Energy and protein requirements of crossbred (Holstein × Gyr) growing bulls.

The objective of this study was to estimate the energy and protein requirements of crossbred (Holstein × Gyr) growing bulls. Twenty-four 10-mo-old bulls [initial body weight (BW) = 184 ± 23.4 kg] were used in a comparative slaughter trial. Six bulls were slaughtered at the beginning of the experiment as the reference group, to estimate initial empty body weight (EBW) and energy and protein contents of the remaining animals. The remaining bulls were assigned to a completely randomized design with 3 levels of dry matter intake and 6 replicates. The levels of dry matter intake were 1.2% of BW, 1.8% of BW, and ad libitum to target orts equal to 5% of the total amount that was fed. The remaining bulls were slaughtered at the end of the experiment. The bulls were fed a diet consisting of 59.6% corn silage and 40.4% concentrate on a dry matter basis. The equation that determined the relationship between EBW and BW was EBW = (0.861 ± 0.0031) × BW. The relationship between empty body gain (EBG) and average daily gain (ADG) was demonstrated by the following equation: EBG = (0.934 ± 0.0111) × ADG. Net energy for maintenance (NEM) was 74.8 ± 2.89 kcal/kg of EBW0.75 per day, and metabolizable energy for maintenance (MEM) was 120.8 kcal/kg of EBW0.75 per day. The detected efficiency of use of metabolizable energy for maintenance (km) was 61.9%. The equation used to estimate net energy for gain (NEG) was as follows: NEG = (0.049 ± 0.0011) × EBW0.75 × EBG0.729 ± 0.0532. The efficiency of use of metabolizable energy for gain (kg) was 35.7%. The metabolizable protein for maintenance (MPM) was 3.05 g/kg of BW0.75. The equation used to estimate net protein requirements for gain (NPG) = (87.138 ± 65.1378 × EBG) + [(40.436 ± 21.3640) × NEG]. The efficiency of use of metabolizable protein for gain (k) was 35.7%. We concluded that the estimates of energy and protein requirements presented herein are more appropriate than the National Research Council dairy cattle model and the Brazilian BR-CORTE system to balance the diets of crossbred (Holstein × Gyr) growing bulls.

Technical note: Assessment of the oxygen pulse and heart rate method using respiration chambers and comparative slaughter for measuring heat production of cattle.

The objective of this study was to assess the oxygen pulse and heart rate (O2P-HR) technique using the respiration chamber (RC) and comparative slaughter (CS) methods for measuring the heat production (HP) of crossbred (Holstein × Gyr) yearling bulls. Twenty-four bulls were used. Six bulls were slaughtered at the beginning of the experiment as a reference group to estimate the initial empty body weight (BW) and energy content of the remaining animals. The remaining bulls were assigned to a completely randomized design with 3 levels of dry matter intake, with 6 replicates. The levels of dry matter intake were 1.2% of BW, 1.8% of BW and ad libitum, with target orts of 5%. The bulls were fed a diet consisting of 59.6% corn silage and 40.4% concentrate on a dry matter basis. The HP (kcal/BW0.75) was measured using 3 techniques, first using O2P-HR, followed by the RC and CS methods. The HP did not differ among assessed techniques, averaging 162.7kcal/BW0.75. The intercepts of the linear regressions (mean ± SE) were 64.82±25.515 (H0: intercept=0; P=0.024), 33.77±13.418 (H0: intercept=0), and 50.02±27.495 (H0: intercept=0) for O2P-HR versus RC, CS versus RC, and O2P-HR versus CS, respectively. The slopes of the linear regressions were 0.59±0.153 (H0: slope=1), 0.88±0.081 (H0: slope=1), and 0.62±0.155 (H0: slope=1) for O2P-HR versus RC, CS versus RC, and O2P-HR versus CS, respectively. The coefficients of determination were 0.52, 0.90, and 0.52 for O2P-HR versus RC, CS versus RC, and O2P-HR versus CS, respectively. The concordance correlation coefficients, 0.70 and 0.68, were moderate for O2P-HR versus RC and O2P-HR versus CS, respectively, but high, 0.90, for CS versus RC. The between-animal coefficient of variation was greater for the O2P-HR method (16.6%) compared with RC (7.7%) or CS (6.7%). We conclude that there was an agreement among the HP measurements detected using the assessed methods and that O2P-HR is able to predict HP in cattle with great accuracy but only moderate precision. Therefore, the O2P-HR method may have limitations in terms of assessing HP in low numbers of replications due to greater between-animal coefficient of variation than either the RC or CS methods.