Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
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 [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorDella Rosa, Maria Milagros
dc.contributor.authorToffaletti, Jose Rodolfo
dc.contributor.authorAello, Mario
dc.contributor.authorBurges, Julio Cesar
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-17T11:19:21Z
dc.date.available2020-04-17T11:19:21Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-19
dc.identifier.issn1836-0939
dc.identifier.issn1836-5787 (Online)
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1071/AN18614
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/7100
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.publish.csiro.au/an/AN18614
dc.description.abstractAnimal 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.es_AR
dc.formatapplication/pdfeng
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherCSIROes_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccesseng
dc.sourceAnimal production science AN18614es_AR
dc.subjectGanado Bovinoes_AR
dc.subjectCattleeng
dc.subjectAlimentación de los Animaleses_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Feedingeng
dc.subjectComportamiento Animales_AR
dc.subjectAnimal Behavioureng
dc.subjectGranoses_AR
dc.subjectGraineng
dc.subjectMaízes_AR
dc.subjectMaizeeng
dc.subjectBeef Cattleeng
dc.subjectGanado de Carne
dc.titleFeed bunk management effects steer performance and behavioureng
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeng
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneng
dc.description.origenEEA Balcarcees_AR
dc.description.filFil: Della Rosa, María Milagros. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Chaco Semiárido; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Toffaletti, José Rodolfo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria El Colorado; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Aello, Mario. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Burges, Julio Cesar. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Balcarce; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; Argentinaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record