Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:34:36.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grazed grass herbage intake and performance of beef heifers with predetermined phenotypic residual feed intake classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2012

P. Lawrence ,
D. A. Kenny ,
B. Earley  and
M. McGee
P. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland UCD School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
D. A. Kenny
Affiliation:
UCD School of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
B. Earley
Affiliation:
Animal and Bioscience Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
M. McGee*
Affiliation:
Livestock Systems Research Department, Animal & Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Grange, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland
*
†E-mail: mark.mcgee@teagasc.ie
Get access

Abstract

Data were collected on 85 Simmental and Simmental × Holstein–Friesian heifers. During the indoor winter period, they were offered grass silage ad libitum and 2 kg of concentrate daily, and individual dry matter intake (DMI) and growth was recorded over 84 days. Individual grass herbage DMI was determined at pasture over a 6-day period, using the n-alkane technique. Body condition score, skeletal measurements, ultrasonic fat and muscle depth, visual muscularity score, total tract digestibility, blood hormones, metabolites and haematology variables and activity behaviour were measured for all heifers. Phenotypic residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated for each animal as the difference between actual DMI and expected DMI during the indoor winter period. Expected DMI was calculated for each animal by regressing average daily DMI on mid-test live weight (LW)0.75 and average daily gain (ADG) over an 84-day period. Standard deviations above and below the mean were used to group animals into high (>0.5 s.d.), medium (±0.5 s.d.) and low (<0.5 s.d.) RFI. Overall mean (s.d.) values for DMI (kg/day), ADG (kg), feed conversion ratio (FCR) kg DMI/kg ADG and RFI (kg dry matter/day) were 5.82 (0.73), 0.53 (0.18), 12.24 (4.60), 0.00 (0.43), respectively, during the RFI measurement period. Mean DMI (kg/day) and ADG (kg) during the grazing season was 9.77 (1.77) and 0.77 (0.14), respectively. The RFI groups did not differ (P > 0.05) in LW, ADG or FCR at any stage of measurement. RFI was positively correlated (r = 0.59; P < 0.001) with DMI during the RFI measurement period but not with grazed grass herbage DMI (r = 0.06; P = 0.57). Low RFI heifers had 0.07 greater (P < 0.05) concentration of plasma creatinine than high RFI heifers and, during the grazed herbage intake period, spent less time standing and more time lying (P < 0.05) than high RFI heifers. However, low and high RFI groups did not differ (P > 0.05) in ultrasonic backfat thickness or muscle depth, visual muscle scores, skeletal size, total tract digestibility or blood hormone and haematology variables at any stage of the experiment. Despite a sizeable difference in intake of grass silage between low and high RFI heifers during the indoor winter period, there were no detectable differences between RFI groupings for any economically important performance traits measured when animals were offered ensiled or grazed grass herbage.

Keywords

beef heiferbody compositiongrass silage intakeherbage intakeresidual feed intake
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Issue 10 , October 2012 , pp. 1648 - 1661
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agenas, S, Heath, MF, Nixon, RM, Wilkinson, JM, Philips, CJC 2006. Indicators of undernutrition in cattle. Animal Welfare 15, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC) 1993. Energy and protein requirements of ruminants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Archer, JA, Richardson, EC, Herd, RM, Arthur, PF 1999. Potential for selection to improve efficiency of feed use in beef cattle: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 50, 117–161.Google Scholar
Arthur, PF, Herd, RM 2005. Efficiency of feed utilisation by livestock – implications and benefits of genetic improvement. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 85, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, PF, Archer, JA, Johnston, DJ, Herd, RM, Richardson, EC, Parnell, PF 2001a. Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency, and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2805–2811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthur, PF, Renand, G, Krauss, D 2001b. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among different measures of growth and feed efficiency in young Charolais bulls. Livestock Production Science 68, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basarab, JA, McCartney, DMC, Okine, EK, Baron, VS 2007. Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 87, 489–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Aalhus, JL, Okine, EK, Snelling, WM, Lyle, KL 2003. Residual feed intake and body composition in young growing cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 83, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campion, B, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA, Berry, DP 2009. Evaluation of estimated genetic merit for carcass weight in beef cattle: live weights, feed intake, body measurements, skeletal and muscular scores, and carcass characteristics. Livestock Science 126, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilliard, Y, Doreau, M, Bocquier, F, Lobley, GE 1995. Digestive and metabolic adaptations of ruminants to variations in food supply. In Recent developments in the nutrition of herbivores, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Nutrition of Herbivores (ed. M Journet, E Grenet, M-H Farce, M Theriez and C Demarquilly), pp. 329–360. INRA Editions, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Clarke, AM, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Evans, RD, Berry, DP 2009. Intake, growth and carcass traits in male progeny of sires differing in genetic merit for beef production. Animal 3, 791–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA, McGee, M 2010. The relationship of various muscular and skeletal scores and ultrasound measurements in live animal, and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value of bulls. Livestock Science 127, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, DH Jr 2005. Genetics of efficient feed utilization and national cattle evaluation: a review. Genetic Molecular Research 4, 152–165.Google ScholarPubMed
Crowley, JJ, McGee, M, Kenny, DA, Crews, DH Jr, Evans, RD, Berry, DP 2010. Phenotypic and genetic parameters for different measures of feed efficiency in different breeds of Irish performance-tested beef bulls. Journal of Animal Science 88, 885–894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crowley, JJ, Evans, RD, McHugh, N, Pabiou, T, Kenny, DA, McGee, M, Crews, DH Jr, Berry, DP 2011. Genetic associations between feed efficiency measured in performance-test station and performance of growing cattle in commercial beef herds. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3382–3393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruz, GD, Trovo, JB, Oltjen, JW, Sainz, RD 2011. Estimating feed efficiency: evaluation of mathematical models to predict individual intakes of steers fed in group pens. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1640–1649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawson, LER, Steen, RWJ 1998. Estimation of maintenance energy requirements of beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 131, 477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M 2009. Performance of spring-calving beef suckler cows and their progeny to slaughter on intensive and extensive grassland management systems. Livestock Science 120, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG 2008. The value of muscular and skeletal scores in the live animal and carcass classification scores as indicators of carcass composition in cattle. Animal 2, 752–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dulphy, JP, Faverdin, P, Jarrige, R 1989. Feed intake: the fill unit systems. In Ruminant nutrition: recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 61–71. INRA Publishing, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Durunna, ON, Mujibi, FDN, Goonewardene, L, Okine, EK, Basarab, JA, Wang, Z, Moore, SS 2011. Feed efficiency differences and reranking in beef steers fed grower and finisher diets. Journal of Animal Science 89, 158–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earley, B, Crowe, MA 2002. Effects of ketoprofen alone or in combination with local anesthesia during the castration of bull calves on plasma cortisol, immunological, and inflammatory responses. Journal of Animal Science 80, 1044–1052.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrell, CL, Jenkins, TG 1985. Cow type and the nutritional environment: nutritional aspects. Journal of Animal Science 61, 725–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, Wallace, M, O'Kiely, P, Forristal, D, Shalloo, L 2010. Simulation modelling of the cost of producing and utilising feeds for ruminants on Irish farms. Journal of Farm Management 14, 95–116.Google Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O'Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D, Wallace, M 2011. Economic modelling of an integrated grazed and conserved perennial ryegrass forage production system. Grass and Forage Science (in press), doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2011.00832.x.Google Scholar
Finneran, E, Crosson, P, O'Kiely, P, Shalloo, L, Forristal, D, Wallace, M 2012. Stochastic simulation of the cost of home produced feeds for ruminant livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 150, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, JM 2005. Voluntary feed intake and diet selection. In Quantitative aspects of ruminant digestion and metabolism (ed. J Dijkstra, FM Forbes and France), pp. 607–625. CAB International University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, RP, Bailey, DRC, Shannon, NH 1993. Body dimensions and carcass measurements of cattle selected for postweaning gain fed two different diets. Journal of Animal Science 71, 1688–1698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, N, Minchin, W, Kenny, DA, Fahey, AG, McGee, M 2011. Effect of initial grazing date in spring, via restricted or full time grazing, on intake and performance of primiparous beef suckler cows and their progeny. Proceedings of the Agricultural Research Forum, 14 and 15 March, Tullamore, Ireland, 152pp.Google Scholar
Gupta, S, Earley, B, Crowe, MA 2007. Pituitary, adrenal, immune and performance responses of mature Holstein × Friesian bulls housed on slatted floors at various space allowances. The Veterinary Journal 173, 594–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herd, RM, Oddy, VH, Richardson, EC 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual feed intake in beef cattle. 1. Review of potential mechanisms. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, RM, Richardson, EC, Hegarty, RS, Woodgate, R, Archer, JA, Arthur, PF 1998. Pasture intake by high versus low net feed efficient Angus cows. Animal Production in Australia 22, 137–140.Google Scholar
Istasse, L, Van Eenaeme, C, Gabriel, A, Clinquart, A, Maghuin-Rogister, G, Bienfait, JM 1990. The relationship between carcass characteristics, plasma hormones and metabolites in young fattening bulls. Veterinary Research Communications 14, 19–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarrige, R 1989. Ruminant nutrition. In Recommended allowances and feed tables (ed. R Jarrige), pp. 23–32. INRA – John Libby Eurotext, London, Paris.Google Scholar
Kahi, AK, Hirooka, H 2007. Effect of direct and indirect selection criteria for efficiency of gain on profitability of Japanese Black cattle selection strategies. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2401–2412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keating, T, O'Kiely, P 1997. Irish farm silage 1993–1996. Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 123–124.Google Scholar
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH Jr, Fahey, AG, Wylie, AR, Kenny, DA 2010a. Effect of divergence in residual feed intake on feeding behaviour, blood metabolic variables, and body composition traits in growing beef heifers. Journal of Animal. Science 88, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH Jr, Sweeney, T, Boland, TM, Kenny, DA 2010b. Repeatability of feed efficiency, carcass ultrasound, feeding behavior, and blood metabolic variables in finishing heifers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 88, 3214–3225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, AK, McGee, M, Crews, DH Jr, Lynch, CO, Wylie, AR, Evans, RD, Kenny, DA 2011. Relationship between body measurements, metabolic hormones, metabolites and residual feed intake in performance tested pedigree beef bulls. Livestock Science 135, 8–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, RM, Swiger, LA, Chambers, D, Gregory, KE 1963. Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 22, 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyne, S, Drennan, MJ, Caffrey, PJ 2001. Influence of concentrate level during winter and date of turnout to pasture on the performance of cattle and the effect of grazing of silage ground on grass yield and quality. Irish Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 40, 23–32.Google Scholar
Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GE, Riberio, FRB, Davis, ME, Lyons, JG, Welsh, TH Jr. 2008. Effects of divergent selection for serum insulin-like growth factor-I concentration on performance, feed efficiency, and ultrasound measures of carcass composition traits in Angus bulls and heifers. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2862–2871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GA, Crews, DH Jr, Welsh, TH Jr, Forbes, TDA, Forrest, DW, Tedeschi, LO, Randel, RD, Rouquette, FM 2009a. Phenotypic and genetic relationships of residual feed intake with performance and ultrasound carcass traits in Brangus heifers. Journal of Animal Science 87, 3887–3896.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancaster, PA, Carstens, GA, Ribeiro, FRB, Tedeschi, LO, Crews, DH Jr 2009b. Characterization of feed efficiency traits and relationships with feeding behaviour and ultrasound carcass traits in growing bulls. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1528–1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B, Crews, DH Jr, McGee, M 2011a. Grass silage intake, rumen and blood variables, ultrasonic and body measurements, feeding behaviour and activity in pregnant beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3248–3261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, P, Kenny, DA, Earley, B, McGee, M 2011b. Intake of conserved and grazed grass and performance traits in beef suckler cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Livestock Science (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
Lowman, BG, Scott, NA, Somerville, SH 1976. Condition scoring for cattle. Technical bulletin No. 6. East of Scotland College of Agriculture, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
Lynch, EM, Earley, B, McGee, M, Doyle, S 2010. Effect of abrupt weaning at housing on leukocyte distribution, functional activity of neutrophils, and acute phase protein response of beef calves. BMC Veterinary Research 6, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macoon, B, Sollenberger, LE, Moore, JE, Staples, CR, Fike, JH, Portier, KM 2003. Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2357–2366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mader, CJ, Montanholi, YR, Wang, YJ, Miller, SP, Mandell, IB, McBride, BW, Swanson, KC 2009. Relationships among measures of growth performance and efficiency with carcass traits, visceral organ mass, pancreatic digestive enzymes in feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 87, 1548–1557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayes, RW, Lamb, CS, Colgrove, PA 1986. The use of dosed herbage n-alkanes as markers for the determination of herbage intake. Journal of Agricultural Science 107, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayne, CS, O'Kiely, P 2005. An overview of silage production and utilisation in Ireland (1950–2005). Proceedings of the 14th International Grassland Conference on a Satellite Workshop of the 20th International Grassland Congress, Belfast, Northern Ireland, July 2005, pp. 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, TJ, Nichols, BM, Harbac, MM, Norvell, TM, Paterson, JA 2010. Dry matter intake is repeatable over parities and residual feed intake is negatively correlated with dry matter digestibility in gestating cows. Journal of Animal Science 88 (E. suppl.2), 12 (Abstract).Google Scholar
McGee, M 2005. Recent developments in feeding beef cattle on grass silage-based diets. In Silage production and utilisation, Proceedings of the 14th International Silage Conference on a Satellite Workshop of the 20th International Grassland Congress, July 2005, Belfast, Northern Ireland (ed. RS Park and MD Stronge), pp. 51–64. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, M 2009. What feed efficiency in the suckler cow has to offer beef farmers. Irish Grassland Association Journal 43, 125–131.Google Scholar
Meyer, AM, Kerley, MS, Kallenbach, RL 2008. The effect of residual feed intake classification on forage intake by grazing beef cows. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2670–2679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montano-Bermudez, M, Nielsen, MK 1990. Biological efficiency to weaning and to slaughter of crossbred beef cattle with different genetic potential for milk. Journal of Animal Science 68, 2297–2309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, KL, Johnston, DJ, Graser, HU, Herd, R 2005. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and net feed intake, fat, and growth traits in Angus beef cattle. Australian Journal of Agriculture Research 56, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA, Wang, Z, Li, C, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Crews, DH Jr, Moore, SS 2007. Genetic and phenotypic relationships of feed intake and measures of efficiency with growth and carcass merit of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2711–2720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nkrumah, JD, Okine, EK, Mathison, GW, Schmid, K, Li, C, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Wang, Z, Moore, SS 2006. Relationships of feedlot feed efficiency, performance, and feeding behavior with metabolic rate, methane production, and energy partitioning in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 84, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nkrumah, JD, Basarab, JA, Price, MA, Okine, EK, Ammoura, A, Guerico, S, Hansen, C, Li, C, Benkel, B, Murdoch, B, Moore, SS 2004. Different measures of energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth, feed intake, and ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle. Journal of Animal Science 82, 2451–2459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Donovan, M, Lewis, E, Boland, T, O'Kiely, P 2010. Requirements of future grass based ruminant production systems in Ireland. In Proceedings of Grasses for the Future – International Conference, Cork, Ireland, 11pp.Google Scholar
O'Mara, F 1996. A net energy system for cattle and sheep. Faculty of Agriculture, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin.Google Scholar
O'Riordan, EG 1997. Effect of annual application rate and grass growth interval on annual herbage production. Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, Belfield, Dublin, 3 and 4 April, pp. 133–134.Google Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T, O'Kiely, P 2008a. Intake, rumen fermentation and nutrient flow to the omasum in beef cattle fed grass silage fortified with sucrose and/or supplemented with concentrate. Animal Feed Science and Technology 144, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, D, McGee, M, Boland, T 2008b. Intake, rumen fermentation, degradability and digestion kinetics in beef cattle offered autumn grass herbage differing in regrowth interval. Grass and Forage Science 63, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, M, Jarrige, R, Russel, AJF, Wright, IA 1992. Feeding and nutrition of the suckler cow. In Beef cattle production. World animal science (ed. R Jarrige and C Beranger), pp. 191–208. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Radostits, OM, Blood, DC, Gay, CC 1994. Veterinary medicine. A textbook of the diseases of cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and horses, 8th edition, 967pp. Bailliere Tindall Ltd, London, UK.Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Kilgour, RJ, Archer, JA, Herd, RM 1999. Pedometers measure differences in activity in bulls selected for high or low net feed efficiency. Proceedings of the Australian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour 26; 16 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM, Archer, JA, Arthur, PF 2004. Metabolic differences in Angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, EC, Herd, RM, Colditz, IG, Archer, JA, Arthur, PF 2002. Blood cell profiles of steer progeny from parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 42, 901–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2003. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Schenkel, FS, Miller, SP, Wilton, JW 2004. Genetic parameters and breed differences for feed efficiency, growth, and body composition traits of young beef bulls. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 177–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, KS, Turk, P, Wagner, WR, Felton, EED 2011. Residual feed intake, body composition, and fertility in yearling beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science 89, 1028–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smit, HJ, Taweel, HZ, Tas, BM, Tamminga, S, Elgersma, A 2005. Comparison of techniques for estimating herbage intake of grazing dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1827–1836.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, SN, Davis, ME, Loerch, SC 2010. Residual feed intake of Angus beef cattle divergently selected for feed conversion ratio. Livestock Science 132, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steen, RWJ, Gordon, GJ, Dawson, LER, Park, RS, Mayne, CS, Agnew, RE, Kilpatrick, DJ, Porter, MG 1998. Factors affecting the intake of grass silage by cattle and prediction of silage intake. Animal Science 66, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susenbeth, A, Dickel, T, Südekum, KH, Drochner, W, Steingaß, H 2004. Energy requirements of cattle for standing and for ingestion, estimated by a ruminal emptying technique. Journal of Animal Science 82, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanson, MA, Lee, WT, Sarders, VM 2001. IFN-gamma production by Th1 cells generated from naive CD4(+) T cells exposed to norepinephrine. Journal of Immunuology 166, 232–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trenel, P, Jensen, MB, Decker, EL, Skjøth, F 2009. Technical note: quantifying and characterizing behavior in dairy calves using the IceTag automatic recording device. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3397–3401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weldon, BA, Laidlaw, AS, Black, AD 2011. A comparison of two techniques to estimate herbage intake of weanling bulls grazing perennial ryegrass (Lolium Perenne) pasture during winter. Proceedings of British Grassland Society, Hillsborough, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 20th and 21st September 2011, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar
Wood, BJ, Archerb, JA, van der Werf, JHJ 2004. Response to selection in beef cattle using IGF-I as a selection criterion for residual feed intake under different Australian breeding objectives. Livestock Production Science 91, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar