Influence of feed restriction and feeding time to growing ...

2013 North Dakota Beef Report 29

Influence of feed restriction and feeding time to growing calves on growth performance and feeding behaviorL.D. Prezotto1, T.C. Gilbery1, M.L. Bauer1, A. Islas1 and K.C. Swanson1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU

The objectives of this research were to determine the effects of limit-feeding and feeding time (daytime, nighttime, or half daytime and nighttime) on growth performance and feeding behavior of growing calves fed a corn-silage and hay-based backgrounding diet. Results suggest that growing calves that were restricted and consuming feed at different times of the day did not have altered growth performance or feeding behavior but that limit-feeding resulted in reduced average daily gain.

SummarySixty-six steers (average initial

weight of 709 pounds) and 30 heif-ers (average initial weight of 540 pounds) predominately of Angus, Simmental and Shorthorn breeding were assigned randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) ad libi-tum feed consumption, 2) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad libitum group on a body-weight (BW) basis in the daytime, 3) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad libitum group on a BW basis in the nighttime and 4) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad libitum group on a BW basis, with half in the daytime and half in the nighttime. Animals were fed a corn silage and hay-based background-ing diet beginning on Nov. 13 and ending Feb. 5 (84 days). Body weights were taken on two consecu-tive days at the beginning and end of the experiment and every 28 days throughout the experiment. Final BW was greater (P = 0.009) in the ad libitum group when compared with the other three limit-fed treat-ment groups. Moreover, average daily gain (ADG), total dry-matter (DM) intake, total intake relative to BW, time at feeder, meal size and

meal duration also were greater (P < 0.001) in the ad libitum group when compared with the other three treat-ment groups. The nighttime group spent more time at the feeder (P = 0.04) than the daytime group. Our results suggest that limit-feeding decreased average daily gain and allowing access to feed at different times of the day generally did not influence growth performance and feeding behavior in growing calves fed a corn silage and hay-based diet.

IntroductionFeeding patterns throughout the

day can influence animal perfor-mance. For example, results from past research (Montanholi et al., 2010; Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 2002) suggest that more efficient calves consumed smaller meals and had slower eating rates, compared with less efficient calves, and also spent less total time at the feeder per day.

Understanding the dynamic effects influencing feed intake will provide insight into why changes in feed intake occur in response to dietary or physiological changes. Feed intake patterns also can be influenced by feeding management systems in which feed intake is restricted or feed is delivered at dif-

ferent times during the day.Limit-feeding, in which cattle

are fed less than their maximal ap-petite, has been used to improve efficiency of growth and nutrient utilization (Galyean, 1999). This im-provement in efficiency is thought to be due, in part, to improvements in digestive efficiency and the more efficient utilization of energy for maintenance and growth. However, it can be difficult to manage be-cause more feed bunk space may be necessary; cattle can consume large amounts of feed in a short period of time, which can result in digestive disturbances. Additionally, cattle behavior can be influenced because feed is not always available, which could result in other management considerations.

Some research has suggested that feeding cattle in the evening re-sults in improved performance and/or improved efficiency in cold cli-mates (Bergen et al., 2008; Holt and Pritchard, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2004; Small et al., 2004). This potentially is due to increased heat produced by the body, which is of benefit when temperatures are low.

With this available background information, we hypothesized that cattle performance and feeding behavior may be altered when cattle are limit-fed during the evening. Moreover, limiting feed and control-ling the timing of feed consumption may help alleviate some of the inef-ficiencies due to cold weather and/or digestive problems that can occur in limit-feeding programs. Further-more, the feeding schedule and limit feeding ultimately may influence growth performance and efficiency of growing animals.

30 2013 North Dakota Beef Report

Experimental ProceduresThe experiment was conducted

at the NDSU Beef Cattle Research Complex using the Insentec feed-ing system that allows for monitor-ing and controlling individual feed intake in a group-housed environ-ment. The feeding system also allows for regulating access to feed during specific periods of the day.

Sixty-six steers (average initial weight of 709 pounds) and 30 heif-ers (average initial weight of 540 pounds) of Angus, Simmental and Shorthorn breeding were allocated to four pens based on sex (three steer pens and one heifer pen) and initial BW (for steers), and assigned to one of four treatments: 1) ad libitum feed consumption (AL), 2) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s average percentage of BW intake in the daytime, 3) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s average percentage of BW intake in the nighttime and 4) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s av-erage percentage of BW intake, with half in the dayttime and half in the

nighttime. Animals were adapted to the feeding system for at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the experiment and were adapted to the feeding schedule in seven days at the beginning of the test period.

Cattle were fed a corn silage and hay-based backgrounding diet (Table 1). Animals were fed for 84 days. Body weights were taken on two consecutive days at the begin-ning and end of the experiment and every 28 days throughout the experiment. Feed intake and feeding behavior was summarized dur-ing the feeding period, excluding the seven-day adaptation period. Feed samples were collected twice monthly for nutrient analysis. Data were analyzed using a completely randomized block design to ac-count for sex and breed using PROC GLM of SAS; means were compared among treatment groups utilizing contrast statements: 1) ad libitum vs others, 2) daytime vs. nighttime, and 3) ½ daytime ½ nighttime vs. daytime and nighttime).

Table 1. Dietary composition and analysis.

Item %

Ingredient, % (DM basis) Corn silage 68 Hay 21 DDGS 3 Corn 3 Vitamin and mineral premix 5 Analysisa

DM, % 48.5 Crude protein, % of DM 13.4 Neutral detergent fiber, % of DM 49.9 Acid detergent fiber, % of DM 46.2 Calcium, % of DM 0.46 Phosphorus, % of DM 0.24aAverage of twice-monthly diet samples.

Results and DiscussionInitial BW was not different

among treatments (Table 2). Final BW was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. Average daily gain was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other

Table 2. Influence of feed restriction and feeding time on growth performance and feeding behavior of growing animals fed with a hay-based backgrounding diet for 84 days.

Treatment Contrast

½ Daytime ½ Nighttime vs. Ad Daytime Daytime Ad ½ Daytime libitum vs. vs. andItem libitum Daytime Nighttime ½ Nighttime SEM others Nighttime Nighttime

Initial BW, lb. 607 614 614 614 19 0.77 0.98 0.99Final BW, lb. 821 746 768 768 22 0.009 0.43 0.66ADG, lb./day 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 0.13 <0.001 0.09 0.34DM intake, lb./day 18 13 14 13 0.44 <0.001 0.28 0.75Daily DM intake, % of BW 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.05 <0.001 0.26 0.47Feed:Gain, lb. DM/lb. gain 7.0 7.6 7.6 7.9 0.99 0.51 0.99 0.84Meals, no./day 8.8 7.4 8.2 7.6 0.53 0.06 0.22 0.77Time eating, min Per meal 26 23 24 23 0.93 0.002 0.48 0.76 Per day 210 163 185 170 7.9 <0.001 0.04 0.62Eating rate, lb. Per meal 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.15 0.005 0.68 0.81 Per min 0.086 0.084 0.077 0.084 0.004 0.29 0.21 0.38

2013 North Dakota Beef Report 31

treatment groups. Furthermore, ADG tended (P = 0.09) to be greater in the nighttime group than the daytime group. Dry-matter intake (pounds/day and percent of BW) was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups.

The time spent eating per meal and per day was greater (P ≤ 0.002) for the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. The time spent eating per day for the night-time group was greater (P < 0.04), when compared with the daytime group. Finally, the eating rate per meal (pounds/meal) was greater (P = 0.005) for the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups.

The present study demonstrates that growth performance (final BW and ADG) and the majority of the feeding behavior traits (intake, time eating per meal and per day, and eating rate per meal) were greater in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. However, controlling the time of feed con-sumption had no effect on final BW, intake, most feeding behavior traits or feed efficiency. However, ADG

tended (P = 0.09) to be greater in calves consuming feed in the night-time. Perhaps this was related to the nighttime group spending a longer time at the feeder than the daytime group.

In conclusion, the time of feed-ing generally did not affect growth performance and feeding behavior (except for a tendency for improved ADG in nightime calves and time spent eating per meal greater for nighttime calves) of growing cattle fed a corn silage and hay-based diet. These results fail to support our hy-pothesis that feeding in the evening would improve feed efficiency.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the North

Dakota State Board of Agricultural Research and Education for partial funding of the project.

Literature CitedBergen, R.D., K.S. Schwartzkopf-

Genswein, T.A. McAllister and A.D. Kennedy. 2008. Effects of feeding time on behaviour, thermoregulation and growth of steers in winter. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:369-379.

Galyean, M.L. 1999. Review: Restricted and programmed feeding of beef cattle — definitions, application, and research results. Prof. Anim. Sci. 15:1-6.

Holt, S.M., and R.H. Pritchard. 2005. Ef-fect of feeding schedule on tympanic temperature of steer calves during winter. South Dakota State Beef Re-port 2005:87.

Kennedy, A.D., R.D. Bergen, T.J. Law-son, J.A. Small and D.M. Veira. 2004. Effects of evening feeding and extended photoperiod on growth, feed efficiency, live animal carcass traits and plasma prolactin of beef heifers housed outdoors during two Manitoba winters. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:491-500.

Montanholi, Y.R., K.C. Swanson, R. Palme, F.S. Schenkel, B.W. McBride, D. Lu and S.P. Miller. 2010. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior, infrared thermog-raphy and glucocorticoids. Animal 4:692-701.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., S. At-wood and T.A. McAllister. 2002. Rela-tionships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76:179-188.

Small, J.A., A.D. Kennedy, D.M. Veira, W.R. McCaughey and D.R. Ward. 2004. Time of feeding and growth promotant effects on the winter growth performance and carcass traits of steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:133-144.