Case Study: Effect of exercise programs during receiving in a commercial feedlot on behavior and productivity of Brahman crossbred calves: Results from a commercial environment and a comparison to the research environment

C. Daigle, A. Mathias, Emily E. Ridge, R. Gill, T. Wickersham, J. Sawyer
{"title":"Case Study: Effect of exercise programs during receiving in a commercial feedlot on behavior and productivity of Brahman crossbred calves: Results from a commercial environment and a comparison to the research environment","authors":"C. Daigle, A. Mathias, Emily E. Ridge, R. Gill, T. Wickersham, J. Sawyer","doi":"10.15232/PAS.2018-01744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Exercising receiving cattle is hypothesized to be a management strategy that could mitigate receiving stress in cattle. Little empirical research has been published on the quantifiable (productivity, health, behavior) effects of this strategy in a commercial feedyard setting. In a single Texas feedyard case study, high-risk Brahman-crossbred receiving calves (n = 688; 184 ± 5 kg) were exercised during the receiving period in the fall. Upon arrival, calves were sorted into single-sex pens (n = 6 pens: n = 3 pens heifers, n = 3 pens steers) and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments within sex blocks: (1) programmatic exercise (PRO; cattle moved to drive alley and encouraged to maintain movement for 20 min), (2) free exercise (FRE; cattle moved to drive alley and allowed free movement without access to the pen for 60 min), or (3) no exercise (CON). Treatments were applied (n = 12 sessions; 3 sessions per week) across a 30-d period, between 0800 and 1000 h at least 1 h after feed delivery. Gain-to-feed ratio and mortality rate were similar among treatments. Cattle assigned to CON had greater ADG than did those assigned to FRE or PRO (1.52, 1.39, and 1.44 kg/d). Percentage of calves treated for respiratory disease was greater in FRE and PRO compared with CON. The proportion of the pen lying and resting simultaneously increased and the proportion of the pen feeding, drinking, ruminating, and walking decreased over time. Exercise treatments did not compromise gain efficiency or behavior; however, exercised cattle had smaller ADG. These results suggest that exercise reduces receiving-period gains without improving animal health or altering behaviors.","PeriodicalId":22841,"journal":{"name":"The Professional Animal Scientist","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Professional Animal Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15232/PAS.2018-01744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

ABSTRACT Exercising receiving cattle is hypothesized to be a management strategy that could mitigate receiving stress in cattle. Little empirical research has been published on the quantifiable (productivity, health, behavior) effects of this strategy in a commercial feedyard setting. In a single Texas feedyard case study, high-risk Brahman-crossbred receiving calves (n = 688; 184 ± 5 kg) were exercised during the receiving period in the fall. Upon arrival, calves were sorted into single-sex pens (n = 6 pens: n = 3 pens heifers, n = 3 pens steers) and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments within sex blocks: (1) programmatic exercise (PRO; cattle moved to drive alley and encouraged to maintain movement for 20 min), (2) free exercise (FRE; cattle moved to drive alley and allowed free movement without access to the pen for 60 min), or (3) no exercise (CON). Treatments were applied (n = 12 sessions; 3 sessions per week) across a 30-d period, between 0800 and 1000 h at least 1 h after feed delivery. Gain-to-feed ratio and mortality rate were similar among treatments. Cattle assigned to CON had greater ADG than did those assigned to FRE or PRO (1.52, 1.39, and 1.44 kg/d). Percentage of calves treated for respiratory disease was greater in FRE and PRO compared with CON. The proportion of the pen lying and resting simultaneously increased and the proportion of the pen feeding, drinking, ruminating, and walking decreased over time. Exercise treatments did not compromise gain efficiency or behavior; however, exercised cattle had smaller ADG. These results suggest that exercise reduces receiving-period gains without improving animal health or altering behaviors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
案例研究:商业饲养场接收期间的锻炼计划对婆罗门杂交小牛行为和生产力的影响:来自商业环境的结果以及与研究环境的比较
假设锻炼接收牛是一种可以减轻牛接收压力的管理策略。关于这一策略在商业饲料场环境中可量化(生产力、健康、行为)影响的实证研究很少发表。在德克萨斯州的一个饲养场案例研究中,高风险婆罗门杂交接收小牛(n = 688;(184±5 kg),在秋季接收期间进行运动。抵达后,犊牛被分为单性围栏(n = 6个围栏:n = 3个围栏小母牛,n = 3个围栏阉牛),并在性别区域内随机分配到三种处理中的一种:(1)程序性锻炼(PRO;(2)自由运动(FRE;牛被转移到车道上,允许自由活动(不进入围栏60分钟),或(3)不运动(CON)。采用治疗(n = 12次);每周3次),在饲料交付后至少1小时的0800至1000小时之间进行30天的试验。不同处理的料重比和死亡率相似。CON组的平均日增重高于FRE组和PRO组(1.52、1.39和1.44 kg/d)。与对照组相比,FRE组和PRO组犊牛呼吸系统疾病的治疗比例更高。随着时间的推移,猪圈躺卧和休息的比例增加,猪圈喂养、饮水、反刍和行走的比例降低。运动治疗不影响增益效率或行为;而运动后的牛平均日增重较小。这些结果表明,运动减少了接收期的收益,而没有改善动物的健康或改变行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Case Study: Effect of exercise programs during receiving in a commercial feedlot on behavior and productivity of Brahman crossbred calves: Results from a commercial environment and a comparison to the research environment Effects of field pea supplementation on digestibility and rumen volatile fatty acid concentrations of beef-cattle diets containing high and low quality forages Enteric nitrous oxide emissions from beef cattle Invited Review: Detection and management of pregnancy loss in the cow herd1 Review: Sperm: Comparative morphology and function related to altered reproductive strategies and fertility in mammals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1