Energy Expenditure for Activity in Free Ranging Ruminants: A Nutritional Frontier

Heat production (HP) or energy expenditure for activity (EEa) is of fundamental nutritional importance for livestock because it determines the proportion of ingested nutrients available for productive functions. Previous estimates of EEa are unreliable and vary widely with different indirect methodologies. This leads to erroneous nutritional strategies, especially when intake on pasture does not meet nutritional requirements and supplementation is necessary for acceptable production. Therefore, the objective of this project was to measure EEa in different classes of livestock (beef cattle and goats) over a wide range of ecological and management conditions to develop and evaluate simple means of prediction. In the first study in Israel, small frame (SF) and large frame (LF) cows (268 and 581 kg) were monitored during spring, summer, and autumn. Feed intake by SF cows per unit of metabolic weight was greater (P < 0.001) than that by LF cows in both spring and summer and their apparent selection of higher quality herbage in spring was greater (P < 0.10) than that of LF cows. SF cows grazed more hours per day and walked longer distances than the LF cows during all seasons. The coefficient of specific costs of activities (kJ•kg BW-0.75•d-1) and of locomotion (J•kg BW-0.75•m-1) were smaller for the SF cows. In the second study, cows were monitored in March, May, and September when they grazed relatively large plots, 135 and 78 ha. Energy cost coefficients of standing, grazing, and horizontal locomotion derived were similar to those of the previous study based on data from smaller plots. However, the energy costs of walking idle and of vertical locomotion were greater than those found by Brosh et al. (2006) but similar to those found by Aharoni et al. (2009). In the third study, cows were monitored in February and May in a 78-ha plot with an average slope of 15.5°, whereas average plot slopes of the former studies ranged between 4.3 and 6.9°. Energy cost coefficients of standing, grazing, and walking idle were greater than those calculated in the previous studies. However, the estimated energy costs of locomotion were lower in the steeper plot. A comparison on a similar HP basis, i.e., similar metabolizable energy (ME) intake, shows that the daily energy spent on activities in relation to daily HP increased by 27% as the average plot slope increased from 5.8 and 6.02 to 15.5°. In the fourth study, cows grazing in a woodland habitat were monitored as in previous studies in December, March, and July. Data analysis is in progress. In the first US experiment, Boer and Spanish does with two kids were used in an experiment beginning in late spring at an average of 24 days after kidding. Two does of each breed resided in eight 0.5-ha grass/forb pastures. Periods of 56, 60, 63, 64, and 73 days in length corresponded to mid-lactation, early post-weaning, the late dry period, early gestation, and mid-gestation. EEa expressed as a percentage of the ME requirement for maintenance plus activity in confinement (EEa%) was not influenced by stocking rate, breed, or period, averaging 49%. Behavioral activities (e.g., time spent grazing, walking, and idle, distance traveled) were not highly related to EEa%, although no-intercept regressions against time spent grazing/eating and grazing/eating plus walking indicated an increase in EEa% of 5.8 and 5.1%/h, respectively. In the second study, animal types were yearling Angora doeling goats, yearling Boer wether goats, yearling Spanish wether goats, and Rambouilletwether sheep slightly more than 2 yr of age. Two animals of each type were randomly allocated to one of four pastures 9.3, 12.3, 4.6, and 1.2 ha in area. The experiment was conducted in the summer with three periods, 30, 26, and 26 days in length. EEa% was affected by an interaction between animal type and period (Angora: 16, 17, and 15; Boer: 60, 67, and 34; Spanish: 46, 62, and 42; sheep: 22, 12, and 22% in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively (SE = 6.1)). EEa% of goats was predicted with moderate accuracy (R2 = 0.40-0.41) and without bias from estimates of 5.8 and 5.1%/h spent grazing/eating and grazing/eating plus walking, respectively, determined in the first experiment; however, these methods were not suitable for sheep. These methods of prediction are simpler and more accurate than currently recommended for goats by the National Research Council.