Petersen M K, Mueller C J, Mulliniks J T, Roberts A J, DelCurto T, Waterman R C
USDA-ARS, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT 59301
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Oregon State University, Union 97883.
J Anim Sci. 2014 Jul;92(7):2800-8. doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-7310. Epub 2014 Feb 3.
Assessment of beef cow energy balance and efficiency in grazing-extensive rangelands has occurred on a nominal basis over short time intervals and has not accounted for the complexity of metabolic and digestive responses; behavioral adaptations to climatic, terrain, and vegetation variables; and documentation of the effects of nutrient form and supply to grazing cattle. Previous research using pen-fed cows demonstrated differences (P < 0.01) in efficiency of weight change ranging from 135 to 58 g/Mcal ME intake. Furthermore, variation in efficiency of ME use for tissue energy gain or loss ranged from 36% to 80%. In general, energy costs for maintenance, tissue accretion, and mobilization were greatest in Angus-based cows, intermediate in Brahman- and Hereford-based cows, and least in dairy-based cows. The most efficient cattle may reflect the types that are successful in semiarid grazing environments with low input management. Successful range cattle systems are likely the result of retention of animals that best adapted to the grazing environment and thus were potentially more efficient. Animals exposed to a variety of stressors may continually adapt, so energy expenditure is reduced and may tend to depart from the modeled beef cow in the 1996 NRC Beef Cattle Requirements. Critical factors comprising cow lifetime achievement, including reproductive success, disease resistance, and calf weaning weight, may be driven by cow total energy utilization in energy-limiting environments. Therefore, energy adjustments for adapted cattle within these landscapes and seasonal BW changes can alter seasonal NEm requirements. Evaluated studies indicate that in static grazing environments, NRC prediction fitness was improved compared with predictions from dynamic systems where cattle were influenced less by management and more by environmental conditions. Preliminary herd analyses cast doubt on the accuracy of NRC BCS descriptions representing NEm requirements of adapted females utilizing semiarid rangelands. Possible gaps are proposed that could be the basis for prediction inaccuracies. A more complete understanding of mechanisms contributing to productivity in the field than the current model predicts will improve future models to better simulate energetic accountability and subsequent female performance.
在粗放型放牧草地上对肉牛能量平衡和效率的评估只是在短时间间隔内进行了名义上的评估,并未考虑代谢和消化反应的复杂性;对气候、地形和植被变量的行为适应;以及营养形式和供应对放牧牛影响的记录。先前使用围栏饲养母牛的研究表明,体重变化效率存在差异(P < 0.01),范围从每摄入1兆卡代谢能体重变化135克至58克。此外,用于组织能量增减的代谢能利用效率变化范围为36%至80%。一般来说,安格斯牛为主的母牛维持、组织生长和动用的能量成本最高,婆罗门牛和赫里福德牛为主的母牛居中,奶牛为主的母牛最低。效率最高的牛可能反映了在低投入管理的半干旱放牧环境中成功的类型。成功的牧场牛系统可能是保留了最适应放牧环境因而可能更高效的动物的结果。暴露于各种应激源的动物可能会持续适应,从而减少能量消耗,可能会偏离1996年美国国家研究委员会《肉牛营养需要》中建模的肉牛。构成母牛一生成就的关键因素,包括繁殖成功率、抗病能力和犊牛断奶体重,可能受能量限制环境中母牛总能量利用的驱动。因此,对这些区域内适应的母牛进行能量调整以及季节性体重变化会改变季节性维持净能需求。评估研究表明,在静态放牧环境中,与动态系统的预测相比,美国国家研究委员会的预测适用性有所提高,在动态系统中,牛受管理的影响较小,受环境条件的影响较大。初步的畜群分析对美国国家研究委员会体况评分描述代表利用半干旱牧场的适应母牛维持净能需求的准确性提出了质疑。提出了可能存在的差距,这些差距可能是预测不准确的原因。比当前模型预测更全面地了解田间生产力的贡献机制,将改进未来模型,以更好地模拟能量核算及随后的母牛生产性能。