Search

Feed and water intake are two important aspects of cattle production that greatly impact the profitability, efficiency, and sustainability of producers. Feed and, to a lesser degree, water intake have been studied previously; however, there is little research on their associated animal behaviors and there is a lack of standardized phenotypes for these behaviors. Feed and water intakes obtained with an Insentec system (Hokofarm Group, The Netherlands) from 830 crossbred steers were used to compute five intake behaviors for both feed and water: daily sessions (DS), intake rate (IR), session size (SS), time per session (TS), and session interval (SI). Variance components and heritabilities were estimated for each trait. Heritabilities for feed intake behaviors were 0.50 ± 0.12, 0.63 ± 0.12, 0.40 ± 0.13, 0.35 ± 0.12, and 0.60 ± 0.12 for DS, IR, SS, TS, and SI, respectively. Heritabilities for water intake behaviors were 0.56 ± 0.11, 0.88 ± 0.07, 0.70 ± 0.11, 0.54 ± 0.12, and 0.80 ± 0.10 for NS, IR, SS, TS, and SI, respectively. Daily dry matter intake (DDMI) and daily water intake (DWI) had heritabilities of 0.57 ± 0.11 and 0.44 ± 0.11. Phenotypic correlations varied between pairs of traits (-0.83 to 0.82). Genetic correlations between DDMI and feed intake behaviors were moderate to high, while genetic correlations between DWI and water intake behaviors were low to moderate. Several significant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were identified for the feed and water intake behaviors. Genes and previously reported quantitative trait loci near significant SNPs were evaluated. The results indicated that feed and water intake behaviors are influenced by genetic factors and are heritable, providing one additional route to evaluate or manipulate feed and water intake., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science 2023.)

Enteric fermentation from cattle results in greenhouse gas production that is an environmental concern and also an energetic loss. Several methods exist to quantify gas fluxes; however, an open circuit gas quantification system (OCGQS) allows for unencumbered quantification of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), and oxygen (O2) from grazing cattle. While previous literature has proven the accuracy of an OCGQS, little work has been done to establish the minimum number of spot samples required to best evaluate an individual grazing animal's gas fluxes and metabolic heat production. A GreenFeed system (C-Lock Inc.) was used to collect at least 100 spot samples each from 17 grazing cows. The mean gas fluxes and metabolic heat production were computed starting from the first 10 visits (forward) and increasing by increments of 10 until an animal had 100 visits. Mean gas fluxes and metabolic heat production were also computed starting from visit 100 (reverse) in increments of 10 using the same approach. Pearson and Spearman correlations were computed between the full 100 visits and each shortened visit interval. A large increase in correlations were seen between 30 and 40 visits. Thus, mean forward and reverse gas fluxes and metabolic heat production were also computed starting at 30 visits and increasing by 2 until 40 visits. The minimum number of spot samples was determined when correlations with the full 100 visits were greater than 0.95. The results indicated that the minimum numbers of spot samples needed for accurate quantification of CH4, CO2, and O2 gas fluxes are 38, 40, and 40, respectively. Metabolic heat production can be calculated using gas fluxes collected by the OCGQS with 36 spot samples. Practically, calculation of metabolic heat production will require 40 spot samples because the component gases for metabolic heat calculation require up to 40 spot samples. Published literature from nongrazing (confined) environments recommended a similar number of total spot samples. Large variation existed around the average number of spot samples for an animal per day, therefore a wide range of test durations may be needed to meet the same number of spot samples in different populations. For this reason, protocols for the OCGQS should be based on the total number of spot samples, rather than a test duration., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Enteric methane is a potent greenhouse gas and represents an escape of energy from the ruminant digestive system. Additive genetic variation in methane production suggests that genetic selection offers an opportunity to diminish enteric methane emissions. Logistic and monetary difficulties in directly measuring methane emissions can make genetic evaluation on an indicator trait such as predicted methane production a more appealing option, and inclusion of genotyping data can result in greater genetic progress. Three predicted methane production traits were calculated for 830 crossbred steers fed in seven groups. The methane prediction equations used included mathematical models from Ellis et al. (2007), Mills et al. (2003), and IPCC (2019). Pearson correlations between the traits were all greater than 0.99, indicating that each prediction equation behaved similarly. Further, the Spearman correlations between the estimated breeding values for each trait were also 0.99, which suggests any of the predicted methane models could be used without substantially changing the ranking of the selection candidates. The heritabilities of Ellis, Mills, and IPCC predicted methane production were 0.60, 0.62, and 0.59, respectively. A genome-wide association study identified one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that reached the threshold for significance for all of the traits on chromosome 7 related to oxidoreductase activity. Additionally, the SNP slightly below the significance threshold indicate genes related to collagen, intracellular microtubules, and DNA transcription may play a role in predicted methane production or its component traits., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The objective of this study was to estimate genetic parameters for feet and leg traits, relationships within feet and leg traits, and relationships between feet and leg traits and production traits in Red Angus cattle. Subjective scores for 14 traits including body condition score (BCS), front hoof angle (FHA), front heel depth (FHD), front claw shape (FCS), rear hoof angle (RHA), rear heel depth (RHD), rear claw shape (RCS), size of hoof (SIZE), front side view (FSV), knee orientation (KNEE), front hoof orientation (FHO), rear side view (RSV), rear view (RV), and a composite score (COMP) were collected by trained evaluators on 1,720 Red Angus cattle. All traits except COMP were scored as intermediate optimum traits. Performance data, and EPD were obtained on all animals measured and a three-generation pedigree was obtained from the Red Angus Association of America (RAAA) that contained 13,306 animals. Data were modeled using a linear bivariate animal model with random additive genetic and residual effects, and fixed effects of age and contemporary group (herd-year) implemented in ASREML 4.0. Heritability estimates of BCS, FHA, FHD, FCS, RHA, RHD, RCS, SIZE, FSV, KNEE, FHO, RSV, RV, and COMP were 0.11, 0.20, 0.17, 0.09, 0.19, 0.25, 0.17, 0.36, 0.16, 0.17, 0.17, 0.30, 0.14, and 0.12, respectively. These results demonstrate feet and leg traits are lowly to moderately heritable. Strong, positive genetic correlations were observed between FHA and FHD (0.89), FHA and RHA (0.88), FHD and RHA (0.85), FHA and RHD (0.85), FHD and RHD (0.94), and FHO and KNEE (0.95), indicating these traits were highly related to each other. Strong and negative genetic correlations were observed between KNEE and FSV (-0.59) and FHO and FSV (-0.75). The strongest Pearson correlation between front limb traits (FHA, FHD, FSV, FHO, KNEE, and COMP) and Stayability EPD (STAY) was FSV (r = 0.16) and for rear limb traits (RHA, RHD, RCS, RSV, RV, and COMP) and STAY was RCS (r = -0.12). This suggests cattle with more slope to the angle of the shoulder and cattle with less evidence of hoof curl may stay in the herd longer. Further investigation into the economic viability of feet and leg trait genetic prediction with a larger population of animals is required to help validate these findings., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Improvements in bull reproductive performance are necessary to optimize the efficiency of cattle production. Female fertility has been enhanced through assisted reproductive technologies as well as genetic selection; however, improving beef bull fertility has been largely ignored. Phenotypes routinely collected at bull semen collection facilities are believed to affect fertility and provide the phenotypes necessary for a genetic evaluation. The first objective of this study was to determine the significant fixed effects for modeling beef bull fertility using data from bull semen collection facilities. The second objective was to estimate variance components, heritabilities, repeatabilities, and correlations between beef bull semen attributes. Beef bull fertility phenotypes including volume (VOL), concentration (CONC), number of spermatozoa (NSP), initial motility (IMot), post-thaw motility (PTMot), 3-h post-thaw motility (3HRPTMot), percentage of normal spermatozoa (%NORM), primary abnormalities (PRIM), and secondary abnormalities (SEC) were obtained from two bull semen collection facilities. A total of 1,819 Angus bulls with 50,624 collection records were analyzed. Of the fixed class and covariate effects tested, the significant class effects were collection location and collection day within year and the significant covariate effects included age at collection, days since previous collection, and cumulative comprehensive climate index (CCI). For this study, the CCI was calculated for a 75-d period including the 61-d spermatogenesis cycle and 14-d epididymal transit time. The 75 d prior to collection accounted for the environmental stress a bull may have experienced over the course of development of the spermatozoa, which was more significant than the CCI calculated for collection day or spermatogenesis start date. Pre-thaw beef bull semen traits had low heritability estimates of 0.11 ± 0.02 (VOL), 0.09 ± 0.02 (CONC), 0.08 ± 0.02 (NSP), and 0.12 ± 0.03 (IMot). Heritabilities of post-thaw beef bull semen attributes were more variable at 0.10 ± 0.02 (PTMot), 0.05 ± 0.04 (3HRPTMot), 0.10 ± 0.04 (%NORM), 0.03 ± 0.03 (PRIM), and 0.18 ± 0.04 (SEC). Correlations of breeding values for these traits with scrotal circumference (SC) expected progeny difference (EPD) are low. The low to moderate heritability estimates indicate that genetic improvement can be made in beef bull semen quality traits if new tools are developed to augment the scrotal circumference EPD that are currently available within the industry., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

In the future, water may not be as readily available due to increases in competition from a growing human population, wildlife, and other agricultural sectors, making selection for water efficiency of beef cattle increasingly important. Substantial selection emphasis has recently been placed on feed efficiency in an effort to reduce production costs, but no emphasis has been placed on making cattle more water efficient due to lack of data. Thus, the objective of this study was to calculate water efficiency metrics for cattle and evaluate their relationship to growth, feed intake (FI), and feed efficiency. Individual daily FI and water intake (WI) records were collected on 578 crossbred steers over a 70-d test period. Animals with low water intake ate less feed, had lower gains, and were more water efficient (as defined by water to gain ratio, W/G, and residual water intake, RWI). However, the amount of water consumed by animals had minimal phenotypic relationship with feed efficiency (residual feed intake [RFI], R2 = 0.1050 and feed to gain ratio (F/G) ratio R2 = 0.0726). Cattle that had low DMI consumed less water, had lower gains, had lower RFI, and had higher F/G. The level of feed consumed had minimal relationship with water efficiency. WI, W/G, RWI, and ADG had moderate heritability estimates of 0.39, 0.39, 0.37, and 0.37, respectively. High heritability estimates were observed for DMI and RFI (0.67 and 0.65, respectively). Feed to gain had a low heritability estimate of 0.16. WI had a strong positive genetic correlation with W/G (0.99) and RWI (0.88), thus selecting for decreased WI should also make cattle more water efficient. The genetic correlation between WI and ADG was 0.05; thus, selecting for low WI cattle should have little effect on growth. There is a low to moderate genetic correlation between WI and DMI (0.34). RWI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.89) and F/G ratio (0.42) and is negatively genetically correlated with RFI (-0.57). Water to gain and F/G had a strong positive genetic correlation (0.68). RFI has a positive genetic correlation with W/G ratio (0.37) and F/G (0.88). Minimal antagonisms seem to be present between WI and ADG, although it should be noted that standard errors were large and often not significantly different from zero due to the small sample size. However, care should be taken to ensure that unintended changes do not occur in DMI or other production traits and incorporation of WI into a selection index would likely prove to be the most effective method for selection., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science 2019.)

Water is an essential nutrient, but there are few recent studies that evaluate how much water individual beef cattle consume and how environmental factors affect an individual's water intake (WI). Most studies have focused on WI of whole pens rather than WI of individual animals. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of environmental parameters on individual-animal WI across different seasons and develop prediction equations to estimate WI, including within different environments and management protocols. Individual daily feed intake and WI records were collected on 579 crossbred steers for a 70-d period following a 21-d acclimation period for feed and water bunk training. Steers were fed in 5 separate groups over a 3-yr period from May 2014 to March 2017. Individual weights were collected every 14 d and weather data were retrieved from the Oklahoma Mesonet's Stillwater station. Differences in WI as a percent of body weight (WI%) were analyzed accounting for average temperature (TAVG), relative humidity (HAVG), solar radiation (SRAD), and wind speed (WSPD). Seasonal (summer vs. winter) and management differences (ad libitum vs. slick bunk) were examined. Regression analysis was utilized to generate 5 WI prediction equations (overall, summer, winter, slick, and ad libitum). There were significant (P < 0.05) differences in WI between all groups when no environmental parameters were included in the model. Although performance was more similar after accounting for all differences in weather variables, significant (P < 0.05) seasonal and feed management differences were still observed for WI%, but were less than 0.75% of steer body weight. The best linear predictors of daily WI (DWI) were dry mater intake (DMI), metabolic body weights (MWTS), TAVG, SRAD, HAVG, and WSPD. Slight differences in the coefficient of determinations for the various models were observed for the summer (0.34), winter (0.39), ad libitum (0.385), slick bunk (0.41), and overall models (0.40). Based on the moderate R2 values for the WI prediction equations, individual DWI can be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on the environmental conditions that are present, MWTS, and DMI consumed, but substantial variation exists in individual animal WI that is not accounted for by these models.

Water is an essential nutrient, but the effect it has on performance generally receives little attention. There are few systems and guidelines for collection of water intake (WI) phenotypes in beef cattle, which makes large-scale research on WI a challenge. The Beef Improvement Federation has established guidelines for feed intake (FI) and ADG tests, but no guidelines exist for WI. The goal of this study was to determine the test duration necessary for collection of accurate WI phenotypes. To facilitate this goal, individual daily WI and FI records were collected on 578 crossbred steers for a total of 70 d using an Insentec system at the Oklahoma State University Willard Sparks Beef Research Unit. Steers were fed in five groups and were individually weighed every 14 d. Within each group, steers were blocked by BW (low and high) and randomly assigned to one of four pens containing approximately 30 steers per pen. Each pen provided 103.0 m2 of shade and included an Insentec system containing six feed bunks and one water bunk. Steers were fed a constant diet across groups and DMI was calculated using the average of weekly percent DM within group. Average FI and WI for each animal were computed for increasingly large test durations (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, and 70 d), and ADG was calculated using a regression formed from BW taken every 14 d (0, 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 d). Intervals for all traits were computed starting from both the beginning (day 0) and the end of the testing period (day 70). Pearson and Spearman correlations were computed for phenotypes from each shortened test period and for the full 70-d test. Minimum test duration was determined when the Pearson correlations were greater than 0.95 for each trait. Our results indicated that minimum test duration for WI, DMI, and ADG were 35, 42, and 70 d, respectively. No comparable studies exist for WI; however, our results for FI and ADG are consistent with those in the literature. Although further testing in other populations of cattle and areas of the country should take place, our results suggest that WI phenotypes can be collected concurrently with DMI, without extending test duration, even if following procedures for decoupled intake and gain tests.

The Insentec Roughage Intake Control (RIC) system has been validated for the collection of water intake; however, this system has not been validated for water restriction. The objective of this validation was to evaluate the agreement between direct observations and automated intakes collected by the RIC system under both ad libitum and restricted water conditions. A total of 239 crossbred steers were used in a 3-d validation trial, which assessed intake values generated by the RIC electronic intake monitoring system for both ad libitum water intake ( = 122; BASE) and restricted water intake ( = 117; RES). Direct human observations were collected on 4 Insentec water bins for three 24-h periods and three 12-h periods for BASE and RES, respectively. An intake event was noted by the observer when the electronic identification of the animal was read by the transponder and the gate lowered, and starting and ending bin weights were recorded for each intake event. Data from direct observations across each validation period were compared to automated observations generated from the RIC system. Missing beginning or ending weight values for visual observations occasionally occurred due to the observer being unable to capture the value before the monitor changed when bin activity was high. To estimate the impact of these missing values, analyses denoted as OBS were completed with the incomplete record coded as missing data. These analyses were contrasted with analyses where observations with a single missing beginning or end weight (but not both) were assumed to be identical to that which was recorded by the Insentec system (OBS). Difference in mean total intake across BASE steers was 0.60 ± 2.06 kg OBS (0.54 ± 1.99 kg OBS) greater for system observations than visual observations. The comparison of mean total intake across the 3 RES validation days was 0.53 ± 2.30 kg OBS (0.13 ± 1.83 kg OBS) greater for system observations than direct observations. Day was not a significant source of error in this study ( > 0.05). These results indicate that the system was capable of limiting water of individual animals with reasonable accuracy, although errors are slightly higher during water restriction than during ad libitum access. The Insentec system is a suitable resource for monitoring individual water intake of growing, group-housed steers under ad libitum and restricted water conditions.