feed restriction regimens depressed the weights of empty stomach, tail fat, visceral fat, and subcutaneous fat; however, two weeks of realimentation were not enough to induce complete weight recovery in these tissues. The 0.90 ad libitum RR restriction routine can be adopted as a nutritional management practice for fattening Najdi lambs.

show abstract

“…The CH 4 analyser was calibrated with nitrogen gas (99.999%, Beijing APBAIF Gases Industry Co. Ltd., Beijing, China) and a reference gas mixture (0.3% CH 4 in nitrogen gas, Beijing APBAIF Gases Industry Co. Ltd., Beijing, China). The CH 4 measurements were performed as previously described (Tovar-Luna et al 2007) with minor modifications: a 2-min analysis of ambient air as a reference and a 2-min re-calibration to the head box air, followed by an 8-min analysis of the head box air, a 2-min re-calibration to ambient air, and, finally, a 2-min analysis of the ambient air as a reference. The measurements were performed over a total of 24 h. The CH 4 , O 2 and CO 2 concentrations, temperature, humidity, dew point and air flow rate through the head boxes were recorded and processed using software from Sable Systems for the CH 4 production calculations.…”

Section: Digestibility Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy requirements for the maintenance and growth of Dorper-Jinzhong crossbred ram lambs

Zhao

YaQian

et al. 2016

Italian Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sheep industry in China has been rapidly developing in recent years; however, the animals' nutritional requirements under certain conditions have not been thoroughly defined. The objective of this study was to investigate the energy requirements of both the maintenance and growth of Dorper-Jinzhong crossbred ram lambs. Thirty 1/2 Dorper Â 1/2 Jinzhong crossed F1 ram lambs (35 6 0.5 kg of body weight, BW) were randomly selected and divided into five groups in a randomised design for a comparative slaughter trial. The lambs were offered one type of feed at 100%, 65% and 40% of the ad libitum intake. Another 15 lambs were used for the digestibility trial to estimate the metabolisable energy (ME) values of the diet at various feed intake levels. The net energy for maintenance (NE m ) and the ME requirement for maintenance (ME m ) were 286.68 kJ/kg 0.75 of SBW and 437.80 kJ/kg 0.75 of SBW, respectively; the energy efficiency for maintenance (k m ) was 0.655. The net energy for growth (NE g ) values for varying average daily gain (100-350 g) in ram lambs grown from 35 to 50 kg increased from 1.31 to 5.93 MJ/d with an energy efficiency for growth (k g ) of 0.457. Our results suggest that the energy requirements of Dorper-Jinzhong crossbred ram lambs are lower than the requirements recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) and Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC).

show abstract

Effects of moderate feed restriction on energy expenditure by 2-year-old crossbred Boer goats

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on feed performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs

Effect of restricted feeding and realimentation on feed performance and carcass characteristics of growing lambs

Effect of different feed restriction regimens on lamb performance and carcass traits

Energy requirements for the maintenance and growth of Dorper-Jinzhong crossbred ram lambs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About