Growth, reproductive performance, mammary development, and milk production of beef heifers as influenced by prepubertal dietary energy and administration of bovine somatotropin.

Buskirk, D. D.; Faulkner, D. B.; Hurley, W.L.; Kesler, D.J.; Ireland, F. A.; Nash, T.; Castree, J C; Vicini, J.L.

doi:10.2527/1996.74112649x

Cited by 41 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The decreased percentage of EXT heifers being pubertal was likely the result of several factors including growth rate, winter diet, possibly monensin supplementation, which was a function of diet quality, and other behavioral and environmental factors differing in each development system. These data agree with recent literature indicating reduced postweaning ADG resulting from lower diet quality, with or without moderate realimentation before breeding, reduces the percentage of heifers attaining puberty (Granger et al, 1990;Lalman et al, 1993;Buskirk et al, 1995Buskirk et al, , 1996Marston et al, 1995;Lynch et al, 1997;Ciccioli et al, 2005;Gasser et al, 2006). Martin et al (2008) indicated reducing the percentage of mature BW at breeding by approximately 6% resulted in a nonsignificant, 17% decrease in percentage of pubertal heifers at breeding.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…However, final pregnancy rate was not different (P = 0.38) between EXT and DL Nontraditional heifer development heifers. Nearly all previous research indicates postweaning BW gain restriction resulted in similar final pregnancy rates (Granger et al, 1990;Lalman et al, 1993;Buskirk et al, 1995;1996;Lynch et al, 1997;Funston and Deutscher, 2004;Ciccioli et al, 2005;Gasser et al, 2006;Martin et al, 2008). The percentage of heifers calving in the first 21 d was similar (P = 0.30; Table 7) between treatments and greater than 70% for the entire group, indicating heifers not becoming pregnant to AI became pregnant at the subsequent estrus.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Heifer development systems: Dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage1

Funston

Larson

2011

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two hundred ninety-nine Angusbased, nulliparous heifers (253 ± 2 kg initial BW) from 3 production years were utilized to compare traditional postweaning dry lot (DL) development with a more extensive winter grazing system utilizing a combination of corn residue and winter range (EXT). Heifers developed in the DL were offered a common diet after the weaning period for 208 d in yr 1, 194 d in yr 2, and 150 d in yr 3 until breeding. Heifers developed in EXT grazed corn residue for 135 d in yr 1, 106 d in yr 2, and 91 d in yr 3, and then fed in the DL until breeding (yr 1) or grazed dormant winter grass for approximately 60 d before being fed in the DL (yr 2 and 3). All 3 years, heifers were estrus synchronized, with timed AI performed in yr 1. In yr 2 and 3, estrus was detected and those detected in estrus were artificially inseminated approximately 12 h later. Heifers were exposed to bulls 10 d after the last AI for 60 d while grazing summer pasture. During the winter grazing period, EXT heifers gained less (P = 0.01) BW than DL heifers and EXT heifers had lighter (P = 0.02) BW at breeding. Fewer (P < 0.01) EXT heifers reached puberty before breeding. Conception to AI was not different (P = 0.23); however, AI pregnancy rate tended (P = 0.08) to be less in EXT heifers. Final pregnancy rates were not different (P = 0.38) between treatment groups. Although EXT heifers had lighter (P = 0.02) BW at pregnancy diagnosis; however, they did compensate with greater (P = 0.05) ADG after breeding, resulting in similar (P = 0.22) precalving BW. Winter development system did not influence (P > 0.10) percentage of calving in the first 21 d, calf birth date, and calf birth BW, or dystocia score. Pregnancy rate after the second breeding season was not different (P = 0.56) between treatments. Heifer development using extended winter grazing reduced (P < 0.01) the cost of producing a pregnant heifer by $45 compared with DL.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Heifer development systems: Dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage1

Funston

Larson

2011

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But there is a lack of well founded information about this relationships independent on BW. However, BUSKIRK et al (1996) have show, that animals, get a moderate density ration eat more than such get a high density ration. Maybe, high feed intake was hold up until lactation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rearing diet effects on body condition and milk performance in first lactating dairy cows – A longitudinal study

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourteen pairs of identical female Holstein twins were used for a feeding trial during a period between 3 rd and 21 st month. One in two sibling was reared continuously at a medium (M) and the other one at a high (H) feeding intensity. Lasting diet effects of body weight (BW), back fat thickness (BFT), and milk performance (M-kg) were analyzed for the subsequent lactation. A lasting diet effect was verifiable for BFT, whereas BW don't differ between groups. BFT indicated the changes from negative to positive energy balance 7 and 10 weeks later than BW, for M and H group, respectively. Besides, BFT showed, that the duration and dimension of negative energy balance was longer in H group than in M group. BFT difference became smaller according day of lactation and resulted in about zero at day 305 of lactation. If the groups were compared only by feeding intensity, the daily milk yield was 1.7 kg higher in M than in H group, but the difference didn't show any significance (p=0.22). However, the tendency of superiority was completely absorbed after the addition of the covariate age at first calving (AFC) in the model. Presented date in identical twins give no indications for lasting feeding effects per se on milk performance. Introduction Feeding during rearing period does not only influence the growth rates of calves and heifers. Some researchers also reported evidences for lasting effects on performance in lactating dairy cows, especially, when the feeding concerned the prepubertal period of development (SJERSEN and PURUP, 1997;VAN AMBURGH et al., 1998). In these investigations a moderate feeding level was beneficially for lactational performance. Although the physiological reasons of feeding effects on milk performance are not well defined, there are evidences suggest that the composition of the mammary gland and differences in hormonal patterns could be involved (SJERSEN and PURUP, 1997; SJERSEN et al., 2000). On the other hand, other researches found no differences in milk production, when heifers were fed at a moderate or high feeding level (ABENI et al., 2000;ABENI et al., 2003) and results of CAPUCO et al. (1995) did not show an influence of udder composition on milk performance. According results of LACASSE et al. (1993), MÄNTYSAARI et al. (1999), andMÄNTYSAARI et al. (2002), the responsiveness of milk performance according to feeding after puberty and during gestation seems to be anymore inconsistently. Possible reasons for this contrariness could be the varieties of investigation conditions like diet, ontogentic location and length of the treatment period. Additionally, also the use of animals, which have different genetic potential for yield or for responsiveness after feeding stimuli, could be induce inconsistent results, especially in small samples. Differences in body condition and changes of body condition also could lead to varieties in milk yield and animals health, even when body weight is the same. Like shown by VAN AMBURGH et al. (1998) heifers, fed diet formulated to an high average dai...

show abstract

“…Sixty pigs used in the metabolic trial were anaesthetized for the liver biopsy. Liver samples were collected and frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -70°C until they were analyzed for DNA and RNA contents (Sambrook et al, 1987;Buskirk et al, 1996), and protein contents using the Bradford assay (Bollag and Edelstein, 1991).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of chromium picolinate, L-carnitine and thyroxine on the performance, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in pigs weaned at 21 days of age

Cho¹,

Han²,

Chae³

et al. 2000

J. Anim. Feed Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 3-week-growth trial was conducted to investigate the effects of chromium picolinate, L-carnitine, and thyroxine on the growth performance, nutrient digestibility, and N balance in starter pigs. Eighty starter pigs (Landrace x Yorkshire x Duroc, 21 ±2 days of age, 5.4 kg of average initial body weight) were employed in a completely randomized block design with four treatments: 1. Control: without additives, 2. CrP: control diet + 0.05% of chromium picolinate, 3. Carnitine: control diet + 0.5% of Camifeed(10%> of carnitine), 4. Thyroxine: control diet + L-thyroxine injection (0.1 mg/day/ head), 5 replications and 4 heads per pen. Although there were no significant differences (P>0.05) in average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI), all of the pigs supplemented with CrP, L-carnitine and thyroxine grew better than pigs in the control group. Pigs fed L-carnitine showed the best ADG (15% of improvement compared with control group) through the entire experimental period and feed/gain ratio was improved (PO.05). Digestibilities of energy, dry matter, crude protein and crude ash were improved (P<0.05) by the inclusion of L-carnitine, chromium picolinate or injection of thyroxine. Pigs fed chromium picolinate showed the best nutrient digestibilities. In a N balance trial, excreted N was lower (PO.05) in pigs of all treated groups than in the control group. The N in feed also was more efficiently retained in pigs of treated groups. The DNA content of the liver

show abstract

Growth, reproductive performance, mammary development, and milk production of beef heifers as influenced by prepubertal dietary energy and administration of bovine somatotropin.

Cited by 41 publications

References 47 publications

Heifer development systems: Dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage1

Heifer development systems: Dry-lot feeding compared with grazing dormant winter forage1

Rearing diet effects on body condition and milk performance in first lactating dairy cows – A longitudinal study

Effects of chromium picolinate, L-carnitine and thyroxine on the performance, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in pigs weaned at 21 days of age

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About