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

Institutions

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
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

293 Effects of restricted feeding on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in growing steers.

Colten W Dornbach, Paul Rand Broadway, Nicole C Burdick Sanchez, Bryan W Neville et al.
Journal of Animal Science
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
article

293 Effects of restricted feeding on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in growing steers.

Colten W Dornbach, Paul Rand Broadway, Nicole C Burdick Sanchez, Bryan W Neville, Landon G Canterbury, Kristin E Hales, Michael L. Galyean, Madeline S Grant, Aubrey C Thompson-Smith, Kallie D Childress
article en

Abstract

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.

Journal of Animal ScienceVol. 103(Supplement_3)
Texas Tech University (US), Issues Research (US), Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.