Wells R S, Preston R L
Department of Animal Science and Food Technology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409-2141, USA.
J Anim Sci. 1998 Nov;76(11):2799-804. doi: 10.2527/1998.76112799x.
Steers (20 Bos indicus cross [BIX] and 20 Bos taurus cross [BTX]) were randomly assigned to a 2x2 factorial experiment within two weight blocks per treatment 1) to study the effects of repeated urea dilution (UD) measurement on feedlot performance and 2) to determine the consistency of estimated body composition in steers of different breed types. Weights were taken on d 0, 42, 84, 126, and 140. Urea dilution was determined on half of the pens in the experiment, and ultrasonic measurement of backfat (BF) was performed on all cattle on d 0, 42, 84, and 126. Pen means of all performance variables were used in the analysis of variance. Carcass data were analyzed on an individual basis. Within periods, ADG was inconsistent between controls and steers on which UD was determined (1.95 vs 2.03, 1.61 vs 1.28, 1.51 vs 1.71, and 1.77 vs 1.47 kg, P = .23, .02, .09, and .11, respectively, for Periods 1, 2, 3, and 4, SEM = .07). Overall, UD had no effect (control vs UD, respectively) on ADG (1.70 vs 1.68 kg, P = .77, SEM = .07), DMI (8.26 vs 8.03 kg, P = .69, SEM = .36), gain efficiency (207 vs 209 g BW gain/kg DMI, P = .78, SEM = 2.34), hot carcass weight (HCWT; 360 vs 358 kg, P = .90, SEM = 2.52), or percentage of estimated carcass fat, (ECF; 38.8 vs 37.0%, P = .61, SEM = 1.05). Breed types (BIX vs BTX, respectively) had similar ADG (1.74 vs 1.64 kg, P = .27, SEM = .14), DMI (7.96 vs 8.30 kg, P = .50, SEM = .36), backfat thickness (16.4 vs 15.0 mm, P = .30, SEM = .45), and ECF (38.9% vs 36.6%, P = .48, SEM = 2.01). Urea dilution estimated empty body fat values increased with days on feed (14.4+/-1.36; 22.7+/-1.47; 26.0+/-1.36; 30.4+/-1.47%, respectively, for d 0, 42, 84, and 126). Using yield grade factors to calculate ECF consistently produced a value that was higher than empty body fat determined by UD (UDEBF) 14 d prior to slaughter (36.9+/-1.73 vs 30.4%+/-0.17). Significant correlation coefficients were found for the pooled data between UDEBF vs BF, r = .84; UDEBF vs live weight, r = .99; UDEBF vs ECF, r = .82; and UDEBF vs percentage of carcass protein, r = -.99. This study demonstrated that there are no detrimental effects of the urea dilution procedure on performance characteristics of feedlot cattle. Beef cattle of different breed types may be accurately evaluated with urea dilution.
将20头印度瘤牛杂交牛(BIX)和20头欧洲牛杂交牛(BTX)随机分配到每个处理的两个体重组内进行2×2析因试验,以研究重复测量尿素稀释度(UD)对育肥牛生产性能的影响,并确定不同品种类型公牛估计体成分的一致性。在第0、42、84、126和140天称重。在试验中,对一半栏舍的牛测定尿素稀释度,并在第0、42、84和126天对所有牛进行超声测量背膘厚度(BF)。所有生产性能变量的栏舍均值用于方差分析。胴体数据按个体进行分析。在各阶段内,对照组和测定了UD的公牛之间的平均日增重(ADG)不一致(第1、2、3和4阶段分别为1.95对2.03、1.61对1.28、1.51对1.71和//1.77对1.47千克,P分别为0.23、0.02、0.09和0.11,标准误为0.07)。总体而言,UD对ADG(1.70对1.68千克,P = 0.77,标准误 = 0.07)、干物质采食量(DMI,8.26对8.03千克,P = 0.69,标准误 = 0.36)、增重效率(207对209克体重增加/千克DMI,P = 0.78,标准误 = 2.34)、热胴体重(HCWT;360对358千克,P = 0.90,标准误 = 2.52)或估计胴体脂肪百分比(ECF;38.8对37.0%,P = 0.61,标准误 = 1.05)均无影响。品种类型(分别为BIX对BTX)的ADG(1.74对1.64千克,P = 0.27,标准误 = 0.14)、DMI(7.96对//8.30千克,P = 0.50,标准误 = 0.36)、背膘厚度(16.4对15.0毫米,P = 0.30,标准误 = 0.45)和ECF(38.9%对36.6%,P = 0.48,标准误 = 2.01)相似。随着饲养天数的增加,尿素稀释法估计的空体脂肪值升高(第0、42、84和126天分别为14.4±1.36;22.7±1.47;26.0±1.36;30.4±1.47%)。使用产量等级因子计算ECF始终得出一个高于屠宰前14天通过UD测定的空体脂肪(UDEBF)的值(36.9±1.73对30.4%±0.17)。在合并数据中,UDEBF与BF之间的相关系数显著,r = 0.84;UDEBF与活重之间,r = 0.99;UDEBF与ECF之间,r = 0.82;UDEBF与胴体蛋白质百分比之间r = -0.99。本研究表明,尿素稀释程序对育肥牛的生产性能特征没有不利影响。不同品种类型的肉牛可以通过尿素稀释法进行准确评估。