293 Effects of restricted feeding on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in growing steers.
Abstract Dry matter intake (DMI) is a strong predictor of enteric methane production in beef cattle. Limit feeding is a management strategy that can increase gain efficiency in growing and finishing beef cattle. We evaluated the effects of restricted feed intake on energy balance using 7 beef × dairy steers (initial BW = 306 ± 18.5 kg) in a repeated Latin square design with 4 periods. Treatments included feed offered to slick bunk management to target no residual feed at 0730 h (100R) and 4, 8, and 12 % restriction of slick bunk management (96R, 92R, and 88R, respectively). Each experimental period consisted of a 14-d diet adaptation, 7 d of total fecal and urine collections, and a 24-h gas exchange collection using indirect respiration calorimeter headboxes. Dry matter (DM) intake, gross energy (GE) intake, and apparent DM digestibility did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.71). Lack of differences in intakes of DM and GE resulted from restrictions being applied within periods of the Latin square and occasional feed refusals on a given day within periods. Fecal energy loss, digestible energy (DE), and urinary energy loss did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.55). Methane energy loss and methane as a proportion of GE intake did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.81). Metabolizable energy (ME), ME as a proportion of GE intake, and ME as a proportion of DE did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.60). Heat production (HP) and HP as a proportion of GE intake did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.87). Recovered energy (RE) and RE as a proportion of GE intake was not different among treatments (P ≥ 0.95). Nitrogen intake and apparent nitrogen digestibility did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.67). Fecal and urinary N excretion and fecal and urinary N excretion as a proportion of total N intake did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.30). Therefore, retained N and retained N as a proportion of N intake did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.47). Overall, no differences in energy or N balance were detected, likely because of the lack of differences in DMI.
Authors
- Colten W Dornbach (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6846-336X)
- Paul Rand Broadway (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5096-7509)
- Nicole C Burdick Sanchez (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0709-871X)
- Bryan W Neville (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7744-6444)
- Landon G Canterbury
- Kristin E Hales (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3344-9800)
- Michael L. Galyean (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8321-2505)
- Madeline S Grant (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2527-0608)
- Aubrey C Thompson-Smith
- Kallie D Childress
Institutions
- Texas Tech University (US)
- Issues Research (US)
- Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Animal Science
- Published
- 2025-10-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf300.334
- Primary Topic
- Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00