A SYSTEM FOR EXPRESSING NET ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS AND FEED VALUES FOR
GROWING AND FINISHING BEEF CATTLE
G. P. LOFGREEN AND W. N. GARRETT
University of California, Davis 1
E ARLY in 1963 the authors introduced a
net energy system designed for use in the
growing and finishing phase of the beef cattle
industry (Lofgreen, 1963a, b, c). The system
separated the requirements for maintenance
from that for body weight gain and expressed
a net energy value of the feed for these two
functions. Such a system of expression was
suggested to the Nutrition Committee of the
National Research Council and was included
in the first printing of the N.R.C. Bulletin of
suggested energy terminOlogy as an errata
sheet replacing the original terminology (Har-
ris, 1962). For the past 4 years the suggested
method has been tested under various condi-
tions at this station, in commercial feedlots,
and by nutrition consultants working with the
cattle feeding industry and its adaptability to
practice has been demonstrated. I t is the pur-
pose of this paper to present the proposed sys-
tem in the scientific literature, describe the
experimental data upon which it is based, and
discuss its application. The terminology used
herein is that suggested in the first revision of
the N.R.C. Bulletin on energy terms (Harris,
1966).
D e v e l o p m e n t of the M e t h o d
The partial efficiency of energy utilization
for maintenance is higher than it is for produc-
tion (Kleiber, 1961). The net energy of a
feed will then vary with the level of feeding,
being higher at low levels of feeding and de-
creasing as feed intake increases. It is obvious,
therefore, that a system based upon net energy
must take this into consideration by listing
separate net energy values for different physi-
ological functions or incorporating efficiency
of utilization values for these functions.
Studies at this institution (Lofgreen et al.,
1963; Garrett et al., 1964) have shown that,
from maintenance to ad libitum feed consump-
tion, the partial net energy of a feed used for
1 Department of Animal Science. Part of the data used
herein was accumulated in studies which were conducted as
part of Western Regional Research Project W-94, Range
Livestock Nutrition.
793
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
weight gain does not deviate significantly
from linearity. This means that the partial
net energy of a feed when utilized for weight
gain above maintenance can be considered to
be constant. The partial net energy for main-
tenance of that quantity of feed needed to
maintain energy equilibrium is equal to the
heat production of the fasting animal. I t is
therefore more nearly constant than total net
energy because it depends to a large degree
upon the relatively constant basal heat pro-
duction (Kleiber, 1963). The partial net
energy of feeds for maintenance (NEn~) and
the partial net energy for production of weight
gain (NEg), therefore, are more nearly con-
stant then is the total net energy of a feed for
both maintenance and weight gain (NEm+g),
the latter being a weighted average of the NEro
and NEg depending upon the level of feeding.
I t seemed logical, therefore, that a net energy
system based upon the separate expressions,
NEro and NEg, would be more accurate than
one based upon NEn,+g which is known to
vary with feeding level.
Determination of NE,~ Requirements. In
order to measure the NEro requirement it is
necessary to know the heat production of the
fasting animal since this quantity of net en-
ergy must be furnished to keep the animal in
energy equilibrium. Classically, the heat pro-
duction of the fasting animal has been con-
sidered to be equal to basal metabolism and is
often expressed as 70W ~ with heat produc-
tion expressed in kcal. and W is bodyweight
in kg. Measurement of basal metabolic rate on
large numbers of ruminants is tedious and con-
sequently such measurements are not normally
made with large groups. I t is possible to indi-
rectly measure heat production (HP) at zero
feed intake by deducting energy balance (EB)
from metabolizable energy intake (ME) thus
HP~ME--EB.
Metabolizable energy is determined by de-
ducting from the gross energy the energy of
the feces, urine and methane, and energy re-
794 LOFGREEN AND GARRETT

tained is d e t e r m i n e d b y a c o m p a r a t i v e slaugh- was fed at three levels of intake, one approxi-

ter method. I n fed animals, H P is m a d e up of m a t i n g m a i n t e n a n c e , one at a d l i b i t u m i n t a k e
basal metabolism, h e a t i n c r e m e n t and h e a t and a third at an i n t e r m e d i a t e level. A second

p r o d u c e d b y activity. A t zero feed intake,
however, h e a t i n c r e m e n t is zero and the com-
ponents of H P are basal m e t a b o l i s m and h e a t
of a c t i v i t y which can be considered to be e q u a l
to the n e t e n e r g y r e q u i r e d for m a i n t e n a n c e or
N E .... I f H P is m e a s u r e d at v a r i o u s levels of
feeding it is possible to e s t i m a t e H P at zero
feed i n t a k e b y extrapolation. D a t a f r o m five
c o m p a r a t i v e s l a u g h t e r trials were used to ob-
tain an e s t i m a t e of h e a t p r o d u c t i o n at zero
feed i n t a k e and thus an e s t i m a t e of the NEro
r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h e studies i n v o l v e d a total of
208 feeder cattle v a r y i n g in initial w e i g h t
from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 230 to 300 kg. I n four of
the trials, the cattle were i n d i v i d u a l l y fed
their respective diets while t h e y were group-
fed in the fifth trial. T h e five diets u s e d v a r i e d
from 2 to 100% r o u g h a g e and were fed at two
or three levels of i n t a k e from m a i n t e n a n c e to
a d l i b i t u m . I n one trial a 2 % r o u g h a g e diet
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
trial i n v o l v e d a 100% r o u g h a g e diet fed at
maintenance, intermediate and ad libitum
levels. I n these two trials, three replicates of
six animals each were fed at each of the three
levels of i n t a k e ( L o f g r e e n et al., 1963). I n a
t h i r d s t u d y a 2 0 % r o u g h a g e diet was fed a t
m a i n t e n a n c e and a d l i b i t u m to a g r o u p of
eight animals at each level of feeding (Lof-
green and O t a g a k i , 1960). A f o u r t h trial in-
volved the feeding of a 2 5 % r o u g h a g e diet at
three levels of i n t a k e w i t h three replicates of
eight animals each at each level of feeding
( G a r r e t t , 1965) while in the fifth e x p e r i m e n t
a 4 0 % roughage diet was fed at two levels to
two replicates of six animals each ( L o f g r e e n
et al., 1962). I n each case energy retention
was m e a s u r e d b y the c o m p a r a t i v e slaughter
m e t h o d (Lofgreen, 1964) and h e a t p r o d u c t i o n
calculated b y d e d u c t i n g e n e r g y retained from
m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y intake. T a b l e 1 presents

TABLE 1. RESULTS OF FIVE COMPARATIVE SLAUGHTER TRIALS

Metabo]iz-
Daily able energy Energy Heat
Kind of No. of Level of Mean empty wt. intake retained produced
ration animals Sex feeding W~ - gain (g) (ME) (EB) (HP)
% roughage kg. kcal./day per W~
6 Heifers Low 57.9 --. 04 121 -- 1 122
6 Heifers Low 58.0 --. 04 142 -- 1 143
6 Heifers Low 58.8 0.07 142 '0 142
6 Heifers Medium 64.0 0.24 198 17 181
10D 6 Heifers Medium 64.2 0.25 193 16 187
6 Heifers Medium 63.2 0.23 194 15 179
6 Heifers Ad lib. 68.9 0.65 290 44 246
6 Heifers Ad lib. 67.8 0~ 59 301 42 259
6 Heifers Ad lib. 66.8 0.62 302 38 264
6 Steers Low 64.1 --. 07 100 --7 107
40 6 Steers Ad lib. 79.0 0.64 204 31 173
8 Steers Low 60.1 0.04 133 1 132
8 Steers Low 64.1 0.20 125 3 122
8 Steers Low 63.6 0.16 125 5 120
8 Steers Medium 68.3 0.59 194 23 171
25 8 Steers Medium 70.9 0.73 186 18 168
8 Steers Medium 69.7 0.59 190 26 164
8 Steers Ad lib. 76.3 1.32 335 66 269
8 Steers Ad lib. 79.5 1.38 309 78 231
8 Steers Ad lib. 75.8 1.14 264 59 205
8 Steers Low 75.7 0.30 141 7 134
20 8 Steers Ad lib. 88.8 1.01 264 55 209
6 Heifers Low 61.2 0.10 116 9 107
6 Heifers Low 61.6 0.16 131 14 117
6 Heifers Low 63.7 0.09 134 8 126
6 Heifers Medium 70.3 0.70 202 47 155
2 6 Heifers Medium 66.6 0.58 196 37 159
6 Heifers Medium 68.9 0.57 199 40 159
6 Heifers Ad lib. 75.3 1.08 258 72 186
6 Heifers Ad lib. 75.3 1.13 272 75 197
6 Heifers Ad lib. 73.1 1.14 269 72 197
 SYSTEM FOR N E T E N E R G Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S 795

300
27,5 /
EACH POINT IS THE MEAN OF 6 OR 8 9 /o

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
250 ANIMALS. TOTAL = 208
/.
225

200

180

160
--I
r
v.
140

/.
LLI
--b
f-~
120
./
IJJ /
"1"
I00
>,
/ LOG HP =1.8851 + 0.00166 ME
/
/ r = 0.97
90 /
/ 8y.x = 0.0293
/
8O /

7( . 9 * 9 J ! | s i | ! | a I i 9 , . 9 I , J * , I | * | 9 I * 9 9 9

0 50 I00 150 200 2,50 800 85Q

DAILY METABOLIZABLE ENERGY INTAKE, KCAL./wO.675
l~Jgure 1. Determination of {asfing heat production.

a summary of the results of the five trials and kcal. per W~ with the mean value being 77
figure 1 shows the relationship between heat kcal. The average NEro requirement for these
production and metabolizable energy intake. cattle, therefore, can be considered to be equal
In describing this relationship a logarithmic to 77 kcal. per W~ Since it is normally
equation was used since extrapolation to zero more convenient to express energy require-
energy intake results in a more realistic esti- ments of cattle in megcal, the NEro require-
mate of fasting heat production. Over the ment can be expressed
range from maintenance to ad libitum feed
consumption, however, the relationship does NEro=0.077W ~ ( 1)
not differ significantly from linearity. The
equation describing this relationship is where NEro is in megcal, per day and W is
bodyweight in kg.
Log H P = 1.8851 @0.00166ME In order to compare the NEro requirements
of steers and heifers, data were examined
where HP and ME are in kcal. per W~ from two comparative slaughter experiments
The log of the heat produced by the fasting in which steers and heifers were fed the same
animal, therefore, is equal to 1.8851• diets. In one trial, 64 steers divided into eight-
The antilogs of these limits are 72 and 82, steer replicates were compared to 64 heifers,
indicating that the heat production of fasting with each sex being fed a 25~. roughage diet
beef cattle probably lies between 72 and 82 at a restricted and ad libitum feed allowance.
796 LOFGREEN AND GARRETT

I n t h e s e c o n d t r i a l 54 s t e e r s were c o m p a r e d gression e q u a t i o n s are n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y differ-

w i t h a like n u m b e r of heifers. T h r e e s i x - a n i m a l ent, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e h e a t p r o d u c e d b y f a s t -
r e p l i c a t e s of e a c h sex w e r e fed a t a low, me- ing s t e e r s a n d h e i f e r s is n o t d i f f e r e n t a n d t h u s

d i u m a n d a d l i b i t u m feed a l l o w a n c e ( G a r r e t t
et al., 1 9 6 4 ) . T h e r e s u l t s of t h e two s t u d i e s
are s h o w n in t a b l e 2. Since t h e p r o p o r t i o n of
r o u g h a g e to c o n c e n t r a t e w a s n o t t h e s a m e a t
all levels of f e e d i n g t h e s e d a t a do n o t p e r m i t
a n a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e of t h e t r u e h e a t p r o d u c -
t i o n a t zero i n t a k e as was d o n e w i t h t h e d a t a
i n t a b l e 1. T h e y do, h o w e v e r , p e r m i t a d i r e c t
c o m p a r i s o n of t h e two sexes t o d e t e r m i n e if
t h e r e is a difference in t h e h e a t p r o d u c e d a t
no feed i n t a k e a n d t h u s a difference in t h e
m a i n t e n a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of
h e a t p r o d u c t i o n a n d m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y in-
t a k e for t h e s t e e r s a n d h e i f e r s is c o m p a r e d in
figure 2. T h e p o i n t s of o r i g i n of t h e two re-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
t h e e n e r g y r e q u i r e m e n t for m a i n t e n a n c e p e r
u n i t of W~ is n o t different. I t a p p e a r s ,
t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e e n e r g y e x p e n d e d for m a i n -
t e n a n c e for b o t h steers a n d h e i f e r s c a n b e
e s t i m a t e d b y e q u a t i o n 1 a n d is e q u a l to 0.077
megcal, p e r W~
Determination o] N E , ~ V a l u e s o] t h e R a -
t i o n . T h a t q u a n t i t y of feed i n t a k e p e r u n i t of
W~ r e q u i r e d to m a i n t a i n t h e a n i m a l in
e n e r g y e q u i l i b r i u m will h a v e a NEro e q u a l to
t h e h e a t p r o d u c e d a t n o feed i n t a k e or 0.077
megcal. T h e feed i n t a k e r e q u i r e d to m a i n t a i n
energy equilibrium can be measured rather
s i m p l y f r o m t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of h e a t p r o -
d u c e d to m e t a b o l i z a b l e e n e r g y i n t a k e . I f a

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF STEERS AND HEIFERS FED THE SAME RATION

Metaboliz-
Daily able energy Energy Heat
Kind of No. of Level of Mean empty wt. intake retained produced
ration animals Sex feeding W~ . gain (g) (ME) (EB) (HP)
% roughage kg. kcal./day per W~
8 Steers Low 68.7 0.27 140 17 123
8 Steers Low 68.6 0.32 156 10 146
8 Steers Low 68.6 0.31 151 21 130
8 Steers Low 71.4 0.52 169 25 144
25 8 Steers Ad lib. 80.0 1.14 274 62 212
8 Steers Ad lib. 80.3 1.16 276 71 205
8 Steers A d lib. 82.5 1.32 289 80 209
8 Steers A d lib. 79.7 1.16 262 72 190
6 Steers Low 68.3 0.17 144 13 131
40 6 Steers Low 66.3 0.18 146 13 133
6 Steers Low 69.3 0.15 146 14 132
6 Steers Medium 74.2 0.64 200 36 164
23 6 Steers Medium 69.5 0.55 196 30 166
6 Steers Medium 71.4 0.62 208 39 169
6 Steers Ad lib. 78,4 1.15 282 73 209
30 6 Steers Ad lib. 78.0 1.09 280 68 212
6 Steers Ad lib. 78,3 1.12 285 73 212
8 Heifers Low 65.9 0.22 144 13 131
8 Heifers Low 67.4 0.37 164 24 140
8 Heifers Low 64.1 0.35 155 22 133
8 Heifers Low 67.4 0.57 182 34 148
25 8 Heifers Ad lib. 74,5 1.16 290 78 212
8 Heifers A d lib. 75.2 0.96 267 68 199
8 Heifers Ad lib. 74.9 1.21 289 92 197
8 Heifers Ad lib. 77.0 1.10 278 76 202
6 Heifers Low 60.4 0.20 148 12 136
40 6 Heifers Low 60.9 0.18 147 15 132
6 Heifers Low 60.2 0.18 149 12 137
6 Heifers Medium 65.1 0.61 207 41 166
23 6 Heifers Medium 66.6 0.58 208 40 168
6 Heifers Medium 66.5 0.63 217 43 174
6 Heifers Ad lib. 72.2 1.07 290 71 219
30 6 Heifers A d lib. 72.9 1.02 275 71 204
6 Heifers Ad lib. 72.1 1.10 302 74 228
 SYSTEM FOR N E T E N E R G Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S 797

aoo EACH POINT IS THE MEAN OF b OR 8 ANIMALS.

TOTAL = 118 OF EACH SEX

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
2,50
* * STEERS

200
o--- ----o HEIFERS

S~'O
J 0 o0

~,.6 180
0"
"- 160
.J

140
I.hl
0
0
0
~2o
LO
STEERS: LOG HP = 1.9073 + 0.00148 ME
Jo0
HEIFERS: LOG HP = 1.9174 * 0.00142 ME

8O | , i i I , i , , I f , ' I ~ | | i | I I I , , l , t , , l l ! , i

0 ,SO IO0 150 200 250 300 35~

DAILY METABOLIZABLE ENERGY INTAKE, KCAL./W 0"75
KS.
l~igure 2. Comparison of the h e a t p r o d u c t i o n of s t e e r s a n d h e i f e r s .

diet is fed at an ad libitum level and the heat take of 131 kcal, of metabolizable energy per
production determined, one may use this W ~ 751~.. since at this intake heat production is
quantity of heat produced as one point in a also equal to 131 kcal. At a metabolizable
regression line and the heat produced at fast- energy content of 2.04 kcal. per gram of feed,
ing as a second point to establish a regression it would require 64.2 gm. of feed to furnish
of heat production on metabolizable energy 131 kcal. of metabolizable energy, and thus
intake. From the equation describing this re- energy equilibrium could be maintained on an
lationship, the metabolizable energy intake intake of 64.2 gm. of this feed per W~
and quantity of feed consumed at energy This quantity of feed has a NEro equal to the
equilibrium can be determined. For example, heat production at fasting or 77 kcal. The
from the data in table 1 for the heifers fed NEro of this feed is therefore 77 kcal. in 64.2
100% roughage ad libitum, it can be calcu- gm. or 1.20 megcal, per kg.
lated that the mean heat production is 264 Determin'ation oj NE~j Requirements. The
kcal. at a metabolizable energy intake of 298 NEg requirement for weight gain is simply the
kcal. Using this as one point and 77 kcal. as energy deposited in the gain. In table 3, data
heat production at zero metabolizable energy are shown comparing the energy deposited by
intake, the regression equation describing the 264 steers with that deposited by an equal
linear relationship between log HP and ME is number of heifers at different rates of gain.
In each comparison, the steers and heifers
Log H P ~ 1.8865 @0.00175ME. were fed the same diet. The correlation coeffi-
It can be determined from this equation that cients between empty weight gain and energy
energy equilibrium can be achieved at an in- gain were 0.97 and 0.98 for the steers and
798 LOFGREEN AND GARRETT

TABLE 3. GAINS IN EMPTY BODYWEIGHT AND ENERGY OF STEERS AND HEIFERS FED
THE SAME RATIONS
Steers Heifers

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
Number of Daily empty Daily Daily empty Daily
each sex Mean W~ wt. gain energy gain Mean W~ wt. gain energy gain
kg. megcal, kg. megcal.
6 69.3 0.15 0.970 60.2 0.18 0.722
6 68.3 0.17 0.888 60.4 0.20 0.725
6 66.3 0.18 0.862 60.9 0.18 0.914
8 61.0 0.23 1.055 62.2 0.38 1.437
8 68.7 0.27 1.168 65.9 0.22 0.857
8 68.6 0.31 1.441 64.1 0.35 1.410
8 68.6 0.32 0.686 67.4 0.37 1.618
6 69.9 0.33 1.426 62.4 0.36 1.392
6 68.5 0.33 0,199 76.5 0.37 1.645
6 64.9 0.35 1,058 61.5 0.22 0,640
8 65.9 0.49 2.320 65.6 0.69 3.208
8 66.5 0.51 1.902 67.0 0.66 2.680
8 71.4 0.52 1.785 67.4 0.57 2.292
6 71.0 0.54 1.605 79.3 0.59 2.236
6 69.5 0.55 2.085 66.6 0.58 2.664
6 71.5 0.56 2,653 66.0 0.67 3.300
6 71.4 0.62 2,785 66.5 0.63 2.860
6 66.5 0.64 2,514 66.1 0.60 2.300
6 74.2 0.64 2.671 65.1 0.61 2.669
6 69.5 0.70 2,648 67.3 0.65 2.430
6 70.7 0.78 2,969 65.6 0.67 2.519
6 74.8 0.83 2.730 80.2 0.74 3.537
6 74.0 0.83 4.144 66.9 0.79 3.981
6 74.0 0.84 2.819 80.2 0.71 3.801
8 69.8 0.90 3,790 70.9 1.05 4.495
6 78.0 1.09 5.304 72.9 1.02 5.176
6 77.0 1.09 4.689 83.4 1.05 5,780
6 77.0 1.10 6.160 70.7 1.18 6,815
6 78.3 1.12 5.718 72.1 1.10 5.335
8 80.0 1.14 4.960 74.5 1.16 5,811
96 78.4 1.15 5.723 72.2 1.07 5.126
8 80.3 1.16 5.701 75.2 0.96 5.114
8 79.7 1.16 5.738 77.0 1.10 5,852
6 74.5 1.18 5.357 71.4 1.04 5,198
6 73.6 1.20 5.675 71.9 1.18 6.018
6 78.5 1.22 5.581 82.9 1.01 5.778
8 82.5 1.32 6.600 74.9 1.21 6.891

heifers, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e if tively, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t w i t h b o t h sexes t h e

t h e e n e r g y c o n c e n t r a t i o n in t h e w e i g h t g a i n
c h a n g e s a s t h e r a t e of g a i n i n c r e a s e s a n d to
c o m p a r e t h e r a t e of c h a n g e of s t e e r s a n d
heifers, a n e q u a t i o n of t h e t y p e
Y=aX b
was fitted to t h e d a t a . Y in t h i s e q u a t i o n is
t h e e n e r g y gain, X is t h e e m p t y w e i g h t g a i n
and a and b are constants determined from
t h e d a t a . T h i s t y p e of e q u a t i o n w a s c h o s e n
since i t p a s s e s t h r o u g h t h e origin a n d t h u s
gives r e a l i s t i c v a l u e s a t low r a t e s of g a i n a n d
t h e e x p o n e n t , b, r e p r e s e n t s t h e r a t i o of t h e
specific r a t e s of i n c r e a s e of e n e r g y g a i n a n d
w e i g h t gain. T h e n u m e r i c a l v a l u e s of b for
s t e e r s a n d h e i f e r s w e r e 1.11 a n d 1.18, respec-
e n e r g y c o n c e n t r a t i o n in t h e w e i g h t g a i n in-
creases as t h e r a t e of g a i n i n c r e a s e s a n d t h a t
t h e i n c r e a s e is m o r e r a p i d in heifers. T o elimi-
n a t e t h e effect of b o d y size, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
b e t w e e n e n e r g y g a i n in kcal. p e r u n i t of
W~ and empty weight gain was deter-
m i n e d . T h e v a l u e s of t h e e x p o n e n t , b were re-
d u c e d to 1.02 a n d 1.07 for s t e e r s a n d heifers,
respectively, by expressing energy gain per
u n i t of W~ indicating that bodyweight
w a s a c c o u n t i n g for some, b u t n o t all, of t h e
i n c r e a s e in e n e r g y c o n c e n t r a t i o n of t h e w e i g h t
g a i n as r a t e of g a i n i n c r e a s e d . I n o r d e r to o b -
t a i n t h e b e s t e s t i m a t e of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p be-
tween energy gain and weight gain, the stand-
a r d e r r o r of t h e e s t i m a t e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e
e x p o n e n t i a l e q u a t i o n w a s c o m p a r e d to t h a t of
 SYS'I'EM FOR N E T E N E R G Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S
a parabola and a parabola adjusted to pass
through the origin. The standard errors of the
estimate were 6.6, 5.9 and 6.0 for the three
curves for steers and 5.0, 4.4 and 4.5 for
heifers. Since the parabola which passes
through the origin has essentially the same
standard error as the unadjusted parabola it
was chosen because of the more realistic val-
ues obtained at low rates of gain. Figure 3
presents this relationship for steers and figure
4 for heifers. Thus for any size animal the
energy stored in the weight gain or the NEg
requirement can be expressed
for steers
N E v : (52.72g-~ 6.84g'-' ) (W "~n )
for heifers
NE~---(56.03g t-12.65g-')(W ''.7:')
where NE~ is in kcal., g is daily gain in kg.
and W is lmdyweight in kg.
Determination o/.YE,~ Values of the Ration.
The NEg value of a feed is equal to the energy
deposited in the badyweight gain brought
about by feeding the particular feed in ques-
tion. This has normally been determined by
feeding the experimental diet at two levels and
measuring the energy deposition brought
,ooL,
|
I_ ,
/t - .. ~176
I-
'" 20 f 9 ~ ~176
0 I I P~ I |
0 0.2 0.4
DAILY EMPTY
Figure 3. The relationship of weight gain and energy gain of steers.
799
about by the increase in feed intake between
the two levels. This has classically been called
the "difference trial." Table 4 illustrates a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
difference trial involving the data shown in
table 1 for the heifers fed 100~/~. roughage. In
this case the ad libitum feed intake served as
one level of feeding and the intake at energy
equilibrium as previously determined served
as the second level. Any two levels of feeding
above maintenance can be used in a difference
trial but a large difference will result in a
more accurate estimate of the NEg value of
the ration. The NE~ value of 0.5 megcal, per
kg. for the 100G roughage diet can be com-
pared with NE,,, value of 1.20 for the same
(2) diet. The same determinations made from the
data in table I for heifers fed the 2% rough-
(3) age diet yield values of 1.67 and 1.22 megcal.
per kg. for NE,,, and NE..., respectively. For
maintenance, therefore, the 100% roughage
diet is 72% as valuable as the 25;~ roughage
diet (1.201.67). For production of weight
gains, however, the 100c~c roughage diet was
only 415~ as valuable as the 25{ roughage
diet (0.5.1.22). It appears, therefore, that
this system may overcome the common criti-
cism that net energy systems do not give
roughages a higher value for maintenance
STEERS
9
.....
! I' I I , I I !
0.6 0.8 hO 1,2 1.4
WEIGHT GAIN, K6.
800 L O F G R E E N AND G A R R E T T

120
HEIFERS

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
~,
I00 Y = 36.03X + 12.65X z
Sy~ =.4.,5

./.
"-

40 9 9 9

~, 20

l t I I l | I l I I t t I

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 hO 1.2 1.4

DALLY EMPTY. WEIGHT GAfN, KG.
Figure 4. The relationship of weight gain and energy gain of heifers.

than for production in relation to concen- sible to quickly find the requirements for ani-
trates. mals of a given weight and rate of gain. Ta-
Tables o/ Requirements and Feed Values. bles 5 and 6 are examples of such tables
In order to apply the proposed system to diet expressing both NEro and NEg requirements.
formulation and feed evaluation, statements More detailed tables requiring less interpola-
of requirements and feed values must be avail- tion could be made by use of the appropriate
able in readily usable form. Equations 1, 2 and equations.
3 may be used to calculate the requirements Although NEro and NEg values of some
at any weight and for any rate of gain. I t is, commonly used feeds are being determined at
however, often advantageous to have tables of this station, these values are currently avail-
requirements available from which it is pos- able on limited numbers of feeds. At present
it is necessary, therefore, to estimate NEro and
TABLE 4. A DIFFERENCE TRIAL TO NEg values from existing information.
DETERMINE NEe VALUES Since the NEro content of a feed is directly
related to the quantity of that feed required
Level Feed Energy
of feeding intake gain to maintain energy equilibrium and since it re-
quires more of the poorer quality feeds to
g. per kcal. per maintain energy equilibrium than it does of
W~ WO-7~k~"
higher quality feeds, the relationship of the
Ad libitum 146 41 amount of feed required to maintain energy
Equilibrium 64 0
equilibrium to the metabolizable energy con--
Differences 82 41 centration in the feed was investigated. Figure
g presents this relationship determined on 34
N E ~ 4 1 / 8 2 or 0.5 kcal./g.
diets varying in metabolizable energy content
 SYSTEM FOR NET ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 801
TABLE 5. N E T ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF GROWING AND FINISHING STEERS

Daily Bodyweight, ks.

gain 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
kg. NEro required, megcal,/day
0 3.30 3.70 4.10 4.48 4.84 5.22 5.55 5.89 6,24 6.56 6.89 7.21 7.52 7.83 8.14
NE,- required, megcal./day
0.1 0.23 0,26 0.28 0.31 0,34 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0,.54 0.56
0.2 0.46 0.52 0.57 0.63 0 68 0.73 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.92 0.97 1.01 1.06 1.10 1.14
0.3 0.70 0.79 0.87 0.95 1.03 1.11 1.18 1.26 1.33 1.40 1.47 1.54 1.61 1,67 1.74
04 0.95 1.07 1.18 1.29 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.80 1,89 1.99 2,08 2.17 2.26 2.34
0.5 1.20 1.35 1.49 1.63 1.77 1.90 202 2.15 2.27 2.39 2.51 2.63 2.74 2,85 2.97
0.6 1.46 1,64 1.81 1,98 2.15 2.30 2.46 2.61 2.76 2.91 3.05 3.i9 3.33 3.47 3.60
0.7 1.73 1.94 2.14 2 34 2.53 2.72 2.90 3.08 3.26 3.43 3.60 3.77 3.93 4.09 4.25
0.8 2.00 2.24 2.47 2.70 2.93 3.15 3.36 3.57 3.77 3.97 4.17 4.36 4.55 4.73 4.92
0.9 2.27 2.55 2.81 3.08 3.34 3.58 3.82 4.06 4.29 4.52 4.74 4,97 5.I8 5,39 5.60
1 0 2.55 2.86 3.16 3.46 3.75 4.03 4.29 4.56 4.82 5.08 5.33 5.58 5.82 6,06 6.29
1.1 2,84 3.19 3.52 3.85 4.17 4.48 4.78 5.08 5.37 5,65 5.93 6.21 6.47 6.74 7.00
1.2 3.13 3.52 3.88 4.25 4.60 4.94 5,27 5.60 5.92 6.24 6.55 6.85 7.14 7.44 7.73
1.3 3.43 3.85 4.26 4 65 5.04 5,41 5.77 6,14 6.g9 6.83 7.17 7.51 7.82 8,15 8.46
1.4 3.74 4.19 4.63 5.07 5.49 5.89 6.29 6.68 7.06 7,44 7.81 8.17 8.52 8.87 9.22
1.5 4.05 4.54 5.02 5.49 5.95 6.39 6.81 7.24 7.65 8.06 8.46 8.85 9.23 9.61 9.98

from 1.92 to 2.78 megcal, per kg. on a 90fi,.
dry matter basis. It is apparent that it is pos-
sible to predict the feed required to maintain
energy equilibrium with a relatively high de-
gree of accuracy from the metabolizable en-
ergy content of the feed. The quantity of feed
necessary to maintain energy equilibrium per
W~ has a NEro of 0.077 megcal. It is ap-
parent, therefore, that the NE,~ values of
feeds may be estimated from their metaboliz-
able energy content,
Figure 6 presents the relationship of the
NEg value of the diet to the feed intake re-
quired to maintain energy equilibrium. It ap-
pears from the relationships presented in fig-
ures 5 and 6 that it is possible to estimate the
feed required for energy equilibrium from the
metabolizable energy content of the feed and
determine from this both the NEro and NE~.
value. For example, using these relationships
it can be determined that a feed having a
metabolizable energy content of 1.9 megcal.
per kg. would have NEm and NEg values of
1.12 and 0.55 megcal, per kg., respectively,
while comparable values for a feed containing
2.7 megcal, of metabolizable energy per kg.
would be 1.76 and 1.18 megcal, per kg. Thus,
for maintenance the low energy feed is worth
approximately 64~'o of the high energy feed
while for production it is worth only 47%.
Table 7 presents the NEro and NEg values of
selected feeds. In most cases the net energy

TABLE 6. N E T ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF GROWING AND FINISHING HEIFERS

Daily Bo.tyweight, kg.

gain 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 475 500
kg. NE,n required, megeal./day
0 3.30 3.70 4.10 4.48 4.84 5.22 5.55 5.89 6.24 6.56 6.89 7.21 7.52 7.83 8.14
NE~ required, megcal./day
0.1 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.56 0 58 0.61
0 2 0.50 0.56 0.62 0.68 0.74 0.79 0.84 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.14 1.19 1.24
0.3 0.77 0.86 0.95 1.04 1.13 1.21 1.29 1.37 1.45 1.53 1.60 1.68 1.75 1.83 1.90
0.4 1.05 1.18 1.30 1.42 1.34 1.65 1.76 1.87 1.98 2.08 2,18 2.29 2 39 2,49 2.58
0.5 1.34 1.50 1,66 1.81 1.96 2,11 2.25 2.39 2.53 2,66 2.79 2.92 3.05 3.17 3.30
0.6 1.64 1.84 2.03 2.22 2.40 2.58 2.75 2.92 3.09 3.26 3.41 3.88 3.73 3 88 4,03
0.7 1.95 2.18 2.42 2.64 2.85 3.07 3.27 3.48 3.68 3.87 4.06 4.26 4.44 4.62 4.80
0 8 2.28 2.55 2.81 3.07 3.33 3,58 3.82 4.05 4.28 4.51 4.73 4.96 5 17 5.38 5.59
0.9 2.60 2.92 3.23 3.52 3.81 4.10 4.37 4.65 4.91 5.18 5.42 5,68 5,93 6,17 6.41
1.0 2.94 3.30 3.65 3.99 4.32 4.64 4.95 5.26 5.56 5.86 6.14 6.44 6.71 6.99 7.26
1.1 3.30 3.70 4.09 4 47 4.84 5.20 5.55 5.89 6.23 6.56 6.88 7.21 7.52 7,83 8.13
1.2 3,66 4.11 4.55 4.96 5.37 5.78 6.16 6.55 6.92 7.29 7.64 8.01 8 35 8,69 9.03
1.3 4.04 4.5,3 5.0i 5.47 5.92 6,37 6.79 7.22 7.63 8.04 8.42 8.83 9.21 9.58 9.96
1 4 4.42 4.96 5.49 6.00 6.49 6.98 7.44 7.91 8.36 8.81 9.23 9.67 10.09 t0,50 10.91
1.5 4.82 5.41 5.98 6.54 7.07 7.61 8.11 8.62 9.11 9,60 10.06 10.54 11.00 11.44 11.90
802 LOFGREEN AND GARRETT

80
EACH POINT IS THE MEAN OF 6 TO 9 ANIMALS.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
. TOTAL = 339
7o

,,.-,

60

1,1

>., 50 .,

2
ILl

e,,"
0
Ia.
LOG Y = 2 . 3 0 3 0 -0.2455 X
IJJ
ec 40 r =-0.97
0
IJ.I Sy. x = 2 . 0

IJJ
W
| I | I l I I l i
1,8 2,0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
METABOLIZABLE ENERGY IN FEED~ KCAL./GM. I AS FED
Figure 5. The relationship of metabolizable energy concentration and
feed Iequired to maintain energy equilibrium.

values have been calculated from the metabo-
lizable energy shown in N.R.C. (1966) b y the
procedure described above. I n the case of
feeds where there are no reliable values for
metabolizable energy the values shown for net
energy were either determined directly or cal-
culated from T D N by assuming one gram of
T D N equals 3.6 kcal. of metabolizable energy.
T h e T D N values were either determined di-
rectly or taken from Morrison (1956). Similar
tables could be prepared on any feeds for
which there are data on metabolizable energy
or T D N .
A p p l i c a t i o n of t h e S y s t e m
The proposed system has a number of pos-
sible applications. N e t energy systems are
commonly not recommended for use under
maintenance conditions because of their ten-
dency t o underevaluate roughages in relation
to concentrates for maintenance. For example,
Morrison (1956) uses data from Kellner and
A r m b s y to show that wheat straw is 4 2 % as
valuable as ground corn as a source of metabo-
lizable energy but only 12% as valuable as a
source of net energy. Thus the net energy
value underestimates the value of wheat straw
for maintenance and it is commonly recom-
mended that digestible or metabolizable en-
ergy be used under maintenance conditions.
T h e proposed n e t energy system gives corn
grain and wheat straw NEro values of 2.03
and 0.91 megcal, per kg., respectively, and
NE~. values of 1.32 and 0.14. Thus, for main-
tenance, wheat straw is 45% as valuable as
corn grain but for production it is worth only
11 ~ the value of corn. The proposed system,
therefore, appears to be applicable to mainte-
nance conditions as well as for production.
An example of its use in diet formulation
for production is shown in table 8. The N.R.C.
(1963) indicates that a 350 kg. finishing calf
should gain 1 kg. per d a y on 8.8 kg. of feed.
I t can be determined that the feed should con-
tain approximately 0.97 megcal, of NE~ per
kg. in order to meet the energy requirements.
The diet shown in table 8 was, therefore, for-
 SYSTEM FOR N E T E N E R G Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S 803
mulated to contain this quantity of NEg using quantity of this ration would be expected to
the net energy wtlues shown in table 7. No at- gain 0.88 kg. per day.
tempt was made to adjust the NE,,, values. A Another useful application of the system is
check on the adequacy' of such a diet can be in the calculation of the quantity' of feed re-

made by calculating the gain expected if a 350
kg. steer consumed 8.8 kg. of the diet. From
table 5 it is determined that a 350 kg. animal
requires 6.24 megcal, of NE,,, per day for
maintenance. At a NE,,, concentration of 1.62
megcal, per kg. of diet, it requires 3.85 kg. of
diet to meet the maintenance requirement,
leaving 4.95 kg. available for weight gain. At
a NE~ concentration of 0.97 megcal, per kg.
there are 4.80 megcal. NE~ available for depo-
sition in weight gain. From table 5 it can be
determined that a 350 kg. steer depositing
4.80 megcal. NE~ should gain approximately
1.0 kg. per day which was the expected rate
of gain for a 350 kg. animal eating 8.8 kg. of
feed daily'. By, use of table 6 it can be deter-
mined that a 350 kg. heifer eating the same
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
quired to produce a desired rate of gain. For
example, it is possible to calculate the amount
of alfalfa hay required to permit a 250 kg.
calf to gain 0.5 kg. per day. From table 5 it
can be determined that such an animal re-
quires 4.84 megcal. NE,,, daily plus 1.77 meg-
cal. NE~ to produce a gain of 0.5 kg. Table 7
indicates that 24~.; fiber alfalfa hay contains
1.12 megca]. NE,,, and 0.54 megcal. NE~, per
k~. It would require, therefore, 4.32 kg. of
alfalfa for maintenance and 3.28 kg. for gain
making a total of 7.6 kg. per day for the de-
sired rate of gain. This is a consumption equal
to approximately 3G of bodyweight. By use
of table 6 it can be' calculated that heifers of
the same size would gain approximately 0,45
kg. on the same quantity of hay.

I,S
1.4 EACH POINT IS THE MEAN OF 6 TO 9 ANIMALS.

1.3 TOTAL = 312

1.2

,. I.I
9 9 9 1 499

0.8

0,7
Y = 2.29 - 0 . 0 2 5 4 X , ~ "
r : -0.96 ~ .
0.$ $y.x : 0.07 .~
0.4
0.3 ,I,I, I l l l | , | l I , l l l , I,I ml. l * l l l l l , I I I

40 45 ,50 53 60 65 70 75

Figure 6. The relationship of feed required to maintain energy

equilibrium and NE~ concentration.
804 LOFGREEN AND GARRETT

TABLE 7. NET ENERGY VALUES OF TABLE 8. COMPOSITION OF A RATION

SELECTED FEEDS
Feed Amount NE,. NE.
For For

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
maintenance production % megcal./kg.
Feed (NE,.) (NE~) Alfalfa hay, 24% fiber 14 0.16 0.07
Oat hay 6 0.06 0.02
megcal./kg. Cottonseed hulls 5 0.05 0.01
Dry roughages (90% dry matter) Barley grain 28 0.54 0.36
Alfalfa hay, 21% fiber 1.23 0.70 Wheat mill run 15 0.26 0.15
Alfalfa hay, 24% fiber 1.12 0.54 Beet pulp, molasses, dried 10 0.18 0.12
Alfalfa hay, 29% fiber 1.01 0.30 Cottonseed meal 10 0.14 0.09
Barley hay 1.11 0.47 Molasses, cane 8 0.14 0.09
Barley straw 0.91 0.14 Fat 2 0.09 0.06
Corn cobs, ground 0.95 0.28 Additives 2 ........
Corn fodder, well eared, dry 1.27 0.75
Corn stover 1.10 0.52 Totals 100 1.62 0.97
Cottonseed hulls 0.93 0.20
Oat hay 1.03 0.36
Timothy hay, before bloom 1.23 0.70
Timothy hay, late bloom 1.03 0.38 t h e case of b o t h t h e c r a c k e d a n d p e l l e t e d c o r n
Wheat straw 0.91 0.14 t h e o b s e r v e d g a i n w a s 5 ~ g r e a t e r t h a n t h e ex-
Silages (30% dry matter) p e c t e d g a i n as c o m p u t e d f r o m t h e n e t e n e r g y
Alfalfa, wilted, good quality 0.39 0.21 r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d feed values. O n t h e b a s i s
Corn, dent, well matured,
well eared 0.49 0.29 of t h e g a i n s t h e o r e t i c a l l y possible, a d r o p of
Sorghum, sweet or dual 0.12 kg. w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d in t h e d a i l y g a i n
purpose 0.44 0.20 of t h e a n i m a l s fed t h e p e l l e t e d corn. T h e ob-
Concentrates (90% dry matter) s e r v e d d r o p w a s 0,13 kg. I t a p p e a r s , t h e r e f o r e ,
Barley grain 1.93 1.27
Beet pulp, molasses, dried 1.83 1.21 t h a t t h e d r o p in feed c o n s u m p t i o n does, in
Brewers' grains, dried 1.28 0.77 fact, a c c o u n t for all t h e d e c r e a s e in p e r f o r -
Coconut meal, solvent 1.51 1.00 m a n c e of t h e s e a n i m a l s since t h e o b s e r v e d
Corn grain, dent, No. 2 2.03 1.32 d r o p was p r e d i c t e d . T h e r e a p p e a r s to b e n o
Corn and cob meal d e c l i n e in efficiency of u t i l i z a t i o n of t h e
(ground ear corn) 1.78 1.19
Cottonseed meal, 41%, energy.
solvent extr. 1.40 0.90
Fat (98% dry matter) 4.46 2.80
Hominy feed, 5% fat 2.13 1.47 TABLE 9. EVALUATION OF AN E X P E R I M E N T
Linseed meal, solvent extr. 1.61 1.08 COMPARING CRACKED AND
Milo grain 1.93 1.27 PELLETED CORN
Molasses, cane (71% dry
matter) 1.43 0.90 Preparation of corn
Oat grain 1.66 1.12
Rice bran 1.50 1.00 Item Cracked Pelleted
Soybean meal, expeller or
hydraulic extr. 1.85 1.23 Number of steers 36 54
Soybean meal, solvent extr. 1.72 1.15 Mean bodyweight, kg. 420 411
Wheat grain 1.98 1.30 Daily wt. gain, kg. 1.36 1.23
Wheat bran 1.52 1.01 Daily feed intake, kg.
Wheat mill run 1.72 0.98 Corn grain 7.79 6.89
Alfalfa hay 2.18 2.38
Supplement 0.45 0.45

A t h i r d a n d i m p o r t a n t a p p l i c a t i o n is in t h e Totals 10.42 9.72

e v a l u a t i o n of a feeding p r o g r a m . F o r e x a m p l e ,
Computed net energy content
a study reported by Clanton and Woods of rations:
( 1 9 6 6 ) s h o w e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d r o p in feed con- NEro, megcal./kg. 1.82 1.79
s u m p t i o n a n d d a i l y g a i n of s t e e r s fed p e l l e t e d NEg, megcal./kg. 1.14 1.12
c o r n c o m p a r e d to t h o s e fed c r a c k e d corn. T h e W~ 7'5~. 92.8 91.3
NEn, required, megcal./day" 7.15 7.03
c o n c l u s i o n w a s t h a t t h e d e c r e a s e in feed con- Feed required for maintenance,
s u m p t i o n p r o b a b l y a c c o u n t e d for p a r t of t h e kg./day 3.93 3.93
d e c r e a s e in gain. U s i n g t h e s y s t e m r e p o r t e d Feed available for gain, kg./day 6.49 5.79
h e r e i n i t is p o s s i b l e to e v a l u a t e t h e o b s e r v e d NEg available for gain, megcal./day 7.40 6.48
Expected gain, kg./day ~' 1.29 1.17
p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e s e a n i m a l s in c o m p a r i s o n to Ratio of observed to expected gain 1.05 1.05
t h a t e x p e c t e d f r o m t h e i r feed c o n s u m p t i o n .
a Calculated from equation 1 or interpolated from table 5.
S u c h a n e v a l u a t i o n is p r e s e n t e d in t a b l e 9. I n b Calculated from equati,on 2 or interpolated from table 5.
 SYSTEM FOR N E T E N E R G Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S 805
T A B L E 10. ANALYSIS OF AN E X P E R I M E N T Data are needed on more of the common feeds,
ON U R E A A N D F A T IN S T E E R R A T I O N S on the net energy requirements for physiologi-
Ration cal functions other than maintenance, growth

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
and fattening and on the effects of environ-
Urea ment on net energy requirements.
Item Urea ]Fat plus fat
No. of steers 20 20 20 Summary
M e a n bodyweight, kg. 396 389 382
Av. daily gain, kg. 0.87 0.76 0.67 A proposed system is presented for express-
Daily feed consumption, kg. 10.3 9.9 9.8 ing net energy requirements and feed values
C o m p u t e d net energy content for growing and finishing beef cattle. The sys-
of rations: tem uses one expression, NEro, to represent
NEro, megcal./kg. 1.63 1.57 1.48 the net energy requirement and the net energy
NEg, megcal./kg. 0.96 0.84 0.77 content of the feed when used for maintenance
W~ 88.8 87.6 86.4 and a second expression, NE~, for the net en-
NE,~, required, megcal./day" 6.84 6.75 6.65
Feed required for maintenance, ergy used for production of weight gain. Data
kg./day 4.20 4.30 4.49 from comparative slaughter trials indicate the
Feed available for gain, NEn~ requirement for both steers and heifers
kg./day 6.10 5.60 5.31 is equal to approximately 0.077 megcal, per
NEg available for gain,
megcal./day 5.86 4.70 4.09 unit of metabolic body size (W~ The
Expected gain, k g . / d a y ~ 1.10 0.91 0.81 energy deposited in the weight gain of steers
Expected drop in gain, (the NEg requirement) is represented by the
% of urea ration .... 17 26 equation NE~.=52.72g@6.84g 2 where NE~ is
Observed drop in gain,
% of urea ration .... 13 23 the kcal. of energy deposited per day per unit
of W~ and g is the daily empty weight
a Calculated from equation 1 or interpolated from table 5.
b Calculated from equation 2 or interpolated from table 5. gain in kg. The equation for heifers is N E g z
56.03g+12.65g 2. It was shown that heifers
deposit more energy per unit of weight gain
An evaluation of a trial reported by Thomp-
than do steers and that the difference is larger
son et al. (1967) is shown in table 10. The re-
at higher rates of gain. Data are presented
sponse of steers to diets containing urea, fat
demonstrating that the proposed system is
or urea plus fat was determined. The three
adaptable to practice and that it overcomes
diets were formulated to be isocaloric in diges-
the common criticisms that net energy values
tible energy. A significant decrease in rate of
do not apply under maintenance conditions
gain was caused by the addition of fat or fat
and vary with feed intake.
plus urea without a significant drop in feed
consumption. Although the expected gains L i t e r a t u r e Cited
were not achieved, the comparison among the
three diets is of interest. Based on the net Clanton, Donald C. and Walter Woods. 1966. Per-
formance of steers and r u m e n fermentation as in-
energy requirements and consumption, the fluenced by physical form of ingredients and al-
steers on the fat-containing diets were ex- falfa:corn ratio. J. Animal Sci. 25:102.
pected to gain 17% less than those fed urea. Garrett, W. N. 1965. Energetic efficiency of three
The observed decline was 13%. Those fed fat breeds of cattle. J. Animal Sci. 24:881. (Abstr.).
Garrett, W. N., G. P. Lofgreen a n d J. H. Meyer.
plus urea were expected to decline 26fi. and 1964. A net energy comparison of barley and milo
the observed decline was 23%. Even though for fattening cattle. J. Animal Sci. 23:470.
the rations were made isocaloric in digestible Harris, L. E.. 1962. Glossary of Energy Terms. N a -
energy they were not isocaloric in net energy tional Acad. Sci., N.R.C. 1Sub. No. 1040.
Harris, L. E. 1966. Biological Energy Interrelation-
and the resulting decline in daily gains result- ships a n d Glossary of Energy Terms. National
ing from the addition of fat and urea plus fat Aead. Sci., N.R.C. Pub. No. 1411.
were predicted by computing the net energy Kleiber, Max. 1961. The Fire of Life. J o h n Wiley a n d
requirements and consumption. Sons, Inc., New York and London.
Lofgreen, G. P. 1963a. Net energy of feedstuffs and
I t is clear from the examples presented that their use in cattle feeding. Arizona Cattle Feeders
the proposed system does lend itself to appli- Rpt., M a y 2, 1963.
cation and can be useful in diet formulation Lofgreen, G. P. 1963b. Net e n e r g y - - t h e new w a y to
and evaluation of performance of growing and reckon rations. West. Livestock J. 41:40.
finishing cattle. Continued study and applica- Lofgreen, G. P. 1963c. Nutrition Symposium. Some
aspects of energy m e a s u r e m e n t in r u m i n a n t nutri-
tion will result in further refinement and tion. Proc. Semi-Annual meeting A.F.M.A. Nutr.
should make the system even more useful. Coun., Dec. 2-3, 1963:18.
806 LOFGREEN AND
Lofgreen, G. P. 1964. A comparative slaughter tech-
nique for determining net energy values with beef
cattle. I n Energy Metabolism. European Assn. An.
Prod. Pub. No. 11:309. Academic Press, London
and New York.
Lofgreen, G. P. and K. K. Otagaki. 1960. The net
energy of blackstrap molasses for fattening steers
as determined by a comparative slaughter tech-
nique. J. Animal Sci. 19:392.
Lofgreen, G. P., D. L. Bath and H. T. Strong. 1963.
Net energy of successive increments of feed above
maintenance for beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 22:598.
Lofgreen, G. P., D. L. Bath and V. R. Young. 1962.
Determinations of the net energy of dried beet pulp
GARRETT
using barley as a reference standard. J. Animal Sci.
21:766.
Morrison, F. B. 1956. Feeds and Feeding. (22nd ed.).
The Morrison Publishing Company, Ithaca, New
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/27/3/793/4698843 by University of New South Wales user on 15 October 2018
York.
N.R.C. 1963. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic
Animals, No. 4. Nutrient Requirements of Beef
Cattle. Nat. Res, Coun., Washington, D. C.
N.R.C. 1966. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic
Animals, No. 3. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy
Cattle. Nat. Res. Coun., Washington, D. C.
Thompson, J. T., N. W, Bradley and C. O. Little.
1967. Utilization of urea and fat in meal and pel-
leted rations for steers. J. Animal Sci. 26:830.