Skip to main content
ARS Home » Plains Area » Lubbock, Texas » Cropping Systems Research Laboratory » Livestock Issues Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #423961
Research Project: Environmental and Management Influences on Animal Productivity and Well-Being Phenotypes

Location: Livestock Issues Research

Title: Effects of restricted feeding on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in growing beef × dairy steers

Author
item GRANT, MADDIE - Texas Tech University
item CANTERBURY, LANDON - Texas Tech University
item DORNBACH, COLTON - Texas Tech University
item CHILDRESS, KALLIE - Texas Tech University
item Broadway, Paul
item Sanchez, Nicole
item Neville, Bryan
item GALYEAN, MICHAEL - Texas Tech University
item HALES, KRISTIN - Texas Tech University

Submitted to: EAAP International Symposium on Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/5/2025
Publication Date: 9/15/2025
Citation: Grant, M.S., Canterbury, L.G., Dornbach, C.W., Childress, K.D., Broadway, P.R., Sanchez, N.C., Neville, B.W., Galyean, M.L., Hales, K.E. 2025. Effects of restricted feeding on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in growing beef × dairy steers. EAAP International Symposium on Energy and Protein Metabolism and Nutrition. 103(Supplement 1). https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf102.250.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaf102.250

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Limit feeding is a management strategy that can decrease methane production and increase feed efficiency in growing and finishing beef cattle. Dry matter intake (DMI) is a strong predictor of enteric methane production in beef cattle (Galyean and Hales, 2024). Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the effects of restricted DMI on enteric methane production and energy and nitrogen balance in beef × dairy steers. Seven beef × dairy steers (initial BW = 306 ± 18.5 kg) were used in a repeated Latin square design with 4 periods. Treatments included feed offered to slick bunk management to target no residual feed at 0730 h (100R) and 4, 8, or 12 % restriction of slick bunk management (96R, 92R, and 88R, respectively). Experimental periods consisted of a 14-d diet adaptation, 7 d of total and fecal and urine collections, and a 24-h gas exchange collection using indirect respiration calorimeter headboxes. Dry matter intake did not differ among treatments (P = 0.84) and averaged 7.8 kg/d. Lack of differences in DMI resulted from restrictions being applied within periods of the Latin square and occasional feed refusals on a given day within periods. Consequently, intake energy (IE) and apparent dry matter digestibility did not differ among treatments (P = 0.71). Fecal energy loss, digestible energy (DE), and urinary energy loss did not differ among treatments (P = 0.55). Methane energy loss and methane loss as a proportion of IE did not differ among treatments (P = 0.81). Metabolizable energy (ME), ME as a proportion of IE, and ME as a proportion of DE did not differ among treatments (P = 0.60). Likewise, heat production (HP) and HP as a proportion of IE did not differ among treatments (P = 0.87). Recovered energy (RE) and RE as a proportion of IE was not different among treatments (P = 0.95). Furthermore, nitrogen intake and apparent nitrogen digestibility did not differ among treatments (P = 0.67). Fecal and urinary N excretion and fecal and urinary N excretion as a proportion of total N intake did not differ among treatments (P = 0.30). Therefore, retained N and retained N as a proportion of N intake did not differ among treatments (P = 0.47). Overall, no differences in energy or N balance were detected, likely because of the lack of differences in DMI and IE.