Feed bunk management effects steer performance and behaviour
Animal Production Science, ISSN: 1836-5787, Vol: 60, Issue: 11, Page: 1442-1448
2020
- 3Citations
- 5Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Animal performance and behaviour in fattening steers using ad libitum or restricted feed-bunk management were evaluated. High store-capacity self-feeders with weekly recharge were used in ad libitum management (ADLIB), while manual twice-a-day delivery was used in restricted management (REST). Twenty-four steers were allotted to 12 pens and fed with a high corn-grain diet without roughage, and randomly assigned to one of the treatments. Animal behaviour was recorded every 5 min throughout 24 h for 3 days. No bunk-management effect was evident in bodyweight (P ≥ 0.95) or average daily gain (P = 0.91). Even though ADLIB resulted in higher dry-matter intake (P = 0.03), the animals spent less time per day eating feed than did those under REST (P < 0.01), with more eating sessions per day (P = 0.02), which were shorter (P = 0.06). Rumination time was greater (P = 0.07) under ADLIB than under REST, while the opposite was observed for time spent eating (P < 0.01). Resting time was longer in animals under ADLIB (P = 0.02), with more sessions per day (P = 0.06), than under REST. In conclusion, the two feed-bunk managements evaluated had no negative implications either for animal performance or behaviour.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know