National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: BASAL METABOLISM
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"FEED INTAKE." National Research Council. 1981. Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/4963.
×
Page 34

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Feed Intake That environmental conditions affect level of voluntary feed intake and the utilization of the metabolizable energy (ME) ingested is widely accepted, but it is difficult from existing knowledge to systematically relate environmental fluctuations to changes in nutritive requirements of animals. Much of the re- search on changes in feed intake with fluctuations in climatic conditions, such as temperature, relative humidity, and rate of air movement, have been conducted under controlled conditions in laboratories usually with only one variable under study. Most of the laboratory studies have demonstrated rather dramatic modifications in feed intake at high and low temperatures, but transfer of this knowledge to farm practice has been difficult mainly be- cause climatic conditions on farms are considerably more variable than when evaluated in the laboratory. Those who consider the direct effects of heat or cold stress on feed intake and performance important for farm feeding should also be aware of the influence of summer temperatures on changes in forage quality. DAIRY COWS When lactating dairy cows are fed free choice a diet consisting of 60 65 per- cent Inequality roughage and 35~0 percent concentrates and exposed to constant temperature conditions, feed intake will increase approximately 35 percent at-20°C over the level at 1~20°C (Figure 5~. Also, lactating cows under continuous heat stress begin to show a decline in intake a,t>2S-27°C with remarked decline occurring above 30°C. At 40°C intake is usually no 27

28 ~ 150 o o Cat 4- 125 . _ o 100 - UJ ~ 75 z UJ LL FARM ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT ~- \ \ \ 50lLL 1 1 1 1 -20 -10 0 10 20 - - \ 30 40 TEMPERATURE ( C) FIGURE 5. Effect of environmental chamber temperature on feed intake in cattle using 1~20°C as baseline (adapted from Johnson et al., 1963; McDowell et al., 1969). more than 60 percent of the 1 8-20°C level. Rate of feed intake increases dur- ing cold exposure because it minimizes discomfort from cold (Church et al., 19744. Efficiency of the utilization of ME for production may actually rise at temperatures down to-5 or - 10°C but thereafter efficiency declines due to high rate of heat loss (Williams, l9S94. The rate of rise or decline in feed in- take at the extremes in temperature is influenced by level of milk yield and to some extent by breed (Ragsdale et al., 1950, lash. In general, lactating cows grazing high-quality pastures in either warm or cool climates and receiving concentrate supplement will tend to have a lower level of total dry matter intake than when fed a drylot diet of 60 percent roughage and 40 percent concentrates because of the difference in the water content of the forages (Yazman et al., 19794. But, when daily maximum temperature is in the range of 8-22°C, the performance of grazing cows re- ceiving concentrate supplement at the rate of 1:2 will be nearly equal to that for cows on the 60:40 diet (Van Soest, 1981~. When maximum daily temper- ature exceeds 25°C, the rate of dry matter intake from grazing may decline rapidly due in part to the direct effects of thermal stress on the cow causing suppression of activity and the indirect decline due to the quality of the for- age. Frequently, the lowering of forage quality brought about by the effects of high-temperature conditions on the growth and composition of forages may be as important, or more so, in determining intake than the direct effects of thermal stress on the cow. Raising the proportion of concentrates fed to

Feed Intake 29 1:1.5 for grazing cows will slow the decline in intake energy with rising tem- perature but not to the same extent as changing to 80:20 for pen feeding sys- tems because of a decline in walking to graze caused by the thermal stress (Yazman et al., 19791. DAIRY HEIFERS After about 6 months of age, heifers can at times become fastidious eaters under almost any environmental conditions; hence, it is difficult to predict the influence of temperature on their nutritive requirements. Several short- term studies conducted in a temperature-controlled chamber at the University of Missouri during the 1950's (Johnson and Ragsdale, 1959) suggested mild to marked influence of high and low ambient temperatures on the feed intake and growth rate of heifers. Later, longer-term studies in the same laboratory showed compensatory growth to overcome short-term growth suppression from high temperature when the animals were returned to moderate tempera- tures (Baccari et al., 1980~. Strachan and Marnson (1963), McDowell (1977), and Yazman (1980) did not find any significant correlation between ambient temperature during field tests and growth rate over extended periods (more than 12 months). For example, Yazman (1980) found that during 7- day periods of above-average ambient temperatures in Puerto Rico average daily gain declined by 50 percent, but gains following high-temperature per- iods were 50 to 70 percent greater even though average daily maximum tem- perature was only 0.5°C lower. Similar behavior has been observed in hot controlled environment rooms. When dairy heifers were moved from 18 to 29°C, daily gain declined during the first 20 days but recovered during the second 20 days (Johnston et al., 1961~. Preliminary results from Maracay, Venezuela, a tropical area, showed that Holstein heifers on high feeding, but exposed each day throughout life to a maximum temperature equal to or exceeding 27°C, were 50 kg lighter at 24 months than paternal half-sibs in Maryland even though all heifers were fed similar levels of energy (C. Schneeberger, Cornell University, personal com- munication, 19801. The differences in weight for the two locations were not statistically significant, but the Venezuela heifers were significantly shorter in length wither to pins ~-3.2 cm) and lower in height at wither ~ - 2.1 cm). The Venezuelan heifers carried considerably more body fat. The conclusion was that the high-temperature conditions in Venezuela possibly created an unidentified imbalance in the utilization of the feeds offered, which may have affected rate of skeletal development. Although several laboratory tests (Colditz and Kellaway, 1972) have indi- cated that heat stress results in smaller changes in feed intake of Bos indicus heifers than Bos taurus heifers, the percentage decline in both types is ap- proximately the same.

30 FARM ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT The general conclusion is that temperature conditions on farms may create disturbances that will affect efficiency of feed utilization by growing heifers, but temperature effects are of much less economic significance than for lac- tating cows or feedlot cattle. FEEDLOT CATTLE Generally, growing and fattening cattle have a slightly lower dry matter in- take per unit of metabolic size than lactating dairy cows, but feeding x tem- perature interactions appear similar for the two groups (Figure 6 versus Fig- ure 5~. Estimates of change in feed consumption with temperature by feedlot cattle were derived from feeding experiments simulating farm conditions. Complete diets with at least 70 percent digestibility were used. Intake rose from 10°C to below-10°C in a near linear fashion. Below-10°C variation among animals was high, possibly because of individual differences in re- sponse to cold or variation in acclimation, which resulted in large differences among animals at the same ambient temperature. Although the standard de- viation for the mean level in intake increased showing high variability among animals and days, there was a trend for intake to increase to at least-15°C. In some cases intake declined at the very low EAT because behavioral pat- terns, such as standing to shiver, caused the animals to spend less time eat- ing. For instance, under feedlot conditions for mid-winter in Canada daily gain of steers decreased 70 percent when temperature reached-17°C and ME intake per unit of gain was 140 percent greater than from March to Novem 125 _ Cal o ~ 100 oo Y A: Z _ ~ 75 C:) ~ 111 0 o _ 50 B' 1 AD \0% AD -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 TEMPERATURE ( C) FIGURE 6. Estimated changes in dry matter intake of feedlot cattle on a ration with 70 percent apparent digestibility or at temperatures above 27°C, 75 percent apparent digestibility. "B" in- dicates behavioral changes (adapted from Leu et al., 1977; Milligan and Christison, 1974).

Feed Intake 31 her (Milligan and Christison, 19741. In this test ADO and feed per unit of gain had correlations of-0.85 to 0.74 with ambient dry-bulb temperature. The marked reduction in daily gain indicates both intake and efficiency of utiliza- tion of ME for gain are lowered. From 10°C to approximately 25°C there was little change in feed con- sumption; however, on a 70 percent digestibility diet daily intake declined rapidly when the cattle were exposed to more than 6 h per day of temperature above 30°C (Figure 6~. Increasing the energy value of the ration to 75 per- cent apparent digestibility appeared to help animals maintain intake (Figure 61. Even so, it is more difficult to maintain intake with beef cattle in feedlots than with lactating cows under extreme temperatures. There is some evidence from studies with dairy cattle (Ruvuna et al., 1976) that the appetite of crossbred cows is influenced less by summer heat stress than for purebreds. With the high use of crossbreeding in the beef in- dustry, possible advantages of crossbreds in feed efficiency during periods of stress should receive attention. At 27°C total daily lE of Brahman, Santa Gertrudis, and Shorthorn heifers was less depressed than that of Brown Swiss and Holstein heifers (Johnson et al., 19581. The level of intake of the beef breed heifers was lower, however, both under cool and warm condi- tions. When change in lE was calculated as percentage at 27°C versus 10°C, the decline was similar in all breeds, thus species differences for TE resulting from heat stress are not clearly defined at this time. The conclusion is that above 25°C and below -10°C type of ration and level of temperature markedly affect intake but from near O to 25°C digest- ibility of ration is more important than ambient temperature. Even though temperature is the environmental variable most frequently associated with feed intake, lot surface and space per animal and their interaction effects are also important to feed intake (Elam, 1971; McDowell and Hernandez- Urdaneta, 19751. SHEEP Values for prediction of temperature-feed intake interactions for farm feed- ing of sheep are limited, mainly because the vast majority of sheep are kept under extensive grazing conditions. It is well accepted that body covering (length of fleece) and level of feeding will affect the response of sheep to temperature conditions (Armstrong et al., 19591. In general, the decline in feed intake under hot room conditions of unshorn sheep is similar to that for lactating cows (Figure 5), and shorn sheep respond approximately as do dry cows. The values in Table 4 indicate that both level of roughage in the diet and temperature influence feed intake. Because of lower lE at 27-32°C, the total ME per unit of gain will be expected to rise when sheep are stressed by heat.

32 FARM ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT TABLE 4 Effect of Alfalfa Hay-to-Concentrate Ratio on Feed Intake of Sheep Under Cool and Hot Conditionsa Hay : Concentrate Ratio Intake (g/day) Cool (11-22°C) Hot (27-32°C) 25:75 1,000 820 50:50 1,180 1,032 75:25 1,050 1,016 75:25 + fat 879 868 Average 1,027 934 a Adapted from Bhattacharya and Uwayjan, 1975. SWINE The estimated relationship of feed intake to ambient temperature for pigs of two weight ranges are shown in Figure 7. The associations of temperature with feed intake were developed largely from studies under controlled tem- perature conditions. Since commercial swine-rearing systems often include some temperature modification, the laboratory data should parallel that ob- served under farm systems. The temperature at which intake rises or declines 125 - c: a to so 100 111 Y 43: at z ~ -.c 75 LL O LL To IL _ \ - i` ~Is Heavy Animals ~ \ -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 TEMPERATURE ( C) FIGURE 7. Effect of environmental temperature on feed intake of swine. (Solid lines are 40-70-kg animals; dashed lines are 70-120-kg animals) (adapted from Heitman and Hughes, 1949; Verstegen et al., 1978).

Feed Intake 33 is approximately the same for light and heavy pigs; however, heavy pigs (above 70 kg) do appear to have a lower response threshold to heat stress than smaller pigs (Figure 7~. In fact, the absolute feed intake of young pigs (8 weeks of age) may be higher at 25°C (1.82 kg/day) than at 20°C (1.74 kg/ day). Growth rate of young pigs is moderately reduced under both cool (10°C) and hot (30°C) conditions, however, the percent of the energy re- tained may be higher at 30°C (43 percent) than at 10°C (34 percent) (Verste- gen et al., 1978~. Experimental evidence to date clearly shows there is an important interaction effect of size of pig and EAT. POULTRY Laying hens will acclimate to a fairly wide range of temperature conditions, e.g., Davis et al. (1972) showed laying hens reared at 18°C required only 2-3 weeks to reach a new equilibrium of 160 kcal ME/kg 0.75/day after change to a 35°C environment (Figure 8~. When the hens were shifted from 18 to 7°C, their ME intake was lowered for approximately 1 week due to be- havioral adaptation before feed intake returned to a level of about 102 per- cent of the amount consumed before the shift. The estimated changes in feed intake for laying hens acclimated to the en- vironmental temperature and fed a diet of 3.17 kcal ME/g DM iS shown in Fig- ure 9. Below 5°C an increase in feed intake is required to provide for higher maintenance requirements. Data are limited on intake for temperatures as ~ 200 US o - A - UJ A z 1 00 \,, 7 C - 35°C 0 1 2 3 WEEKS 4 5 6 7 FIGURE 8. ME intake of laying hens after being moved from an 18°C environment to a 35 or 7°C environment (adapted from Davis et al., 1972).

34 O 110 (~) on A: UJ Y ~ ~ 90 Z UJ _ y LU ~ It Z 70 FARM ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 130 ~ hi_ - ) _ 1 1 1 - 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TEMPERATURE ( C) FIGURE 9. Estimated change in feed intake for laying hens. Based on data in Table 38. low as 0°C. Similar to other species, level of intake at low temperatures is erratic due to behavior changes to alleviate rapid heat loss; hence, the intake curve is represented by a broken line below 5°C and represents an extrapola- tion of needs for thermal equilibrium. Under commercial production systems, where temperature inside the house may range from 2~37°C, the feed intake of laying leghorns will de- crease by 1.0 to 1.5 g per day per 1°C from 25 to 34°C but by 4.2 g per 1°C from 32 to 36°C (Davis et al., 19731. Level of protein in the diet appears to have an interaction effect on feed intake of laying hens under thermal stress (McNaughton et al., 19781. For summer feeding in temperate areas and throughout the year in hot climates, a crude protein of 25 percent or higher in the ration is recommended for good efficiency, whereas less than 25 percent cP is satisfactory at temperatures below 25°C for laying hens.

Next: FORAGE-TEMPERATURE INTERACTION ON FEED INTAKE »
Effect of Environment on Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!