Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

Predicting feedlot cattle performance from intake of dry matter and NEg T
early in the feeding period☆
⁎
A.M. Silvestrea, G.D. Cruzb, F.N. Owensc, M.C.S. Pereirad, R.B. Hickse, D.D. Millena,
a
São Paulo State University (UNESP), College of Agricultural and Technological Sciences, Dracena, São Paulo, 17900-000, Brazil
b
Purina Animal Nutrition LLC, Arden Hills, MN 55126, USA
c
1453 Country Road J, River Falls, WI 54022, USA
d
São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Botucatu, São Paulo, 18618-000, Brazil
e
Area Extension Livestock Specialist, Oklahoma State University, Goodwell, OK 73939, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The objectives of this study were: 1) To identify which specific week or weeks at the beginning of feeding period
Dry matter intake was most closely correlated with intake of net energy for gain (NEg) and dry matter (DM) for the full feedlot
Energy period of 140–180 d, and 2) to determine how various performance measurements were correlated with intake
Heifers during this selected time frame. The database was compiled from one commercial feedlot, contained 2,495 pens
Performance
of steers and 1,637 pens of heifers representing a total of 485,458 animals. Diets had similar composition across
Feedlot
a 6 years period. Responses in intake of DM and NEg for the full finishing period were tested separately by
Steers
including gender, initial body weight (BW) and days on feed as covariates in PROC NLIN of SAS. The PROC
CORR was used to determine the correlation between intakes of DM and NEg early in the feedlot period with
intake of DM and NEg for the entire finishing period. Intake periods of interest included individual weeks or the
combination of weeks 5–12. Among the individual weeks, intakes of DM and NEg during week 7 were correlated
most closely with intakes of DM and NEg across the entire finishing period for steers (r = 0.72) and heifers
(r = 0.66). Based on mean DM intake during week 7, pens were grouped into quartiles: Top, High, Lower and
Lowest. Pens of steers and heifers within the Top ¼ group during week 7 had greater (P < 0.05) final BW and
average daily gain (ADG) across the full feeding period than pens of steers and heifers in other quartiles.
However, G:F for steers within the Top ¼ group was lower than for pens in the Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼ groups.
Pens of cattle within the Lowest ¼ group had more sick head days (P < 0.05) and greater death loss (P < 0.05)
than pens of cattle of the Top ¼ group. Pens of cattle within the Top ¼ group had greater (P < 0.05) week-to-
week DM intake fluctuation expressed in kg for both steers and heifers. Mean DM intake during week 7 can be
utilized as an index to detect pens with the greatest potential of ADG and should help to identify pens with health
or management anomalies so that proper corrective actions might be taken.

1. Introduction
Rate of gain by feedlot cattle is proportional to intake of net energy
for gain (NEg) above maintenance; thereby ADG varies with diet NEg
and dry matter intake (DMI). Various equations have been proposed by
the NRC (1996) and NASEM (2016) to predict mean DMI averaged
across the full feeding period based on diet net energy for maintenance
(NEm) and mean metabolic weight (McMeniman et al., 2009). Other
authors (Patterson et al., 2000; Block et al., 2001; McMeniman et al.,
2009) have indicated that equations that predict mean DMI for the total
feeding period have limited value because they do not reflect DMI
during various segments of a feeding period that change with time-on-
feed as illustrated by Hicks et al. (1990a).
Numerous animal factors can alter DMI during the full feedlot fin-
ishing period; these include gender, initial body weight (BW), body
composition, age (Adams et al., 2010) and breed (Hicks et al., 1990b).
Hicks et al. (1986; 1990a) indicated further that within a feeding period
DMI usually peaks early (4 to 8 weeks) and declines thereafter even
though BW continues to increase throughout the feedlot period
(Thornton et al., 1985). Hicks et al. (1990b) reported further that
during the first month on feed, DMI was greatest among pens of cattle
with the greatest initial BW. For formulating diets, if the requirement of

☆
Scholarship for the first author was provided by CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasília, DF, Brazil).
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: danilo.millen@unesp.br (D.D. Millen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.03.007
Received 17 January 2019; Received in revised form 7 March 2019; Accepted 8 March 2019
1871-1413/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

a nutrient or for energy is based on specific amounts for each animal Table 1
each day, then the desired concentration or the percentage of those Finishing diets and nutrient composition provided to feedlot cattle from 2009 to
nutrients or other diet components also must change as DMI changes 2014.
during the total feeding period. Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Can intake of DM or NEg measured at some time interval early in a
feeding period be used to predict performance for the full feedlot Ingredients,a% of diet DM
Corn silage 5.40 4.54 4.54 4.95 4.65 5.13
period? How are intakes early during the feeding period related to other
Alfalfa hay 4.28 4.83 4.80 4.41 4.56 4.24
performance measures across the full feedlot period? Might DMI early Steam-flaked corn 18.72 30.02 32.98 21.33 29.24 14.66
in the feedlot period prove useful to detect specific pens where health or High moisture corn 53.74 43.39 41.16 53.03 45.17 58.62
management are limiting performance so that corrective actions can be Molasses 1.46 1.77 1.83 1.20 1.69 1.70
Fat 2.43 2.26 1.94 2.26 2.81 2.23
taken to avoid further economic losses? The objectives of this study
Dry distillers grains 7.67 6.74 6.32 6.45 5.59 7.13
were: 1) to identify which week or combination of weeks early within Vitamins, minerals and additives 6.30 6.46 6.42 6.37 6.30 6.30
the total feedlot feeding period was correlated most closely with intake Assayed nutrient contents
of DM and NEg for the entire finishing period and 2) to determine how Diet DMb 71.06 72.06 73.28 71.87 72.27 71.18
performance measurements for the full feedlot period are altered by the Diet CPc% of DM 13.03 13.10 13.10 13.13 13.15 13.20
DM of Steam-flaked corn 79.21 79.32 79.81 79.71 79.69 79.76
intakes during a selected period or week.
DM of High moisture corn 70.74 70.06 70.91 70.66 71.14 70.96
NEm,d Mcal/kg 2.239 2.241 2.248 2.252 2.263 2.240
2. Materials and methods NEg,e Mcal/kg 1.499 1.505 1.524 1.523 1.531 1.510

Animal Care and Use Committee approval was not obtained for this
study because the study was based on accumulated feedlot records and
no additional nutritional or management treatments were imposed.
2.1. Database
Six years of data (May 2009 and December 2014) were obtained
from one commercial feedlot located in Oklahoma and served by the
same consulting nutritionist. Cattle in the database consisted of steers
and heifers of primarily British and Continental breeding. Cattle were
sourced from 25 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and
Wyoming.
Pens of cattle were weighed before transport to the feedlot (pur-
chase weight) and again at arrival at the feed yard when all animals
received growth-enhancing hormonal implants. Growth-enhancing
hormone protocol was the same for all six years. Cattle were allocated
into pens based on the origin first, then gender and lastly weight.
Arrival mean weight was equivalent to initial shrunk body weight
(ISBW). Weight loss during transit, hereafter called shrink, was calcu-
lated as: [(Purchase weight minus ISBW)/Purchase weight x 100]. Final
shrunk body mean weight (FSBW) was calculated as 96% of mean
market weights based on an estimate of 4% shrink. Days on feed (DOF)
were calculated as the difference between the initial and final date for
each pen of cattle. Average daily gain (ADG) was calculated on what is
often referred to in the feedlot industry as a “deads-out basis” by di-
viding the difference between initial shrunk body weight (ISBW) and
final shrunk body weight (FSBW, dead animals removed) by DOF for
each pen. Orts were not measured because a clean-bunk management
was practiced so that orts were avoided. Daily feed supply was targeted
so that feed remained in the bunk for each pen at midnight but had
been depleted when cattle were fed at 0800. The number of days that an
animal was withdrawn from its home pen and moved to a hospital pen
was recorded for each pen. Death loss also was recorded for each pen.
The diets provided during the finishing period contained 30 ppm of
monensin. Feed ingredients and its compositions are shown in Table 1.
Fresh feed was provided twice daily based on the amount of feed re-
maining in the bunk at midnight. Weekly mean DMI was calculated
from daily feed delivery records and diet DM content. The G:F ratio was
calculated from mean ADG and mean DMI during the complete feedlot
period for each pen of cattle. The NEg intake data were calculated from
the DMI and NEg of each diet calculated from composition of each diet
each year (Table 1). Based on the date that pens of cattle arrived at the
feedlot, pens were grouped by season: Winter (December, January,
February); Spring (March, April, May); Summer (June, July, August)
a
Diet also contained monensin at 30 ppm.
b
Dry matter.
c
Crude protein.
d
Net energy for maintenance.
e
Net energy for gain.
and Fall (September, October, November) as used previously by
Galyean et al. (2011). The adaptation diets were fed during the first 4
weeks of the feeding period, but only intake data from the finishing
period following week 4 was used for DMI or NEg intake calculations
for model development. Although others have expressed DMI based on
NEm concentration of the diet, NEg data were used in this study as an
index because NEg is used more frequently to describe diet's energy
content among feedlot nutritionists.
2.2. Model development
The database initially included 4132 pens of cattle: 2495 pens of
steers and 1637 pens of heifers for a total of 485,458 cattle. In addition
to animal data means from each pen, pen data included death loss, sick
head days, and cattle per pen. Data from a total of 482 pens (26,625
cattle) were removed from dataset based on the following character-
istics. Pens with death loss and sick head days more than 3.71% and
6.57%, respectively (two standard deviations above the mean), were
removed from dataset; this excluded data from 207 pens (17,183 ani-
mals). Pens containing less than 51 animals, totaling 268 pens (9009
animals), also were removed. One pen with 63 animals with a very low
initial BW (180 kg) and 5 pens with very high initial BW (greater than
440 kg with a total of 258 animals) also were removed from the data
set. Finally, one more pen with 112 animals was removed from dataset
due to incomplete DMI data. A summary of performance and DMI for
pens of steers and heifers remaining in the screened data set is shown in
Table 2.
For statistical analysis, pens were subdivided by mean initial BW
into five groups: < 230 kg; 231 to 280 kg; 281 to 330 kg; 331 to 380 kg
and 381 to 430 kg. Weekly DMI data used for model development in-
cluded only pen data where more than 75% of pens of cattle within
each weight group remained on feed. In addition, DMI fluctuation, and
the week where DMI peaked were calculated. Fluctuation in DMI was
calculated as adapted from Bevans et al. (2005) as the difference in DMI
between two consecutive weeks calculated throughout the full finishing
period. The DMI adaptation rate (weekly change in DMI expressed both
as kg and as a percentage) was calculated from weeks 2 to 7.
2.3. Statistical analyses
Intakes of DM and NEg for the finishing period were calculated

109
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

Table 2 yielded the highest correlation with intake of DM and of NEg intake
Mean performance and DMI of steers and heifers from 2009 to 2014. over the full finishing period, pens were ranked into four quartiles
Item Steers Heifers based on intake of DM or of NEg as follows: Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼
Mean SD Mean SD and Lowest ¼. The MIXED procedure of SAS was used to test the effect
of quartile ranking on productive performance variables for the full
Pens, n 2,256 1,394
feeding for ADG, final BW, G:F ratio, intake of DMI or NEg, as well as
Cattle/pena 133 50.96 114 42.10
Initial BW, kg 331.28 39.96 293.88 39.50
the relationship of intake ranking to the number of animals per pen,
Final BW, kg 608.29 29.35 539.91 27.60 DMI fluctuation, the DMI increase from initial weeks, and the mean
Days fed 160 19.85 161 21.71 number of sick days and death loss. Initial BW was included as a cov-
ADG,b kg/d 1.59 0.14 1.40 0.13 ariate and results were considered significant at P < 0.05. Also, the
Daily DMI,b kg 9.87 0.89 8.89 0.86
interaction between DMI quartiles and season was tested to examine the
G:F ratio,b kg/kg 0.1640 0.0104 0.1606 0.0098
Death loss,b% 1.53 1.43 1.57 1.48 impact of season on production. Because this season effect was not
Sick days,% 0.56 0.52 0.71 0.68 significant statistically (P > 0.05), season was excluded from the final
model.
a
Number of animals sold per pen; reflects removal of morbid or dead ani-
mals.
b
Values for the full feeding period. 3. Results and discussion

separately for pens of steers and pens of heifers covaried by pen means
for initial BW and days on feed for each pen using the PROC NLIN of
SAS with “parms” from 0 to 1 by 0.1, according to:
DMI = (a × initial BWb) + (c × days on feedd)
Intake of NEg = (e × initial BW f ) + (g × daysonfeedh)
Intakes of DM and NEg were calculated separately because NEg of
the diet (DM basis) was lower during the adaptation period (the first 21
to 28 days in the feedlot) than after this diet adaptation period.
Furthermore, NEg information should have broader applicability than
DMI due to diets with less NEg generally exhibit a compensatory in-
crease in DMI and vice versa. As a result, NEg intake theoretically could
be used to predict intake of DM of diets that differ in NEg This concept
is based on the general observation that increasing the NEg of a high
concentrate diet (e.g., addition of dietary fat; reducing diet roughage
content; more extensive processing of grain) generally reduces DMI
even though ADG (and thereby intake of NEg above maintenance) re-
mains unchanged. If ADG (and intake of NEg above maintenance) re-
mains constant when ME of the diet changes, then one would expect
DMI to be related most closely to diet NEm and NEg values weighted by
intake as a multiple of maintenance.
To identify the week or set of weeks when intake of DM or NEg was
correlated most closely with intake of DM or NEg for the finishing
period, PROC CORR of SAS was employed. Correlations between DM
and NEg intakes measured during each of the first few weeks of the
finishing period (weeks 5 to 12) or of combinations of weeks with mean
of cumulative intake (5 to 6; 5 to 7; 5 to 8; 5 to 9; 5 to 10; 5 to 11; 5 to
12) with DMI and NEg intake during the finishing period (from week 5
on) were calculated. Based on the week, or combination of weeks, that
Because DMI differed (P < 0.05) with gender, the database was
separated into datasets for steers and heifers for analysis. Intakes of
both DM and NEg also were affected by initial BW (P < 0.05), days on
feed (P < 0.05) and an interaction between these two factors
(1)
(P < 0.05). Intakes of DM and NEg were appraised separately for pens
of steers and heifers based on Eqs. (1) and 2. Initial BW has been shown
(2)
previously to impact DMI when averaged across the full feedlot period
(Hicks et al., 1990b; Walker et al., 2015). Galyean et al. (2011), who
also used initial BW and gender to predict performance of feedlot cattle,
reported that initial BW could explain 76% of the variation in DMI
among groups of cattle averaged across the full feeding period. How-
ever, as compared with DMI averaged across the full feeding period,
DMI of feedlot cattle changes time on feed, typically exhibiting a
quadratic response peaking shortly after the adaptation period and
declining linearly thereafter (Hicks et al., 1990b), particularly for cattle
with greater initial shrunk body weight (Thornton et al., 1985).
To test how closely intakes of DM and NEg during the early weeks
on feed were correlated with intakes of DM and NEg averaged across
the full feeding period, correlations were calculated as shown in Fig. 1
for individual weeks and 2 for means of intakes during consecutive
weeks. Among the individual weeks early in the feedlot period, intake
of DM and NEg during week 7 was correlated most closely with intake
of DM and NEg averaged across the full finishing period both for pens of
steers (r = 0.72 for both intakes of DM and NEg; Fig. 1(A)) and for pens
of heifers (r = 0.66 for both intakes of DM and NEg; Fig. 1(B)). For
intakes of both DM and NEg, correlations were similar and followed a
similar pattern for individual weeks from weeks 5 to 12 (Fig. 1).
Correlations between the mean of cumulative intakes of DM and
NEg during multiple early weeks of the finishing period with intakes of
DM and NEg across the finishing period for pens of steers and heifers

0.725
A B
0.665
0.720 DMI DMI
0.660
0.715
NEg 0.655
0.710
Correlation

NEg
Correlation

0.705 0.650
0.700 0.645
0.695 0.640
0.690 0.635
0.685 0.630
0.680 0.625
0.675 0.620
0.670 0.615
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Weeks
Weeks
Fig. 1. Correlations between intakes of DM and NEg during individual weeks early in the finishing period with the adjusted mean (Intake of DM and NEg) for the
finishing period for steers (A) and heifers (B).

110
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

A 0.7
B
0.76
0.69
0.75 0.68

Correlation
0.67

Correlation
0.74
0.73 0.66
0.65
0.72 0.64 DMI
DMI
0.71 0.63
NEg 0.62 NEg
0.70
0.61
0.69
5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:12 5 5:6 5:7 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:12
5
Weeks Weeks
Fig. 2. Correlations between cumulative intakes of DM and NEg (accumulated for 1 to 7 additional sequential weeks early in the feedlot period) with intakes of DM
and NEg for the finishing period for steers (A) and heifers (B).

Table 3
Measurements for pens based on of rank of pens of steers and heifers for DMI during week 7 classified as Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼.
Steers Top ¼ High ¼ Lower ¼ Lowest ¼ SEM P - value

Pens, n 564 564 564 564

Days fed 143 155 164 177
Daily DMI during Week 7, kg/steer 11.28a 10.19b 9.50c 8.52d 0.017 <0.05
Daily DMI, kg/steer 10.81a 10.12b 9.81c 9.37d 0.021 <0.05
Initial BW, kg 369.25a 340.78b 319.68c 295.41d 1.232 <0.05
Final shrunk BW, kg 600.23a 584.50b 579.25c 571.87d 0.846 <0.05
ADG,a kg 1.693a 1.588b 1.560c 1.505d 0.0052 <0.05
G:F ratio,a kg/kg 0.1599c 0.1595c 0.1616b 0.1637a 0.0004 <0.05
Death loss,a (%) 1.09c 1.45b 1.60b 1.98a 0.061 <0.05
Sick days,a (%) 0.39c 0.51b 0.55b 0.80a 0.022 <0.05
Steers per Pen 124b 135a 138a 133a 2.349 <0.05
Shrink, (% of purchase weight) 3.33a 3.29a 3.13a 2.82b 0.071 <0.05
Weekly DMI fluctuation, kg 0.455a 0.409b 0.395b 0.397b 0.0057 <0.05
Weekly DMI fluctuation, (%) 4.21ab 4.06c 4.05bc 4.28a 0.0551 <0.05
Heifers
Pens, n 349 348 348 349
Days fed 142 156 168 178
Daily DMI during Week 7, kg/heifer 10.48a 9.37b 8.71c 7.84d 0.020 <0.05
Daily DMI, kg/heifer 9.85a 9.11b 8.77c 8.32d 0.026 <0.05
Initial BW, kg 330.79a 301.70b 279.88c 263.15d 1.619 <0.05
Final shrunk BW, kg 537.17a 520.93b 512.34c 502.79d 0.918 <0.05
ADG,a kg 1.527a 1.415b 1.364c 1.296d 0.0058 <0.05
G:F ratio,a kg/kg 0.1609 0.1602 0.1604 0.1607 0.0005 0.6383
Death loss,a (%) 1.12d 1.41c 1.68b 2.09a 0.081 <0.05
Sick days,a (%) 0.57c 0.55c 0.75b 0.96a 0.038 <0.05
Heifers per Pen 117 113 115 113 2.253 0.5104
Shrink, (% of purchase weight) 3.67a 3.72a 3.63a 3.16b 0.102 <0.05
Weekly DMI fluctuation, kg 0.413a 0.377b 0.363c 0.360c 0.0059 <0.05
Weekly DMI fluctuation, (%) 4.20ab 4.15b 4.13b 4.36a 0.0642 <0.05

a
Values for the full feeding period.

are shown on Fig. 2. Although for steers the correlations tended to
plateau at weeks 5 to 8 when cumulative intakes of DM and NEg were
employed (r = 0.74 for both intakes of DM and NEg; Fig. 2(A)), for pens
of heifers, the correlation tended to increase even after the Week 8
(Fig. 2(B)). These increases with time on feed would be expected be-
cause cumulative intake comprises a greater proportion of total intake
of DM and NEg for the full feeding period. This correlation increased
more for pens of heifers than for pens of steers and perhaps reflects less
fluctuation in DMI with time on feed for pens of heifers than for pens of
steers when expressed either in kg or Mcal, as shown in Tables 3 and 4,
respectively.
Feedlot performance means for pens of steers and heifers overall
ranked by intake of DM and NEg during week 7 into quartile groups
(Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼) are presented in Tables 3 and
4.
Pens of steers and of heifers within the Top ¼ group had greater
final BW and ADG (P < 0.05) than pens of steers and of heifers in other
groups due to greater DMI (P < 0.05) across the full finishing period
(Fig. 3). Despite this greater DMI, the G:F ratio was lower for pens of
steers on Top ¼ group when compared to those within the Lower ¼ and
the Lowest ¼ groups. In contrast to these data from pens of steers, no
significant effect (P = 0.64) of DMI quartiles on G:F was observed for
pens of heifers. With pens of steers, DMI tended to peak and decline
with time on feed, particularly for steers with greater initial weight
especially for cattle with the higher DMI during week 7; this change
over time was less apparent for pens of heifers. This observation sup-
ports the concept that a reduced DMI late in the feeding period, the
time period when maintenance energy requirements are greatest, may
be responsible for the decreased G:F ratio for steers with the greatest
DMI.
Although carcass characteristics were not evaluated, pens of steers
on Top ¼ and High ¼ groups had greater NEg intake during the fin-
ishing period than pens of steers in the Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼ groups
(Table 5); this may have resulted in earlier carcass fat deposition
(Slabbert et al., 1992) and also might explain the lower G:F ratio for
pens of cattle with the greatest NEg intake (Herd et al., 2004).

111
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

Table 4
Measurements for pens based on of rank of pens of steers and heifers for intake of NEg during week 7 classified as Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼.
Steers Top ¼ High ¼ Lower ¼ Lowest ¼ SEM P - value

Pens, n 564 564 564 564

Days fed 143 156 164 177
Daily NEg intake Week 7, Mcal/steer 17.12a 15.45b 14.41c 12.91d 0.026 <0.05
Daily NEg intake, Mcal/steer 16.39a 15.34b 14.87c 14.24d 0.033 <0.05
Initial BW, kg 369.59a 340.06b 319.94c 295.51d 1.233 <0.05
Final BW, kg 600.10a 584.87b 578.68c 572.19d 0.852 <0.05
ADG,a kg 1.695a 1.589b 1.557c 1.505d 0.0052 <0.05
G:F ratio,a kg/kg 0.1602c 0.1595c 0.1614b 0.1636a 0.0004 <0.05
Death loss,a (%) 1.08d 1.44c 1.63b 1.97a 0.061 <0.05
Sick days,a (%) 0.39c 0.50b 0.55b 0.82a 0.021 <0.05
Steers per Pen 125b 135a 139a 133a 2.3487 <0.05
Shrink, (% of purchase weight) 3.38a 3.28ab 3.10b 2.82c 0.0710 <0.05
Weekly NEg intake fluctuation, Mcal 0.689a 0.620b 0.586c 0.606bc 0.0085 <0.05
Weekly NEg intake fluctuation, (%) 4.20a 4.05b 4.03b 4.31a 0.0550 <0.05
Heifers
Pens, n 349 348 348 349
Days on feed 142 157 167 178
Daily NEg at Week 7, Mcal/heifer 15.90a 14.20b 13.21c 11.90d 0.030 <0.05
Daily NEg, Mcal/heifer 14.95a 13.82b 13.30c 12.62d 0.039 <0.05
Initial BW, kg 330.89a 300.75b 280.89c 262.69d 1.623 <0.05
Final shrunk BW, kg 536.45a 520.87b 512.80c 503.12d 0.926 <0.05
ADG,a kg 1.524a 1.419b 1.363c 1.295d 0.0057 <0.05
G:F ratio,a kg/kg 0.1605 0.1607 0.1603 0.1608 0.0005 0.8612
Death loss,a (%) 1.12d 1.38c 1.71b 2.08a 0.081 <0.05
Sick days,a (%) 0.55c 0.54c 0.75b 0.99a 0.038 <0.05
Heifers per Pen 110 113 118 115 2.4043 0.2594
Shrink, (% of purchase weight) 3.68a 3.78a 3.57a 3.15b 0.1021 <0.05
Weekly NEg intake fluctuation, Mcal 0.625a 0.569b 0.554bc 0.545c 0.0089 <0.05
Weekly NEg intake fluctuation, (%) 4.19 4.13 4.16 4.36 0.0640 0.0530

a
Values for the full feeding period.

Foote et al. (2015) observed that leptin impacted productive perfor-
mance; these authors reported that the circulating leptin concentration
was inversely related to the G:F ratio but was correlated positively with
12th rib fat thickness, yield grade and marbling score.
Meissner et al. (1995) evaluated the effect of increasing energy con-
centration in finishing diets and reported that carcass fat deposition was
greater for cattle consuming diets that had higher energy concentra-
tions. Guiroy et al. (2001), when evaluating the relationship between
body fat to HCW, observed that HCW was correlated with visceral fat
content (heart, pelvic and kidney fat), 12th rib fat thickness and yield
grade. Likewise, this may indicate that yield grade (fat thickness) could
have been greater for pens of cattle within the Top ¼ groups during
week 7 that continued for the full feeding period. Likewise,
Hicks et al. (1990c), evaluating the effects of limit feed supply on
productive performance, reported that DMI restriction led to improved
G:F ratio possibly due reduced feed waste or a decreased passage rate
that could increase nutrient digestibility (Owens et al., 1986), as well as
decreased carcass fat (Owens et al., 1995). This also may explain the
greater G:F ratio observed by pens of steers of the Lower ¼ and Lowest
¼ groups.
In contrast to responses noted for pens of steers based on quartiles of
intake during week 7, effects of intake quartiles on the G:F ratio for
pens of heifers (P = 0.6383 [Table 3 for DMI] and P = 0.8612 [Table 4
for intake of NEg]) were not significant. This may reflect earlier fat
deposition by heifers than steers so that heifers had a greater proportion
of body fat at the beginning of the feeding period when compared with
steers which resulted in lower peak intakes of DM and NEg. Based on
the fact that energy partitioning for tissue deposition is strongly asso-
ciated with maturity (Webster, 1980), greater body fat content at the
beginning of the feeding period by heifers potentially caused a greater
proportion of ADG to be deposited as fat rather than as protein and this
continued longer among pens of heifers than of the implanted steers.
According to the ranking of pens into four quartiles (Top ¼ High ¼,
Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼) based on intake from week 7, it may be pos-
sible to identify pens presenting superior ADG (Top ¼); ranking during
week 7 also may prove useful to detect health or management problems
among the lowest quartile. This may permit interventions in health
treatments or in management that could be altered or corrected to
improve performance.
Cattle within pens with the Lowest ¼ group had more sick head
days (P < 0.05) and greater death loss (P < 0.05) than cattle within the
Top ¼ group. This can explain a portion of the lower DMI and poorer
productive performance for this group. Bremer et al. (2010) reported
that based on pens of cattle, those pens with a higher incidence of re-
spiratory problems had decreased DMI, ADG, marbling score, Long-
issimus area, and 12th rib fat thickness.
Shrink (weight loss during transport calculated as the fractional
difference between purchase and delivery weights) often is used by
feedlot managers and diagnosticians as an index of stress and suscept-
ibility to disease (Marques et al., 2012). In contrast with that assump-
tion, pens of cattle within the Lowest ¼ group had less shrink
(P < 0.05) than pens of cattle within other groups. Note that these
differences are based on pen means, not on measurements with the
individual cattle within a pen. Cattle that have been pre-conditioned
and adapted to concentrate feeds before transport may have less shrink
because weight loss generally is less during a fast for cattle fed high
roughage diets than for cattle fed high concentrate diets. Cattle pur-
chased for a feedlot, when assembled from cattle that are marketed in
small groups, may pass through several sale barns prior to being sold as
a pen group to a feedlot cattle buyer. Thereby, the purchase weight paid
for a set of cattle assembled from multiple sources already may include
additional shrink associated with previous periods of water and feed
deprivation that in turn could reduce the amount of shrink associated
with their final transit to the feedlot. Despite the inverse relationship
between shrink and cattle and feedlot performance detected among
pens of cattle in these quartile groups, particularly for steers, a shorter
transport time and distance logically would be expected to reduce
stress, increase feedlot ADG and G:F, and reduce sick days and death
loss of individual animals even though these expectations were not
realized based on initial shrink among these pens of feedlot cattle.

112
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

A
12
11
10

DMI kg/d
9
8
7
Top 1/4 High 1/4 Lower 1/4 Lowest 1/4
6
5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Weeks

10.5
9.5
DMI kg/d

8.5
7.5
6.5
Top 1/4 High 1/4 Lower 1/4 Lowest 1/4
5.5
4.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Weeks

Fig. 3. DMI patterns for pens of steers (A) and heifers (B) across weeks on feed during the feeding period sorted into the Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼ for
DMI during week 7.

Table 5
Effect of ranking pens on Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼ based on DMI at week 7 on DMI increase during adaptation and rate of adaptation of steers and
heifers to high-concentrate diets.
Steers Top ¼ High ¼ Lower ¼ Lowest ¼ SEM P - value

DMI increase from week 2 to 3, kg 0.932a 0.736b 0.600c 0.479d 0.0374 <0.05
DMI increase from week 3 to 4, kg 0.573a 0.489b 0.405c 0.284d 0.0273 <0.05
DMI increase from week 4 to 5, kg 0.247a 0.171b 0.089c 0.011d 0.0256 <0.05
DMI increase from week 5 to 6, kg 0.288a 0.177b 0.149b 0.059c 0.0252 <0.05
DMI increase from week 6 to 7, kg 0.429a 0.238b 0.125c −0.048d 0.0224 <0.05
Week of maximum DMI 11d 13c 15b 17a 0.2195 <0.05
Rate of adaptation (expressed as%)
DMI week 2/ DMI week 7,% 77.57d 82.16c 85.63b 90.63a 0.429 <0.05
DMI week 3/ DMI week 7,% 86.13d 89.42c 91.92b 96.31a 0.329 <0.05
DMI week 4/ DMI week 7,% 91.23d 94.24c 96.16b 99.51a 0.285 <0.05
DMI week 5/ DMI week 7,% 93.48d 95.91c 97.13b 99.77a 0.266 <0.05
DMI week 6/ DMI week 7,% 96.09d 97.66c 98.69b 100.48a 0.228 <0.05
Heifers
DMI increase from week 2 to 3, kg 0.891a 0.639b 0.533b 0.419c 0.0421 <0.05
DMI increase from week 3 to 4, kg 0.540a 0.461a 0.337b 0.216c 0.0326 <0.05
DMI increase from week 4 to 5, kg 0.299a 0.187b 0.155b 0.111b 0.0307 <0.05
DMI increase from week 5 to 6, kg 0.208 0.191 0.137 0.123 0.0295 0.2218
DMI increase from week 6 to 7, kg 0.356a 0.194b 0.127b −0.072c 0.0256 <0.05
Week of maximum DMI 9d 11c 13b 15a 0.2979 <0.05
Rate of adaptation (expressed as%)
DMI week 2/ DMI week 7,% 82.74b 85.80a 81.99c 83.79b 0.550 <0.05
DMI week 3/ DMI week 7,% 90.33b 92.83a 88.82c 89.40bc 0.409 <0.05
DMI week 4/ DMI week 7,% 94.56b 96.25a 93.68b 93.70b 0.360 <0.05
DMI week 5/ DMI week 7,% 96.91b 97.93a 95.94c 95.93c 0.330 <0.05
DMI week 6/ DMI week 7,% 98.79 98.82 98.22 98.09 0.272 0.1192

113
A.M. Silvestre, et al. Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115

Table 6
Effect of ranking pens on Top ¼, High ¼, Lower ¼ and Lowest ¼ based on intake of NEg at week 7 on NEg increase during adaptation and rate of adaptation of steers
and heifers to high-concentrate diets.
Steers Top ¼ High ¼ Lower ¼ Lowest ¼ SEM P - value

NEg increase from week 2 to 3, Mcal 2.343a 2.095b 1,901c 1.726d 0.04856 <0.05
NEg increase from week 3 to 4, Mcal 1.308a 1.156b 1.059c 0.815d 0.03814 <0.05
NEg increase from week 4 to 5, Mcal 1.238a 1.038b 0.884c 0.723d 0.0380 <0.05
NEg increase from week 5 to 6, Mcal 0.448a 0.301b 0.208b 0.067c 0.0381 <0.05
NEg increase from week 6 to 7, Mcal 0.658a 0.365b 0.195c −0.089d 0.0338 <0.05
Week of maximum NEg 11d 14c 15b 18a 0.2083 <0.05
Rate of adaptation (expressed as%)
NEg week 2/ NEg week 7,% 64.46d 67.87c 70.59b 74.89a 0.3538 <0.05
NEg week 3/ NEg week 7,% 78.38d 81.45c 83.74b 88.21a 0.3036 <0.05
NEg week 4/ NEg week 7,% 86.06d 88.95c 91.06b 94.37a 0.2738 <0.05
NEg week 5/ NEg week 7,% 93.36d 95.67c 97.20b 100.05a 0.2637 <0.05
NEg week 6/ NEg week 7,% 96.04d 97.63c 98.65b 100.60a 0.2276 <0.05
Heifers
NEg increase from week 2 to 3, Mcal 2.242a 1.853b 1.726b 1.527c 0.0542 <0.05
NEg increase from week 3 to 4, Mcal 1.207a 1.114a 0.896b 0.686c 0.0457 <0.05
NEg increase from week 4 to 5, Mcal 1.250a 1.017b 0.905bc 0.815c 0.0457 <0.05
NEg increase from week 5 to 6, Mcal 0.334 0.263 0.242 0.164 0.0449 0.1574
NEg increase from week 6 to 7, Mcal 0.538a 0.303b 0.169c −0.092d 0.0389 <0.05
Week of maximum NEg 10d 12c 14b 16a 0.2798 <0.05
Rate of adaptation (expressed as%)
NEg week 2/ NEg week 7,% 64.19d 67.91c 70.28b 73.95a 0.4632 <0.05
NEg week 3/ NEg week 7,% 78.56d 80.99c 83.29b 86.67a 0.3908 <0.05
NEg week 4/ NEg week 7,% 86.33d 88.85c 90.03b 92.33a 0.3646 <0.05
NEg week 5/ NEg week 7,% 94.41c 96.03b 96.88b 99.38a 0.3489 <0.05
NEg week 6/ NEg week 7,% 96.48d 97.87c 98.75b 100.82a 0.2842 <0.05

Other indices related to stress such as distance hauled, and transit time
may prove more reliable than shrink as an index of stress when shrink is
being measured on a pen basis. In an attempt to detect if distance
hauled might explain differences in death loss and sick head days, state
of origin of pens of cattle and season was included in the model; these
effects were not significant (P > 0.05).
With respect to the effects of quartile ranking of pens based on in-
take during week 7, no impact on the number of cattle per pen was
detected for heifers (DMI, P = 0.5104; intake of NEg, P = 0.2594), but
for steers, the top quartile had slightly fewer cattle per pen (P < 0.05).
Fewer cattle per pen may lead to a greater ADG by decreasing bullying
(interactions and riding activity) through decreasing the degree of
competition for food and water. Yet, these differences in the number of
cattle per pen seem too small to markedly impact the degree of inter-
action between cattle. Pens with a smaller number of cattle also might
represent groups of cattle where ownership was retained by the cow-
calf producer or the grower-stocker producer so that the cattle in the
pen had been raised or grazed together as a group. Familiarity of co-
horts within a pen should reduce the incidence of adverse social in-
teractions among cattle.
Pens of cattle within Top ¼ group had greater (P < 0.05) DMI
fluctuation from week-to-week when expressed as kg DM per day
during the finishing period for both pens of steers and heifers (Tables 3
and 4). Despite having greater week-to-week fluctuations in DMI, pens
of cattle within the Top ¼ group still had greater ADG and final BW.
Galyean et al. (1992) reported that when a fluctuation in daily DM was
imposed that exceeded 10%, ADG was reduced by 6% and G:F was
reduced by 7% based on small pens of cattle; they presumed that this
reflected a negative effect of intake fluctuation on the incidence of
subclinical acidosis. In contrast, Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al. (2011)
detected no negative effect of daily DMI fluctuation on feedlot perfor-
mance when authors evaluated the performance of group-fed cattle
where intake of individual cattle was measured but feed supply was not
imposed externally but was voluntary. They concluded that individual
animals with the greatest G:F had the greatest voluntary DMI fluctua-
tion. The latter report agrees with the results obtained for groups of
cattle in our study. However, whether DMI fluctuation is measured on a
daily or weekly basis, whether it is imposed or voluntary, and whether
it is based on individually fed cattle or group-fed cattle with greater
competition, may alter the results. In addition, slight limitations in feed
supply also would be expected to decrease feed waste and feed sorting
so that G:F and nutrient balance among cattle within a pen may be
improved. With fewer cattle per pen, DMI fluctuation, expressed in kg,
should increase automatically. Corona et al. (2005) reported that starch
digestibility of whole shelled corn was increased when pens of cattle
were given free-choice access to feed than when pens were limit fed;
limit feeding induce a behavior change that reduces the amount of time
spent eating and chewing their feed when it is being consumed; that
would be expected to decrease digestibility when grains are less ex-
tensively processed.
Week-to-week changes in intake of DM and NEg from weeks 2
through 7 are reported in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Pens of steers
and heifers within the Top ¼ group had greater increases in intake of
DM and NEg for all weeks evaluated (P < 0.05) when compared to pens
of cattle from Lowest ¼ group. Pens of cattle from Top ¼ groups had
greater (P < 0.05) increases in DMI from week 2–3 when compared to
animals on Lowest ¼ groups both for pens of steers (0.932 kg vs.
0.479 kg) and for pens of heifers (0.891 kg vs. 0.419 kg). As a result,
pens of steers and heifers from Top ¼ groups reached their maximum
DMI earlier during the feeding period (P < 0.05) than pens of cattle in
the other groups. However, when rate of adaptation was calculated
based on the percentage that DMI increased during these adaptation
weeks, those pens of cattle within the Lowest ¼ groups were adapting
faster to their high-concentrate diets (P < 0.05); this difference is due
to the lower initial DMI for these pens of cattle during week 4. The
higher incidence of death loss and sick days presented by cattle from
Lowest ¼ groups may be associated to their faster rate of adaptation.
Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al. (2003) reported that ruminal pH profiles
differ substantially among cattle and even among individual cattle fed
equal amounts of identical diets at equal times. Therefore, pens of cattle
from Lowest ¼ groups when expressed as a percentage change basis
adapted faster to the high-concentrate diets offered even though their
DMI on week 7 was lower. Stresses associated with a rapid rate of
adaptation may be related to a depressed ruminal pH that could lead to
greater sick days and death loss. McGuffey et al. (1997) reported that
those dairy cows that had a 1% greater coefficient of DMI variation

114
A.M. Silvestre, et al.
during the first 21 days after calving exhibited a 4% greater incidence
of various diseases.
Due to holidays or weather conditions might impact measurement
of DMI during the 7th week on feed, alternative time intervals that were
correlated with DMI for the full feeding period also were tested. One
alternative period, the mean DMI from weeks 5, 6 and 8, which sur-
rounds and is similar to DMI on week 7, gave similar statistical results
when compared to the obtained based on week 7 alone. Those results
are not reported herein but are available on request.
Measuring DMI at various time intervals early during the finishing
period should prove useful to classify pens of cattle into groups with
regard to rate of gain and also should prove useful to detect specific
"outlier" pens for which increased medical attention or changes in bunk
or pen management could improve performance for the full feeding
period.
4. Conclusion
Daily gain of pens of commercial feedlot cattle during their full
feedlot finishing period of 140 to 180 days can be predicted reliably
based on intake of DM and NEg during their 7th week on feed or from
mean intakes during weeks 5, 6, and 8. Such data should aid in iden-
tifying specific pens of cattle that will have outstanding feedlot per-
formance overall or, conversely, for detecting pens of cattle that will
have substandard daily gain. Special attention to such pens should
allow an astute cattle manager, an alert health crew, and a skilled nu-
tritionist to intervene and provide solutions to improve subsequent pen
performance of individual pens of steers and heifers to improve overall
health and performance of pens of feedlot cattle. Furthermore, research
should test differences among groups sorted into quartiles based on 1)
overall ADG (a performance trait), and 2) overall G:F (the most im-
portant economic trait).
The analytical method developed in this study is not restricted to
the feedlot conditions in the United States, we encourage its utilization
in other feedlot dataset from the United States and other countries.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
Adams, D.R., Klopfenstein, T.J., Erickson, G.E., Griffin, W.A., Luebbe, M.K., Greenquist,
M.A., Benton, J.R., 2010. Effects of Sorting Steers By Body Weight Into Calf-Fed,
Summer Yearling, and Fall Yearling Feeding Systems. University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, pp. 755 Faculty Papers and Publications in Animal Science.
Bevans, D.W., Beauchemin, K.A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Mckinnon, J.J.,
Mcallister, T.A., 2005. Effect of rapid or gradual grain adaptation of subacute acidosis
and feed intake by feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 83, 1116–1132. https://doi.org/10.
2527/2005.8351116x.
Block, H.C., McKinnon, J.J., Mustafa, A.F., Christensen, D.A., 2001. Evaluation of the
1996 NRC beef model under western Canadian environmental conditions. J. Anim.
Sci. 79, 267–275 doi: jas.fass.org/content/79/1/267.
Bremer, V.R., Erickson, G.E., Klopfenstein, T.J., Smith, D.R., Hanford, K.J., Peterson, R.E.,
Burciaga-Robles, L.O., Faulkner, D.B., Krehbiel, C.R., 2010. Practical relationships
between morbidity and growth performance. J. Anim. Sci. 88 (E Suppl. 2), 178
(Abstr.).
Corona, L., Rodrigues, S., Ware, R.A., Zinn, R.A., 2005. Comparative effects of whole,
ground, dry-rolled, and steam-flaked corn on digestion and growth performance in
feedlot cattle. Prof. Anim. Sci. 21, 200–206.
Foote, A.P., Hales, K.E., Kuehn, L.A., Keisler, D.H., King, D.A., Shackelford, S.D., Wheeler,
115
Livestock Science 223 (2019) 108–115
T.L., Freetly, H.C., 2015. Relationship of leptin concentrations with feed intake,
growth, and efficiency in finishing beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 93, 4401–4407. https://
doi.org/10.2527/jas2015-9339.
Galyean, M.L., Malcolm-Callis, K.J., Garcia, D.R., Pulsipher, G.D. 1992. Effects of varying
the patterns of feed consumption on performance by programmed-fed steers. N. M.
Agric. Exp. Stn. PR 78.
Galyean, M.L., DiLorenzo, N., McMeniman, J.P., Defoor, P.J., 2011. Alpharma beef cattle
nutrition symposium: predictability of feedlot cattle growth performance. J. Anim.
Sci. 89, 1865–1872. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3328.
Guiroy, P.J., Fox, D.G., Tedeschi, L.O., Baker, M.J., Cravey, M.D., 2001. Predicting in-
dividual feed requirements of cattle fed in groups. J. Anim. Sci. 79, 1983–1995 doi.
jas.fass.org/content/79/8/1983.
Herd, R.M., Oddy, V.H., Richardson, E.C., 2004. Biological basis for variation in residual
feed intake in beef cattle. 1. review of potential mechanisms. Australian J. Exper. Agr.
44, 423–430. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA02220.
Hicks, R.B., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Martin, J.J., Strasia, C.A., 1990c. Effects of controlled
feed intake on performance and carcass characteristics of feedlot steers and heifers. J.
Anim. Sci. 68, 233–244.
Hicks, R.B., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Oltjen, J.W., Lake, R.P., 1990a. Dry matter intake by
feedlot beef steers: influence of initial weight, time on feed and season of year re-
ceived in Yard. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 254–265.
Hicks, R.B., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Oltjen, J.W., Lake, R.P., 1990b. Daily dry matter
intake by feedlot cattle: influence of breed and sex. J. Anim. Sci. 68, 245–253 doi.
jas.fass.org/content/68/1/245.
Hicks, R.B., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., Thornton, J.H., Lake, R.P., 1986. Feed intake by
feedlot beef steers: impact of initial weight and time on feed. In: Owens, F.N. (Ed.), 1
Feed Intake by Beef Cattle: Symposium. Oklahoma State University MP-121,
Stillwater, pp. 238.
Marques, R.S., Cooke, R.F., Francisco, C.L., Bohnert, D.W., 2012. Effects of twenty-four-
hour transport or twenty-four hour feed and water deprivation on physiologic and
performance responses of feeder cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 90, 5040–5046. https://doi.org/
10.2527/jas2012-5425.
McGuffey, R., Symanowski, J., Kube, J., Shirley, J., Wallace, R., Clark, J., 1997. Variation
in feed intake as a predictor for the subsequent occurrence of health conditions in the
postpartum transition cow. J. Dairy Sci. 80 (Suppl. 1), 251 (Abstr.).
McMeniman, J.P., Defoor, P.J., Galyean, M.L., 2009. Evaluation of the National Research
Council (1996) dry matter intake prediction equations and relationships between
intake and performance by feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 87, 1138–1146. https://doi.
org/10.2527/jas.2008-1326.
Meissner, H.H., Smuts, M., Coertze, R.J., 1995. Characteristics and efficiency of fast-
growing feedlot steers fed different dietary energy concentrations. J. Anim. Sci. 73,
931–936. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.734931x.
NASEM, 2016. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Nutrient
Requirements of Beef Cattle, 8th ed. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.17226/19014.
NRC, 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Press,
Washington, DC.
Owens, F.N., Zinn, R.A., Kim, Y.K., 1986. Limits to starch digestion in the ruminant small
intestine. J. Anim. Sci. 63, 1634 doi: jas.fass.org/content/63/5/1634.
Owens, F.N., Secrist, D.S., Gill, D.R., 1995. Impact of grain sources and grain processing
on feed intake and performance of feedlot cattle. In: Symposium: Intake by Feedlot
Cattle. Publ. P-942. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn., Stillwater. pp. 235–256.
Patterson, T., Klopfenstein, T.J., Milton, T., Brink, D.R., 2000. Evaluation of the 1996 Beef
Cattle NRC Model Predictions of Intake and Gain For Calves Fed Low Or Medium
Energy Density Diets. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska Nebraska Beef Cattle
Report, Paper 385.
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Hickman, D.D., Shah, M.A., Krehbiel, C.R., Genswein,
B.M.A., Silasi, R., Gibb, D.G., Crew, D.H., McAllister, T.A., 2011. Relationship be-
tween feeding behavior and performance of feedlot steers fed. J. Anim. Sci.
Champaign 89, 1180–1192. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2010-3007.
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Beauchemin, K.A., Gibb, D.J., Crews, D.H., Hickman Jr.,
D.D., Streeter, M., McAllister, T.A., 2003. Impact of bunk management on feeding
behavior, ruminal acidosis and performance of feedlot cattle: a review. J. Anim. Sci.
81 (E. Suppl. 2), E149–E158. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8114_suppl_2E149x.
Slabbert, N., Campher, J.P., Shelby, T., Leeuw, K.J., Kuhn, G.P., Meissner, H.H., 1992.
The influence of dietary energy concentration and feed intake level on feedlot steers.
3. carcass composition and tissue growth as influenced by rate of gain. S. Afr. J.
Anim. Sci. 22, 115.
Thornton, J.H., Owens, F.N., Gill, D.R., 1985. Feed intake by feedlot beef steers: Influence
of initial weight and time on feed. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stat. Res. Rep. MP117, 320.
Walker, R.S., Martin, R.M., Gentry, G.T., Gentry, L.R., 2015. Impact of cow size on dry
matter intake, residual feed intake, metabolic response, and cow performance. J.
Anim. Sci. 93, 672–684. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7702.
Webster, A.J.F., 1980. The energetic efficiency of growth. Livest. Prod. Sci. 7, 243–252.