These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effects of dietary energy density and supplemental rumen undegradable protein on intake, viscera, and carcass composition of lambs recovering from nutritional restriction.
    Author: Dougherty HC, Evered M, Oltjen JW, Hegarty RS, Neutze SA, Oddy VH.
    Journal: J Anim Sci; 2022 Jul 01; 100(7):. PubMed ID: 35511607.
    Abstract:
    Variation in nutrition is a key determinant of growth, body composition, and the ability of animals to perform to their genetic potential. Depending on the quality of feed available, animals may be able to overcome negative effects of prior nutritional restriction, increasing intake and rates of tissue gain, but full compensation may not occur. A 2 × 3 × 4 factorial serial slaughter study was conducted to examine the effects of prior nutritional restriction, dietary energy density, and supplemental rumen undegradable protein (RUP) on intake, growth, and body composition of lambs. After an initial slaughter (n = 8), 124 4-mo-old Merino cross wethers (28.4 ± 1.8 kg) were assigned to either restricted (LO, 500 g/d) or unrestricted (HI, 1500 g/d) intake of lucerne and oat pellets. After 8 wk, eight lambs/group were slaughtered and tissue weights and chemical composition were measured. Remaining lambs were randomly assigned to a factorial combination of dietary energy density (7.8, 9.2, and 10.7 MJ/kg DM) and supplemental RUP (0, 30, 60, and 90 g/d) and fed ad libitum for a 12- to 13-wk experimental period before slaughter and analysis. By week 3 of the experimental period, lambs fed the same level of energy had similar DMI (g/d) and MEI (MJ/d) (P > 0.05), regardless of prior level of nutrition. Restricted-refed (LO) lambs had higher rates of fat and protein gain than HI lambs (P < 0.05) but had similar visceral masses (P > 0.05). However, LO lambs were lighter and leaner at slaughter, with proportionally larger rumens and livers (P < 0.05). Tissue masses increased with increasing dietary energy density, as did DMI, energy and nitrogen (N) retention (% intake), and rates of protein and fat gain (P < 0.05). The liver increased proportionally with increasing dietary energy density and RUP (P < 0.05), but rumen size decreased relative to the empty body as dietary energy density increased (P < 0.05) and did not respond to RUP (P > 0.05). Fat deposition was greatest in lambs fed 60 g/d supplemental RUP (P < 0.05). However, lambs fed 90 g/d were as lean as lambs that did not receive supplement (P0, P > 0.05), with poorer nitrogen retention and proportionally heavier livers than P0 lambs (P < 0.05). In general, visceral protein was the first tissue to respond to increased intake during refeeding, followed by non-visceral protein and fat, highlighting the influence of differences in tissue response over time on animal performance and body composition. Animal performance is determined by the combined effects of both prior and current nutrition. The present study used a 2 × 3 × 4 factorial to examine the effects of prior feeding level (HI or LO) on subsequent ad-libitum intake of diets varying in energy density (7.8, 9.2, 10.7 MJ/kg DM) and level of supplemental rumen undegradable protein (RUP; 0, 30, 60, and 90g/d). By week 3 of refeeding, LO and HI lambs had similar feed intake, but LO lambs had proportionally more gut and liver tissue and were lighter and leaner at final slaughter. As dietary energy density increased, the rumen became proportionally smaller while the liver became proportionally larger. Liver size increased with increasing RUP, and lambs fed 30 and 60 g/d were fatter than other lambs. However, lambs fed 90 g/d RUP had less fat than other lambs, as the increased energy requirements of a larger liver and of disposing of excess nitrogen appeared to outweigh any nutritional benefits. Understanding how prior nutrition affects current performance, as well as how tissues vary in their response to the same diet, is key to improving our understanding of animal performance and response to change.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]