Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 3;15(6):e0233926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233926

Feed efficiency and maternal productivity of Bos indicus beef cows

Danielly Fernanda Broleze 1, Luana Lelis Souza 1, Mariana Furtado Zorzetto 1, Rodrigo Pelicioni Savegnago 1, João Alberto Negrão 2, Sarah Figueiredo Martins Bonilha 1, Maria Eugênia Zerlotti Mercadante 1,*
Editor: Marcio de Souza Duarte3
PMCID: PMC7269248  PMID: 32492042

Abstract

This study evaluated 53 primiparous cows (36.8±1.23 months old and 484±40.9 kg of body weight) performance tested (GrowSafe® System) from 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation in order to obtain daily dry matter intake (DMI). The animals received a high-forage diet (forage-to-concentrate ratio of 90:10). Milk production of the cows was evaluated three times by mechanical milking and the energy-corrected milk yield (ECMY) was calculated. Energy status (through the indicators glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and β-hydroxybutyrate), protein status (indicators albumin, urea, and creatinine), mineral status (indicators calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium), and hormonal status (indicators insulin and cortisol) were estimated four times throughout lactation. The residual feed intake (RFI) of cows was calculated considering DMI, average daily gain (ADG) and mid-test metabolic weight (BW0.75) obtained in early lactation (from 22±5 to 102±7 days), and the animals were classified as negative (most efficient) or positive RFI (least efficient). The RFI model explained 53% of the variation in DMI. The mean DMI, ADG, ECMY, and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight were 12.47±2.70 kg DM/day, 0.632±0.323 kg/day, 10.47±3.23 kg/day, and 36.6±5.39%, respectively. Negative RFI cows consumed 11.5% less DM than positive RFI cows, with performance and metabolic profile being similar to those of positive RFI cows, except for a lower milk protein content and higher blood cholesterol concentration. In conclusion, negative (most efficient) and positive RFI (least efficient) Nellore cows, fed an ad libitum high-forage diet, produced similar amounts of milk, fat and lactose and had similar subcutaneous fat thickness, weight, calf weight as a percentage of cow weight, and blood metabolite concentrations (except for cholesterol). Therefore, there are economic benefits to utilizing RFI in a cow herd since cattle had decreased DMI with similar overall performance, making them more profitable due to lower input costs.

Introduction

Improving the feed efficiency of beef cows while maintaining productivity levels should improve the profitability of cattle producers by reducing cow feeding costs and, hence, the feed costs per kg of calf weight gain during the pre-weaning period [1]. Gibb and McAllister [2] estimate that an increase of 5% in feed efficiency could have a four-fold greater economic impact than daily weight gain. The evaluation of phenotypic variation in feed efficiency within dams of different breeds and in different environments is essential to the understanding the impact of using more efficient animals on reproduction and productivity [3], since a reduction in fertility and in maternal traits may nullifies the advantages of the use of animals that consume less feed [4].

In the most classical measures of feed efficiency, there is no distinction between the energy used for separate functions. Conversely, residual feed intake (RFI) is represented as the residuals from regression of intake on the various energy sinks [4]. Therefore, RFI could take into account the energy expenditure for maintenance and production, and because it has a biochemical bases, it would potentially be applicable to animals irrespective of age and physiological status [5].

Few studies have so far evaluated the feed efficiency of lactating Bos taurus beef cows [68] and even less information is available for Bos indicus [9]. The results obtained by Black et al. [8], Walker et al. [3] and Souza et al. [9] show that most efficient (negative RFI) and least efficient (positive RFI) cows produce similar quantities of milk, but the former consume lower amounts of dry matter per day. The aim of this study was to evaluate two groups of lactating Nellore cows, positive or negative residual feed intake, and the effect of feed efficiency class on performance and maternal traits of cows from calving to weaning.

Material and methods

Animals

The study was conducted at Instituto de Zootecnia, Centro de Pesquisa em Bovinos de Corte, Sertãozinho, São Paulo, Brazil (21°10′S and 48°5′W). All animal procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of Instituto de Zootecnia (Protocol 243–17), Nova Odessa, São Paulo, Brazil.

Fifty-three contemporary Nellore cow-calf pairs born in two consecutive breeding seasons and reared in an extensive pasture system consisting of Brachiaria brizantha were evaluated. Cows born in 2013 (n = 27) and 2014 (n = 26) were submitted to fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI) at 2 years of age (January/February 2016 and December 2016/January 2017, respectively) using semen from a Nellore bull. Before calving (55±20 days), the cows were transferred to a pen. The animals remained in the pen until calving and were divided into calving groups (two groups/year) according to the calving date. After calving (36.8±1.23 months of age), the cows and calves were identified with radiofrequency identification (RFID) ear tags and transferred to a collective pen measuring 4,200 m2 and equipped with 10 electronic GrowSafe System® feeders (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdrie, Alberta, Canada), where they received feed and water ad libitum. The cows and calves remained together in this facility from 22±5 days post-calving until weaning of the calves (190±13 days post-calving).

Diets and feed sample analysis

The diet (Table 1) was formulated to meet the requirements for maintenance, growth and lactation of primiparous cows [10] to provide a weight gain of 0.75 kg/day. The vitamin A, D, and E requirements of cows were supplied by intramuscular application of vitamin supplement (5mL) every 75 days. The diet was offered twice a day (8 a.m. and 4 p.m.) and the amount of feed was adjusted daily to maintain about 10% of leftovers. Weekly samples of the ingredients were obtained for determining the dry matter (DM) content of the diet. The weekly samples of dietary ingredients were pooled into six monthly samples, and their chemical composition was analyzed (Table 1). Total digestible nutrients of the diet (TDN, %DM) was estimated as TDN = tdCP + tdNFC + dNDF + 2.25 x tdEE—FMTDN, where tdCP, tdNFC, and tdEE are the truly digestible fractions of crude protein, non-fibrous carbohydrates and ether extract, respectively (% DM); dNDF is the digestible neutral detergent fiber (% DM); and 2.25 is the Atwater’s constant to equalize lipids and carbohydrates [11]. TDN were converted to digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) using the NRC (1996) [12] equations: DE (Mcal/kg) = 0.04409 × TDN (%) and ME (Mcal/kg) = 1.01 × DE (Mcal/kg) − 0.45 [10]. Net energy for lactation (NEL) was estimated using NRC (2001) [10]: NEL(Mcal/kg) = 0.0245 × TDN (%) - 0.12; and Net energy for maintenance (NEM), and for gain (NEG) were estimated using NRC (1996) [12]: NEM (Mcal/kg) = 1.37ME– 0.138ME2 + 0.0105 ME3–1.12; and NEG (Mcal/kg) = 1.42ME– 0.174 ME2 + 0.0122 ME3–1.65.

Table 1. Ingredients and chemical composition of the diet.

Item Diet proportion
Corn silage (% DM) 90.34
Soybean meal (% DM) 8.51
Mineral salta (% DM) 0.83
Ureab (% DM) 0.32
Chemical composition
Corn silage Soybean meal Diet
DM (%) 36.2 85.3 41.4
Ash (% DM) 3.45 6.62 3.67
Crude protein (% DM) 6.98 47.0 11.1
NDF (% DM) 53.7 34.5 51.3
ADF (% DM) 21.4 14.0 20.5
Lignin (% DM) 6.03 1.96 5.59
Ether extract (% DM) 3.56 2.13 3.39
TDN (% DM) 64.7 72.0 64.5
Metabolizable energy (Mcal/kg) 2.43 2.75 2.42
Net energy for lactation (Mcal/kg) 1.47 1.64 1.46
Net energy for maintenance (Mcal/kg) 1.54 1.82 1.54
Net energy for gain (Mcal/kg) 0.94 1.19 0.95

DM: dry matter; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; TDN: total digestible nutrients.

aComposition: 8 g/day phosphorus, 17 g/day calcium, 6.5 g/day sodium, 2.2 g/day sulfur, 0.8 g/day magnesium, 360 mg/day zinc, 100 mg/day copper, 70 mg/day manganese, 8 mg/day cobalt, 8 mg/day iodine, and 1.8 mg/day selenium.

bReforce N (Petrobras): 450 g/kg of N.

Average daily gain, dry matter intake and residual feed intake

The animals were weighed every 23 days without previous fasting as recommended by Archer et al. [13], totaling 9 weight recordings for cows and 8 recordings for calves. The cows were submitted to FTAI during the experimental period and those that became pregnant before weaning had their weights corrected for the estimate of the conceptus weight [14]. The latter was estimated for the day of weighing considering the days of gestation according to pregnancy diagnosis and approximate date of conception, as conceptus weight (kg) = (average calf birth weight x 0,01828) x (e ((0,02 x t)—(0,0000143 x t x t)), where e is the Euler constant, and t are the days of gestation. The average daily gain (ADG) of cows was calculated for the early lactation period (from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation): уi = α + β*DOTi + εi, where уi is the cow’s weight in the ith observation, previously adjusted for the conceptus weight when appropriate; α is the intercept of the regression equation and represents the initial weight; β is the linear regression coefficient and represents ADG; DOTi is the day on test in the ith observation, and εi is the random error associated with each observation. The mid-test metabolic weight (BW0.75) of cows was also calculated for early lactation (from 22±5 to 102±7 days): BW0.75 = [α + (ADG × 0.5 × DOT)]0.75, where α is the intercept of the regression equation and represents the initial weight, and DOT are the days on test.

The intake of cows and calves was measured and recorded daily by the GrowSafe® System (GrowSafe Systems Ltd., Airdrie, Alberta, Canada). To prevent cows and calves from feeding simultaneously, which would compromise the recording of individual intake, two feeders were reserved only for calves by reducing the space between the vertical bars of the feeders so that the cows did not have access. In the other eight feeders intended for cow feeding, a wooden board was placed horizontally, which prevented the calves from reaching the feed because of their shorter stature compared to their dams. Dry matter intake (DMI) was calculated for the early lactation period as the mean of valid days of feed intake previously multiplied by weekly DM content of the diet.

First, the RFI of cows was estimated for the early lactation period (from 22±5 to 102±7 days post-calving) as the difference between observed and predicted DMI, and the cows were classified into two classes: most efficient (RFI<0) and least efficient (RFI>0). Next, DMI, ADG, BW0.75, and RFI were calculated for the entire lactation period (from 22±5 to 190±13 days). The RFI of cows was estimated as the difference between observed and predicted DMI. The predicted DMI (DMIp) was obtained using the following multiple regression model: DMIp = β0 + β1ADG + β2BW0.75 + ε, where β0 is the intercept of the equation; β1 is the regression coefficient of DMI on ADG; β2 is the regression coefficient of DMI on BW0.75, and ε is the RFI. Although a DMIp for lactating cows should include the energy sinks as milk yield and fat thickness, the model without these effects was chosen (the RFI Koch’s model) precisely to verify the differences in milk yield and fat thickness of negative and positive RFI.

The following equation was fitted to obtain early lactation DMIp (from 22±5 to 102±7 days post-calving): DMIp = β0 + (1.605) × ADG + (0.1467) × BW0.75 + error (R2 = 53.3%).

Milk production, subcutaneous fat thickness and the calf weight as a percentage of cow weight

The milk yield (MY) of the cows was measured by mechanical milking at 63±5, 84±5 and 152±5 days of lactation as described by Souza et al. [9], using a method adapted from Walker et al. [3]. The calves were separated from the cows at 8 a.m., and each cow was mechanically milked after intravenous administration of 2 mL oxytocin for complete milk removal from the four quarters. The milk was discarded. The cows were returned to the paddock with ad libitum access to diet, water, and salt, and remained separated from their calves for 6 h. The cows were milked again to obtain the milk yield over 6 h. The milk yield was multiplied by four to obtain the 24-h milk yield (MY). A milk sample was collected during each milking for the analysis of milk composition (fat, protein, lactose, and total solids). The MY was corrected for energy according to Lamb et al. [15]: ECMY = (0.327 × kg MY) + (12.95 × kg fat) + (7.20 × kg protein), where ECMY is the energy-corrected milk yield.

The subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT) of cows was obtained at 21±5, 82±5, 143±8 e 184±12 days post-calving at five anatomical sites, assessing lumbar (SFT1, SFT2) and pelvic (SFT3 to SFT5) region: 12th–13th rib fat thickness (SFT1), longitudinal across the 11th–13th rib which captures three sites of fat thickness (SFT2) [16], transverse plane of the flank (SFT3), median transverse plane from the hook bone to the tip of the pin bone (SFT4) [17], and rump fat thickness (SFT5) [16]. The measurements were made with a 401347 Aquila ultrasound apparatus (Pie Medical Equipment B.V., Maastricht, The Netherlands) equipped with a linear 3.5-MHz probe (18 cm).

The calf weight as a percentage of cow weight was calculated considering cow and calf weights recorded on the same day from the beginning to the end of the lactation (8 calf and cow weight records) [13]: BWCA/BWC = (BWCA/BWC) × 100, where BWCA is the body weight of the calf and BWC is the body weight of the cow.

Blood plasma metabolites

Blood samples were collected from all cows at 15±5, 41±5, 62±5 and 120±7 days of lactation (samplings 1, 2, 3 and 4) before the morning meal. The samples were collected into vacuum tubes by puncture of the jugular vein with sterile needles. The tubes contained heparin (separation of plasma), fluoride (glycolysis inhibitor for glucose analysis), and no coagulant (separation of serum). The samples were centrifuged at 3,500 rpm for 15 minutes for the separation of blood serum and plasma and stored in a freezer at -4 to -10°C.

The indicators of energy status of the animals were measured using commercial enzymatic kits for the analysis of glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides (LaborLab, Votuporanga, SP, Brazil) and ß-hydroxybutyrate (Randox Laboratories, Crumlin, UK). The interassay coefficients were 8, 10, 7.5 and 5% for glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides and ß-hydroxybutyrate, respectively, and the intra-assay coefficients were 3, 7.5, 6 and 3%. The indicators of protein status was determined using enzymatic kits for albumin and urea (LaborLab, Votuporanga, SP, Brazil) and creatinine (BioClin, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil). The inter- and intra-assay coefficients were, respectively, 7, 5.5 and 6% and 2.5, 2 and 3.5% for albumin, urea and creatinine. The indicators of mineral status were measured using enzymatic kits for the analysis of calcium, phosphorus and magnesium (LaborLab, Votuporanga, SP, Brazil). The interassay coefficients were 8, 6 and 10% for calcium, phosphorus and magnesium, respectively, and the intra-assay coefficients were 5.5, 5 and 8%. The indicators of hormonal status of the animals were measured using an immunoenzymatic kit for insulin and cortisol (Monobind, Lake Forest, CA, USA). The inter- and intra-assay coefficients were, respectively, 8 and 10% and 3.5 and 6% for insulin and cortisol. Metabolites and minerals were analyzed by a kinetic enzymatic method in a Cirrus 80 MB spectrophotometer (FEMTOM, São Paulo, SP, Brazil), and the hormone analyses were performed using an enzyme immunoassay (ELISA) in a Labsystems Multiskan MS reader (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

Statistical analysis

The effect of RFI class (most efficient, RFI<0; least efficient, RFI>0) estimated for early lactation (from 22±5 to 102±7 days post-calving) on the traits studied was evaluated by fitting regression models. The PROC GLM procedure (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used to fit the following linear model: yijklm = α + βk + βk2 + CGl + C_RFIm + βk x C_RFIm + εijklm, where yi is the ith record of cow j (j = 1,…, 53) on day k of lactation (linear and quadratic effect, k = 11,. . . ., 210 days), of the lth contemporary group (l = 1,…, 4), in RFI class m (m = 1, 2) for trait y; α is the intercept of the regression equation; βk and βk2 are linear and quadratic regression coefficients on day k of lactation; CGl is the fixed effect of the lth calving group; C_RFIm is the fixed effect of RFI class m; βk x C_RFIm is the effect of the interaction between the linear regression coefficient on day k of lactation and of RFI class m, and εijklm is the error associated with each observation. The estimated curves were used for interpolation of the value to all days of lactation over the interval from 11 to 210 days for performance traits, from 53 to 162 days for milk production and milk components, and from 4 to 140 days for blood metabolites.

Spearman correlations of RFI and of the traits used for the calculation of RFI (DMI, BW0.75 and ADG) were estimated between early lactation (22±5 to 102±7 days post-calving) and the entire lactation period (22±5 to 190±13 days post-calving). This procedure was also performed for ECMY and blood plasma metabolites.

Results

The cows had an initial weight of 484±41 kg, and the DMI and ADG during early lactation were 12.4±1.48 kg/day and 0.632±0.323 kg/day, respectively. The feed efficiency of lactating cows, evaluated based on RFI, was estimated considering the lactation period from 22±5 to 102±7 days. The multiple regression model explained 53.3% of the variation in DMI. Among the total variation in DMI of cows, 26.9% was explained by BW0.75, 18.6% by ADG, and 7.8% by calving group. The mean RFI was 0±1.013 kg DM/day, ranging from -3.19 to 3.40 kg DM/day. Twenty-five cows with negative RFI (-0.792±0.705 kg/day) and 28 with positive RFI (0.707±0.662 kg/day) were identified. The descriptive statistics for performance traits, milk yield and blood metabolites evaluated from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation (early period of lactation) and from 103±7 to 190±13 days of lactation are shown in S1 Table and S2 Table, respectively.

Table 2 shows the Spearman correlations between RFI and between the traits used to calculate RFI obtained from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation (early lactation) and from 22±5 to 190±13 days (entire lactation period). The correlations were significant and high (P<0.01) for RFI, DMI and BW0.75, and significant and medium (P<0.01) for ADG. Spearman correlations of milk yield and blood metabolites between early lactation and entire lactation period were also high, excepting for ECMY and triglycerides, which were medium, and for calcium and magnesium, which were low (S3 Table).

Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients of performance traits of cows between 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation and 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation.

Trait Correlation (P-value)
RFI 0.89 (<0.0001)
DMI 0.82 (<0.0001)
BW0.75 0.95 (<0.0001)
ADG 0.68 (<0.0001)

RFI: residual feed intake; DMI: dry matter intake; BW0.75: mid-test metabolic weight; ADG: average daily gain.

The results of analysis of variance of cow and calf performance traits evaluated during lactation are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Effect of days of lactation, RFI class and interaction between days of lactation and RFI class on cow and calf performance traits evaluated throughout lactation.

P value Regression coefficient DOL*C_RFI
Trait DOL DOL2 C_RFI DOL*C_RFI Negative RFI Positive RFI SEM R2
DMI cow, kg/day 0.0650 - 0.0001 0.5863 -0.002 -0.002 0.001 0.09
DMI calf, kg/day 0.0001 - 0.4356 0.5186 0.022 0.021 3.12E-04 0.58
MY, kg/day 0.0001 0.0061 0.3010 0.9177 -0.143 -0.142 0.044 0.19
Milk fat, % 0.0002 - 0.2611 0.7573 1.16E-04 9.84E-05 3.95E-05 0.09
Milk protein, % 0.0001 - 0.0012 0.1570 4.79E-05 6.79E-05 9.90E-06 0.37
Milk lactose, % 0.0001 - 0.4729 0.7613 -2.49E-05 -2.75E-05 6.14E-06 0.20
ECMY, kg/day 0.0103 0.0265 0.1513 0.9083 -0.170 -0.169 0.070 0.08
SFT1, mm 0.0001 - 0.6942 0.7972 0.018 0.019 0.003 0.48
SFT2, mm 0.0001 - 0.9699 0.8265 0.028 0.029 0.004 0.40
SFT3, mm 0.0001 - 0.2378 0.8265 0.031 0.032 0.003 0.48
SFT4, mm 0.0001 0.0170 0.6339 0.9487 0.078 0.078 0.017 0.51
SFT5, mm 0.0001 - 0.8071 0.8425 0.047 0.049 0.005 0.45
BWC, kg 0.0001 - 0.4987 0.7506 0.679 0.702 0.051 0.45
BWCA, kg 0.0001 - 0.6146 0.4014 1.012 0.980 0.027 0.87
BWCA/BWC, % 0.0001 - 0.8061 0.3077 0.154 0.147 0.005 0.84

DOL: days of lactation (linear effect); DOL2: days of lactation (quadratic effect); RFI: residual feed intake; C_RFI: RFI class; DOL*C_RFI: days of lactation within RFI class; SEM: standard error of the mean; R2: coefficient of determination; DMI: dry matter intake; MY: milk yield; ECMY: energy-corrected milk yield; SFT1: 12th-13th rib fat thickness; SFT2: longitudinal across the 11th-13th rib which captures three sites of fat thickness; SFT3: transverse plane of the flank; SFT4: median transverse plane from the hook bone to the tip of the pin bone; SFT5: rump fat thickness; BWC: cow body weight; BWCA: calf body weight; BWCA/BWC: calf weight as a percentage of cow weight

The effect of RFI class on the DMI of cows was significant (P<0.0001) (Table 3). More efficient cows consumed less feed throughout lactation (Fig 1). The DMI of most efficient cows (negative RFI) was 11.6 kg DM/day and that of least efficient cows (positive RFI) was 13.1 kg DM/day, i.e., more efficient cows consumed -1.5 kg DM/day (or -11.5%) than positive RFI cows. The R2 of the model was low as there was no significant variation in DMI over the days of lactation, only a declining trend (P = 0.065). This was expected since the cows were not in the rapid growth phase. On the other hand, the DMI of calves born to positive and negative RFI cows was similar throughout lactation (Fig 1). The model explained a large part of the variation in the DMI of calves since the animals were in the rapid growth phase, with a consequent increase of DMI during the pre-weaning period (Table 3). The onset of DMI in calves occurred at 35 days of age, while the DMI prior to this day was very low or zero for most calves.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Dry matter intake (DMI) of cows according to residual feed intake (RFI) class (left) and DMI of calves according to maternal RFI class (right) during lactation. Observed (dots,   negative RFI + positive RFI) and predicted (line, ― negative RFI ----positive RFI) values for negative (green) and positive RFI (red).

There was a quadratic effect of days of lactation on MY and ECMY (Table 3). Milk yield decreased across lactation, while %F and %P increased during the period studied (Fig 2). The MY, %F and %L were similar, while %P differed between RFI classes. Negative RFI cows produced milk with 4.0% protein, while positive RFI cows produced milk with 4.2% protein during the lactation period. Like MY, ECMY decreased gradually from the beginning to the end of lactation, without differences between RFI classes (Table 3 and Fig 2), despite the higher %P found in positive RFI cows.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Milk yield and milk fat, protein and lactose percentage (left, ― milk yield ┄┄┄ protein ----fat •-•-•- lactose) and energy-corrected milk yield (right) of cows during lactation according to residual feed intake (RFI) class. Predicted values (line, negative RFI ― positive RFI) for negative (green) and positive (red) RFI.

The body condition of the cows, evaluated by SFT, was similar between RFI classes throughout lactation. There was a linear effect of days of lactation on the five anatomical sites evaluated, with a constant increase in fat thickness across lactation (Table 3 and Fig 3). Cows increased their weight considerably from the beginning to the end of lactation (Fig 3). A linear increase in calf weight was observed from the beginning to the end of the pre-weaning phase (Fig 4), as well as an increase in the calf weight as a percentage of cow weight (Fig 4). Cow (Fig 3) and calf (Fig 4) weights were similar between RFI classes throughout lactation (Table 3), as was calf weight as a percentage of cow weight (Fig 4).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Subcutaneous fat thickness of cows at five anatomical sites (left, ― SFT1 ----SFT2 ┄┄┄ SFT3 •-•-• STF4 •-•-• SFT5) and cow weight during lactation according to residual feed intake (RFI) class. Observed (dots,   negative RFI + positive RFI) and predicted (line, ― negative RFI ----positive RFI) values for negative (green) and positive RFI (red).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Calf weight according to maternal residual feed intake (RFI) class (left) and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight (right) according to RFI class during lactation. Observed (dots,   negative RFI + positive RFI) and predicted (line, ― negative RFI ----positive RFI) values for negative (green) and positive RFI (red).

Table 4 shows the results of analysis of variance of blood metabolites in cows during lactation. There was a linear effect of days of lactation on the blood concentrations of glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, albumin, urea, creatinine, calcium, cortisol and insulin, as well as a quadratic effect on cholesterol and albumin. However, glucose, phosphorus and magnesium concentrations changed little during lactation (Figs 5 and 6). The concentrations of triglycerides (Fig 5), calcium and cortisol (Fig 6) decreased, and those of cholesterol, β-hydroxybutyrate, albumin, urea, creatinine (Fig 5) and insulin (Fig 6) increased during lactation. A significant difference in blood cholesterol concentration was observed between RFI classes (P = 0.012), with higher concentrations in negative RFI cows (204 mg/dL) compared to positive RFI cows (192 mg/dL) (Fig 5).

Table 4. Effect of days of lactation, RFI class and interaction between days of lactation and RFI class on blood metabolites evaluated during lactation.

P value Regression coefficient DOL*C_RFI
Metabolite DOL DOL2 C_RFI DOL*C_RFI Negative RFI Positive RFI SEM R2
Glucose (mg/dL) 0.0119 - 0.4112 0.5859 -0.058 -0.089 0.039 0.07
Cholesterol (mg/dL) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0120 0.1759 2.334 2.140 0.316 0.56
Triglycerides (mg/dL) 0.0001 - 0.6913 0.8302 -0.095 -0.086 0.029 0.16
β-Hydroxybutyrate (mmol/L) 0.7778 - 0.6135 0.7303 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.37
Albumin (g/dL) 0.0001 0.0062 0.1435 0.9228 0.028 0.029 0.006 0.55
Urea (mg/dL) 0.0001 - 0.5672 0.8065 0.450 0.470 0.059 0.44
Creatinine (mg/dL) 0.0001 - 0.1112 0.5901 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.49
Calcium (mg/dL) 0.1620 - 0.7071 0.5479 -0.009 -0.003 0.007 0.11
Phosphorus (mg/dL) 0.1692 - 0.6552 0.3389 -0.001 0.003 0.003 0.42
Magnesium (mg/dL) 0.8721 - 0.9241 0.3428 -0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004
Cortisol (ng/dL) 0.0001 - 0.2015 0.2093 -0.104 -0.177 0.041 0.14
Insulin (ng/dL) 0.1018 - 0.1404 0.9865 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.02

DOL: days of lactation (linear effect); DOL2: days of lactation (quadratic effect); RFI: residual feed intake; C_RFI: RFI class; DOL*C_RFI: days of lactation within RFI class; SEM: standard error of the mean; R2: coefficient of determination.

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Energy status (left, ― glicose ----cholesterol ┄┄┄ triglycerides •-•-•- β-hydroxybutyrate) and protein status (right, ― urea ----albumin ┄┄ creatinine) of cows during lactation according to residual feed intake (RFI) class. Predicted values (line, ― negative RFI ― positive RFI) for negative (green) and positive (red) RFI.

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Mineral status (left, ― calcium ----phosphorus ┄┄┄ megnesium) and hormonal status (right, ― cortisol ----insulin) of cows during lactation according to residual feed intake (RFI) class. Predicted values (line, ― negative RFI ― positive RFI) for negative (green) and positive (red) RFI.

Discussion

The present study compared cows that eat less (efficient) or more (inefficient), after accounting for ADG and BW0.75, in terms of production (primarily MY, milk composition, calf weaning weight and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight) and metabolism (through the indicators of energy, protein, mineral and hormonal status). Studies suggested that the regression models used to predict RFI in growing cattle (the RFI Koch’s model) may not be appropriate for lactating beef cows, as the majority of the phenotypic variance in DMI remains unexplained and/or the error in estimation of weight and weight gain is too high relative to that of DMI [18]. For lactating cows, RFI should represent the residuals of a multiple regression model of DMI on the main energy sinks (maintenance, body tissue mobilization, lactation, growth) [8, 4]. Although the RFI model for lactating cows should include the energy sinks, in the present study the model without these effects was chosen (Koch’s model) precisely to verify the differences in milk yield and fat thickness of negative and positive RFI cows.

The regression model of DMI on ADG, BW0.75 and calving group, adjusted for the calculation of RFI in Nellore cows of the present study, explained 53% of the variation in intake, a percentage slightly lower than that reported by Black et al. [8]. These authors evaluated lactating Bos taurus beef cows receiving a forage-based diet and reported an R2 of 60%, adjusting DMI for ADG, ECMY and rib fat thickness; however, surprisingly, BW0.75 had no significant effect on the variation of cow DMI. In an extensive review, Kenny et al. [18] reported that R2 is usually lower when the animals are fed forage-based diets because of the lower energy content of these diets and the lower rumen passage rate, reducing the expression of the DMI potential. In addition, the estimation of RFI is more complex in lactating cows compared to growing animals because the intake values and energy values for maintenance and production are highly variables. According to Kenny et al. [18], the average R2 (70%) of RFI models in studies of young animals fed a high-concentrate diet is higher than the average R2 (61%) in studies in which the animals receive a high-forage diet.

The RFI of the Nellore cows studied here ranged from -3.189 to 3.405 kg DM/day. Negative RFI cows consumed 1.5 kg DM/day less than positive RFI cows, corresponding to a reduction of 11.5%. Black et al. [8], studying taurine beef heifers after weaning and the same heifers during lactation, observed variations in RFI of -2.05 to 1.87 and -2.50 to 5.30 kg DM/day, respectively, i.e., the variation in RFI was much higher for lactating cows. The authors reported that low and medium RFI cows consumed 23.6% and 10.8% kg DM/day less than high RFI cows, and Walker et al. [3] reported a 6.5% lower DMI of cows with negative RFI compared to those with positive RFI.

The lactation curve of cows showed a declining trend and no peak lactation. The mean MY estimated was 7.59±2.17 kg/day and mean ECMY was 10.47±3.23 kg/day. Studies involving Nellore beef cows reported lower uncorrected MY (3.16±0.31 and 3.70±0.33 kg/day) [19, 20] and corrected for 4% fat MY (7.0 kg/day and 7.2, 5.0 and 4.1 kg/day in early, mid and late lactation) [21, 22] than the means observed in the present study.

More and less efficient cows had similar MY and ECMY across lactation. Lawrence et al. [6] and Walker et al. [3] also found no relationship between uncorrected MY (obtained by the weigh-suckle-weigh technique) and RFI in Bos taurus cows, and cows classified as negative and positive RFI had similar MY [3]. Likewise, Black et al. [8] found no differences in ECMY of Bos taurus cows classified as low, medium and high RFI. Since the cows evaluated here are from a breeding program, they had maternal expected breeding value (EBV) estimated by maternal component of weaning weight, a proxy for milk yield in beef cows. Corroborating the previous results, the simple correlation between maternal EBV and the average of ECMY for entire lactation period was low but significant (0.2977, P = 0.0304), while simple correlations between maternal EBV and cow’s RFI or RFI class for the early lactation period were 0.0819 (P = 0.5599) and 0.0888 (P = 0.5273). Therefore, there is no evidence that negative RFI cows produce less MY and ECMY than their inefficient counterpart.

The %F and %L were also similar in negative and positive RFI cows across lactation. However, the %P differed between RFI classes, with negative RFI cows producing milk with a lower %P than positive RFI cows. To improve energy balance is likely to have implications for more efficient animals, thus, a difference in some milk component between negative and positive RFI cows was expected since milk fat and protein synthesis represents a significant energetic expenditure for beef cows. In contrast, although Montanholi et al. [7] failed to establish any relationship between RFI and colostrum protein, fat, lactose or total solids percentages, the authors reported a negative correlation (−0.29) between RFI and milk lactose concentration. Although few and slightly contradictories, these results suggest that cow RFI may exert an effect on the milk composition.

The SFT obtained at five anatomical sites increased during lactation, and the cows did not mobilize reserves for maintaining milk production (negative energy balance). Fat thickness did not differ between cows with negative and positive RFI, in agreement with Lawrence et al. [6] and Black et al. [8] studying lactating beef cows. In growing animals, there are consistent results indicating a moderate genetic antagonism between SFT and feed efficiency, in which animals with a higher breeding value for fat thickness may be genetically less efficient [23, 24]. However, the relationship between fat deposition and feed efficiency in lactating cows is not well established.

Calves born to most and least efficient cows had a similar DMI from the feed. This finding indicates that, despite the lower milk protein percentage of negative RFI cows during lactation, the calves of these cows did not need to increase the intake of solid foods to compensate the lower amount of protein in the milk of their mothers. In addition, the pre-weaning weights of calves were similar for the most and least efficient cows. Calves born to cows with negative and positive RFI were weaned at an average weight of 226 and 221 kg, respectively (standard error of the mean = 6.52). No significant differences in the calf weight as a percentage of cow weight were observed between RFI classes, i.e., the most and least efficient cows produced a similar percentage of calf weight in relation to their own weight from the beginning to the end of lactation. At weaning, the calves weighed on average 36.6±5.39% of their mothers weight. Basarab et al. [14] also found no differences in the calf weight as a percentage of cow weight at calf weaning between cows classified as low, medium and high RFI. The authors reported a percentage (33.3%) similar to that observed in the present study.

Taken together, the results regarding the relationship between feed efficiency and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight agree with previous studies. Arthur et al. [25] described the relationship between feed efficiency and productivity of Angus cows after 1.5 generations of selecting two divergent lines for low and high RFI (difference in the EBV of 0.80 kg DMI/day). The pregnancy, calving and weaning rates, days to calving, calf weight per cow exposed, and milk production evaluated over three reproductive cycles were similar, with high RFI (most efficient) cows exhibiting more subcutaneous fat at the beginning of the breeding season. Morris et al. [26] also demonstrated that heifers born to sires with low EBV (most efficient) and high EBV (least efficient) for RFI did not differ in terms of pregnancy rate in the first or second breeding season, calf weight at birth or weaning, or milk production at 50, 100 and 150 days of lactation. These results encourage the use of negative RFI animals for sire and dam replacement in the herd, since these animals had decreased DMI with similar overall performance, making them more profitable due to lower input costs.

Nevertheless, RFI in lactating animals, although measuring feed efficiency per se, does not accurately reflect production efficiency. This is because the models used to calculate residual traits, as RFI, do not account for the partitioning of energy into the individual components, some of which are more economically important (e.g., milk fat and protein yield) than others (metabolic BW) [4].

Regarding blood metabolites, negative RFI cows had higher cholesterol concentrations than positive RFI cows during lactation. These results differ from those reported by Cônsolo et al. [27] who found lower plasma cholesterol levels in more efficient pregnant heifers, and by Wood et al. [28] who related low and nonsignificant correlation between plasma cholesterol levels and RFI or RFI class of mature pregnant beef cows. Although there is evidence of a positive relationship between RFI and plasma cholesterol in growing animals of some species as mice, pigs [29] and cattle [30], this relation in mature beef cows are not clear. In dairy cows, cholesterol metabolism is affected by energy deficiency depending on the stage of lactation. After 100 days of lactation, plasma cholesterol is increased in feed-restricted group of cows as a response to a negative energy balance [31]. Despite the fact that cows in the present study were fed for ad libitum intake, negative RFI cows consumed -11.5% DM than positive RFI cows. After the early lactation period plasma cholesterol increased in negative RFI cows (Fig 5), which was accompanied by a quadratic effect of DOL on SFT4 (subcutaneous fat thickness from the hook bone to the tip of the pin bone, Fig 3), albeit similar from both RFI classes.

There was no significant difference in blood glucose levels between the most and least efficient cows. The concentration of β-hydroxybutyrate was also similar between RFI classes, as well as the blood concentration of albumin, creatinine and urea. Although negative RFI cows consumed -11.5% DM than positive RFI cows, the amount of energetic substrate was sufficient to meet the nutritional requirements of the cows during lactation, which was evidenced by the ADG and increased subcutaneous fat thickness (Fig 3). Additionally, the plasma concentrations of β-hydroxybutyrate, creatinine and urea throughout lactation, together with the body weight and ADG similar for the two RFI classes, confirm the lack of mobilization of body tissues. This fact could be expected since the diet was formulated to support the requirements for growth, maintenance, pregnancy and lactation, allowing ADG of 0.750kg/day.

Blood calcium and phosphorus levels were similar in cows of the two RFI classes. Maintenance of blood calcium within the acceptable range of 8 to 10 mg/dl is a delicate balance between the demand for calcium for milk production and the homeostatic mechanisms of the cows to maintain blood calcium [32] (Fig 6). Cônsolo et al. [27] reported a trend (P = 0.06) toward higher calcium concentrations in more efficient pregnant heifers. These authors found higher phosphorus levels in more efficient animals and suggested greater availability of phosphorus for growth and energy metabolism.

Blood cortisol or insulin concentration did not differ between cows of the two RFI classes during lactation. One of the major biological responses to stress is the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis, which leads to the release of cortisol from the adrenal cortex and the catabolism of energy stores to provide glucose. Cortisol production affects several metabolic and physiological processes, such as increased cardiovascular tone, and appetite modulation. Lactating animals display reduced neuroendocrine responses to hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal axis activation compared with nonlactating animals [33]. Studying red and white blood cell parameters in steers genetically divergent for RFI, Richardson et al. (2002) [34] hypothesized that less efficient animals (high RFI) are more susceptible to stress than more efficient animals, and Richardson and Herd [35] observed in growing animals a trend towards lower cortisol concentration in negative RFI animals, indicating that more efficient animals are calmer and less reactive.

To mediate the nutrient fluxes towards the mammary gland for milk synthesis during early lactation, extensive endocrine changes coordinating homeorhesis are required. In particular, growth hormone concentration is elevated while insulin and IGF-I are low during the period of homeorhetic regulation of nutrient and energy partitioning to the mammary gland [31]. In lactating beef cows, Walker et al. (2015) [3] reported a positive correlation between insulin concentration and RFI. DiGiacomo et al. (2018) [33], in lactating dairy cows, observed lower cortisol response to adrenocorticotropic hormone and more responsiveness to lipolytic signals in low RFI cows compared to high RFI cows, suggesting that low RFI cows partition energy more readily away from storage in adipose tissue.

In conclusion, Nellore cows with negative (most efficient) and positive (least efficient) RFI that were fed a high-forage diet ad libitum produced similar amounts of milk, fat and lactose and had similar SFT, weight, calf weight as a percentage of cow weight and blood metabolite concentrations (except for cholesterol). Negative RFI (most efficient) cows had lower blood cholesterol concentrations and produced less milk protein, but their calves exhibited the same performance as those born to positive RFI cows, with the DMI of negative RFI cows being 11.5% lower throughout lactation. These results encourage the use of more efficient cows as replacement animals in the herd since they consume less feed without the loss of productivity, making them more profitable due to lower input costs.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Descriptive statistics for performance traits, milk yield and blood metabolites of Nellore cows evaluated from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Descriptive statistics for milk yield and blood metabolites of Nellore cows evaluated from 103±7 to 190±13 days of lactation.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Spearman correlation coefficients of milk yield and blood plasma metabolites of cows between 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation and 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation.

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Pearson correlation among the components of feed efficiency with average of milk yield and blood metabolites evaluated from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation.

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Pearson correlation among the components of feed efficiency with milk yield and blood metabolites evaluated from 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant #2015/02066-4) for financial support and for providing grant to MFZ (FAPESP, grant #2016/24423-6), and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Finance Code 001) for providing grants to DFB, LLS, and RPS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lawrence P, Kenny D, Earley B, McGee M. Intake of conserved and grazed grass and performance traits in beef suckler cows differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Livestock Science. 2013;152(2–3):154–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gibb D, McAllister T, editors. The impact of feed intake and feeding behaviour of cattle on feedlot and feedbunk management. Proceedings of the 20th western nutrition conference on marketing to the 21st century’(Eds D Korver, J Morrison) pp; 1999.
  • 3.Walker R, Martin R, Gentry G, Gentry L. Impact of cow size on dry matter intake, residual feed intake, metabolic response, and cow performance. Journal of animal science. 2015;93(2):672–84. 10.2527/jas.2014-7702 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Berry D, Crowley J. Cell biology symposium: genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle. Journal of animal science. 2013;91(4):1594–613. 10.2527/jas.2012-5862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Macdonald K, Pryce J, Spelman R, Davis S, Wales W, Waghorn G, et al. Holstein-Friesian calves selected for divergence in residual feed intake during growth exhibited significant but reduced residual feed intake divergence in their first lactation. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;97(3):1427–35. 10.3168/jds.2013-7227 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lawrence P, Kenny DA, Earley B, Crews DH Jr., McGee M. Grass silage intake, rumen and blood variables, ultrasonic and body measurements, feeding behavior, and activity in pregnant beef heifers differing in phenotypic residual feed intake. Journal of Animal Science. 2011;89(10):3248–61. 10.2527/jas.2010-3774 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Montanholi YR, Lam S, Peripolli V, Vander Voort G, Miller SP. SHORT COMMUNICATION: Associations between chemical composition and physical properties of milk and colostrum with feed efficiency in beef cows. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2013;93(4):487–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Black T, Bischoff K, Mercadante V, Marquezini G, DiLorenzo N, Chase C Jr, et al. Relationships among performance, residual feed intake, and temperament assessed in growing beef heifers and subsequently as 3-year-old, lactating beef cows. Journal of animal science. 2013;91(5):2254–63. 10.2527/jas.2012-5242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Souza LL, Zorzetto MF, Ricci TJT, Canesin RC, e Silva NCD, Negrão JA, et al. Relationship between performance, metabolic profile, and feed efficiency of lactating beef cows. Tropical animal health and production. 2019:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Council NR. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle: 2001: National Academies Press; 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Detmann E, Valadares Filho SdC, Paulino M. Prediction of the energy value of cattle diets based on chemical composition of the feeds. Nutrient requirements of zebu beef cattle BR-Corte. 2016;2:45–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Council N-NR. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy Press; Washington, DC; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Archer J, Arthur P, Herd R, Parnell P, Pitchford W. Optimum postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in British breed cattle. Journal of animal science. 1997;75(8):2024–32. 10.2527/1997.7582024x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Basarab J, McCartney D, Okine E, Baron V. Relationships between progeny residual feed intake and dam productivity traits. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2007;87(4):489–502. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lamb G, Miller B, Lynch J, Grieger D, Stevenson J. Suckling twice daily, but not milking twice daily in the presence of a cow’s own calf, prolongs postpartum anovulation. J Anim Sci. 1999;77:2207–18. 10.2527/1999.7782207x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Federation BI. Guidelines for uniform beef improvement programs. Beef improvement federation, 9th edition (ed LV Cundiff, LD Van Vleck and WD Hohenboken). 2010:17–25.
  • 17.Schwager-Suter R, Stricker C, Erdin D, Künzi N. Relationship between body condition scores and ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat and m. longissimus dorsi in dairy cows differing in size and type. Animal Science. 2000;71(3):465–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kenny D, Fitzsimons C, Waters S, McGee M. Invited review: Improving feed efficiency of beef cattle–the current state of the art and future challenges. animal. 2018;12(9):1815–26. 10.1017/S1751731118000976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cerdótes L, Restle J, Alves Filho DC, Nörnberg MdFBL, Nörnberg JL, Heck I, et al. Produção e composição do leite de vacas de quatro grupos genéticos submetidas a dois manejos alimentares no período de lactação. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2004:610–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Oliveira VCd Fontes CAdAU, Siqueira JGd, Fernandes AMU, Chambela Neto AU. Produção de leite e desempenho dos bezerros de vacas Nelore e mestiças. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Silva AG, Paulino MF, da Silva Amorim L, Detmann E, Rennó LN, de Souza Duarte M, et al. Weight, body condition, milk production, and metabolism of Nellore cows when their calves are submitted to different supplementation levels. Tropical animal health and production. 2017;49(2):383–7. 10.1007/s11250-016-1204-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.de Almeida DM, Marcondes MI, Rennó LN, de Barros LV, Cabral CHA, Martins LS, et al. Estimation of daily milk yield of Nellore cows grazing tropical pastures. Tropical animal health and production. 2018;50(8):1771–7. 10.1007/s11250-018-1617-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mao F, Chen L, Vinsky M, Okine E, Wang Z, Basarab J, et al. Phenotypic and genetic relationships of feed efficiency with growth performance, ultrasound, and carcass merit traits in Angus and Charolais steers. Journal of Animal Science. 2013;91(5):2067–76. 10.2527/jas.2012-5470 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Santana MHdA Junior GO, Gomes RdC Silva SdL, Leme PR Stella TR, et al. Genetic parameter estimates for feed efficiency and dry matter intake and their association with growth and carcass traits in Nellore cattle. Livestock Science. 2014;167:80–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Arthur P, Herd R, Wilkins J, Archer J. Maternal productivity of Angus cows divergently selected for post-weaning residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2005;45(8):985–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Morris S, Chan F, Lopez-Villalobos N, Kenyon P, Garrick D, Blair H. Growth, feed intake and maternal performance of Angus heifers from high and low feed efficiency selection lines. Animal production science. 2014;54(9):1428–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cônsolo N, Munro J, Bourgon S, Karrow N, Fredeen A, Martell J, et al. Associations of blood analysis with feed efficiency and developmental stage in grass-fed beef heifers. Animals. 2018;8(8):133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wood K, Montanholi Y, Fitzsimmons C, Miller S, McBride B, Swanson K. Characterization and evaluation of residual feed intake measured in mid-to late-gestation mature beef cows and relationships with circulating serum metabolites and linear body measurements. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 2014;94(3):499–508. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rauw W, Portolés O, Corella D, Soler J, Reixach J, Tibau J, et al. Behaviour influences cholesterol plasma levels in a pig model. Animal. 2007;1(6):865–71. 10.1017/S1751731107000018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Montanholi YR, Haas LS, Swanson KC, Coomber BL, Yamashiro S, Miller SP. Liver morphometrics and metabolic blood profile across divergent phenotypes for feed efficiency in the bovine. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica. 2017;59(1):24 10.1186/s13028-017-0292-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gross JJ, Kessler EC, Albrecht C, Bruckmaier RM. Response of the cholesterol metabolism to a negative energy balance in dairy cows depends on the lactational stage. PloS one. 2015;10(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Taylor MS. Calcium and phosphorus metabolism in Jersey and Holstein cows during early lactation: Virginia Tech; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.DiGiacomo K, Norris E, Dunshea F, Hayes B, Marett L, Wales W, et al. Responses of dairy cows with divergent residual feed intake as calves to metabolic challenges during midlactation and the nonlactating period. Journal of dairy science. 2018;101(7):6474–85. 10.3168/jds.2017-12569 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Richardson E, Herd R, Colditz I, Archer J, Arthur P. Blood cell profiles of steer progeny from parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2002;42(7):901–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Richardson E, Herd R, Archer J, Arthur P. Metabolic differences in Angus steers divergently selected for residual feed intake. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2004;44(5):441–52. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcio de Souza Duarte

5 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-35367

Feed efficiency and maternal productivity of Bos indicus beef cows

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mercadante,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript is of interest for a great body of scientific field within the beef cattle industry. However, several concerns were raised by both reviewers and I concur with them. I strongly suggest to the authors to address to all comments made by the reviewers, which are critical points to better understanding of the results obtained as well as to improve the manuscripts' readability.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by March 25th. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Efficiency in the cow herd is a very important topic to study. This study evaluates the relationship between RFI and millk characteristics and plasma metabolites hormones in bos indicus cows. As the authors pointed out, there has been limited research on this topic in bos indicus cows. The design of the experiment seems to be adequate. More detail is needed in the methods section, justification for using RFI as the efficiency measure is needed, and the discussion needs to be shortened, integrated better, and more emphasis placed on why the specific results were observed and what the results mean. See more below.

Line 28: What is meant by contemporary? include body weight

Line 36: These may be indicators of energy status but they do not measure energy status (same for protein, mineral, hormonal)

Line 46: More emphasis should be placed on the milk and plasma measurement results in the abstract. The other results are expected (eg. low rfi cows had lower DMI)

Line 50: What are the implications of the work?

Line 57: Change increasing to improving. Feed efficiency is a vague term and an increase could be a good or a bad thing so use the word improve or be specific in what feed efficiency measure you are talking about.

Line 60: this is what the reference reported of what they calculated. It doesn't mean that this will always be exactly a four-fold influence and it also depends on how you calculate it. Use caution in wording.

Line 65. Again, use caution in word. It could nullify any advantages but it depends on the magnitude of differences.

Line 74: There is a large amount of data on time of lactation effects. This is not mentioned in the objectives and it is not justified why this was done.

Line 84: Were they the same cows each year? This could influence how you approach the data analysis.

Line 87: Why does it matter if the bull is a low-rfi bull?

Line 88: What does collective mean?

Line 99: Why for a gain of 0.75 kg/d. I assume this is maternal ADG and not gain of cow with calf.

Line 106: Describe in more detail how TDN was estimated.

Line 123: These are approaches to estimate the weight of conceptus and associated fluids, tissues, etc. It should be indicated that it is an estimate and more detail is needed on how this was done. Also, is the ADG reported in the data this corrected ADG or actual. Was the corrected used for RFI calculations or actual? This needs to be more clearly presented.

Line 143: use RFI as the efficiency measure? RFI is not a good measure of efficiency in cows as in practice your goal is to feed for maintenance and not growth. If you have intake of cow and calf and weaning weight, why not examine effects on cow/calf efficiency (weaning weight divided by total intake of cow and calf) and considering BW change of the cow. Also, would it be useful to also examine relationships between the metabolites and milk data with the components of efficiency. Additionally, it would be more appropriate to analyze RFI as a continuous variable rather than breaking into 2 groups.

Line 160: More detail is needed on how the milking was done.

Line 172: Rather than say productive efficiency just spell out what it was weaning weight as a percentage of cow weight. What cow weight was used? The weight of the cow at calving or at a different time?

Line 184, 189, 192, 195: These are indicators and does not measure the status.

Line 204: Why were several approaches used. Could the same story be told with just 1 approach. The results and number of tables and figures could and should be reduced.

Line 227: why spearman correlations?

Line 245: Correlation of what? Should include p-values. Also, I am not sure that this information adds much as because of the approach used to calculate RFI you would expect there to be relationships between these variables. What is more unique is the plasma and milk data. The sections on other relationships could likely be deleted.

Line 254: Not sure this is the best way to present the data. Because much of it is just p-values it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the results.

Line 262: Not surprising. Could be deleted.

Line 279: Just discuss the higher order relationship - so just quadratic here.

Line 335: The discussion is quite long and discusses each result separately. It could be improved by better integrating the discussion to collectively come up with what you feel is most important. Also, the discussion largely focuses on comparing to other results rather than focusing on what is unique and what it means.

Line 339: bos taurus? be consistent with terminology

Line 342: Not sure that this is the reason why. Perhaps there are also differences in rumen capacity, etc.

Line 356: Maybe your data suggest this but it does not mean that it can be.

Line 359: Is this actual or maternal ADG. You formulated the diets for 0.75 kg ADG so maybe they gained less than expected.

Line 360: How did you formulate the diets. Did you formulate it for ad lib intake. If so, this is not a good discussion.

Line 366: This is a huge variation. Much of this discussion though is not needed

Line 379: If an objective was to examine milk characteristics throughout lactation this is ok to discuss but it should be clearly stated in the objectives.

Line 409: DMI from the feed or from feed and milk?

Line 434: Of course we would encourage using efficient animals. Maybe it suggests that selecting for RFI in the cowherd could improve production efficiency.

Line 441: Why are your results different. Is it something about bos taurus vs bos indicus? What does this mean?

Reviewer #2: General comments

The manuscript attempted to evaluate how feed efficiency in most and least efficient lactating Bos indicus cows, by means of residual feed intake, would correlate with the metrics associated with energy, protein, mineral and hormonal metabolism. The paper was cared for and thoroughly revised but some minor editing is still necessary. The introduction section needs to be focus on the topic at stake. Often times, the arguments are rather confusing to the reader.

Authors need to put a table with descriptive stats (mean, minimum, maximum) on variables of interest such as RFI, BW, ADG, DMI, MY, ECMY, SFT1, SF2, SFT3, SFT4, SFT5, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, beta-hydroxybutyrate, albumin, urea, creatinine, Ca, P, Mg, insulin and cortisol so the reader can have an idea on the magnitude of your data and whether or not values make sense.

The figures are not clear and need to be redesigned. Please take into account the color-blind reader as well as ones that print the paper with no color. Using distinct symbols and making the figures more clear will enhance the reading experience. Figures need substantial improvement.

Specific comments:

Line 28= Add “primiparous” after “contemporary”

Line 43 = Add “” after “efficiency”

Line 48 = Add comma “,” after cows

Replace “a high-forage diet ad libitum” by “and ad libitum high-forage diet”

Line 57 = why dairy has been brought up here? Suggest to introduce the topic related to your manuscript only so you don’t weaken the argument explored henceforth. This is a rather short space where authors should focus on the argument on lactation and how that is translated to efficiency of the pair cow-calf

Line 58 = Replace “cow feed ” by “feeding”

Line 59 = Replace “consequently, the feed costs per” by “hence”

Line 65-66 = Overall confusing introduction. Please explain what you mean by “maternal characteristics”. Did you mean mothering ability?

This whole section needs to be rewritten. I believe that point try to be made here is that consuming less feed is only advantageous if fertility and mothering ability are not jeopardized.

Line 71 = Add “than the latter” after “day”

Line 72 = Replace ”of lactating Nellore cows, and the effect of feed efficiency class” by “of two groups of lactating Nellore cows, positive or negative residual feed intake,”

Line 74 = Replace “birth” by “calving”

Delete “of their calves”

Line 82 = Add “born” after “pairs”

Replace “years of breeding” by “breeding seasons”

Line 87 = Why were the animals inseminated with only 1 bull? Could that potentially limit your inference given that only one father sired all the calves in this trial?

Lines 87-88 = the phrase “where they were fed silage” should be in another section “Diets and feed sample analysis”. Please remove from this section.

Line 90 = add “each group” after “age”

Line 99 = Why did you use NRC Dairy (reference #9) to formulate beef diets?

Line 100 = briefly describe the protocol of application for vitamin complex

Line 105 = Please call for Table 1 after “analyzed”

Line 109 = Why there is a call for BR-CORTE (reference #10) after the equation since reference was previously made (line 109) for NRC Dairy (reference #9)?

Line 111 = Table 1: Delete superscript #1 in the “Item” and at the Legend/footnote

Please describe the supplemented vitamin A/D/E supplement (concentrations for the intramuscular application)

Please consider adding information on NEm, NEg, NEl, and pregnancy to this table

Line 134 = See lines 92 and 93 for proper citation of GrowSafe

Line 140 = Replace “mothers” by “dams”

Line 160 = in brief describe your protocol to measure milk production (e.g.: frequency, how many quarts at the time, which quarts…)

Line 165 to 172 = please give the purpose for the 5 different SFT measurements and how these data were practically assessed by you.

Line 174-175 = Replace “calf body weight” by “is the body weight of the calf”

Replace “cow body weight” by “is the body weight of the cow”

Line 208 = I am not sure how SFT is different than SFT1 through SFT5. Please explain

Line 209 = Productive efficiency has already been defined on line 172. Please use acronym

Line 221 = italicize your beta so is standard throughout the manuscript

Line 237 = Where is this data?

Line 240 = Please delete “between” after “and”

Line 263 = How much less?

Line 264 = is 11.6 kg/d the average?

Line 270 = How much of the variation the model explained?

Line 272 = how is the onset of calf DMI intake being determined? What is the threshold? Please consider using supplemental DMI since the solids in the milk are also part of DMI and have been ingested since the beginning of lactation

Line 292-293 = How has body condition score been quantified and evaluated based on the ultrasound measurements of SFT (SFT1, SFT2,….SFT5)?

Line 344 = replace “complicated” by “complex”

Line 350 to 352 = I am not sure where are you going with your rationale here. Please complete your line of thought. Maybe explain why you should rely solely, or not, on RFI for your breeding program regarding your cows or if not too far, what about other efficiency indexes more suitable for inherent variation of this category.

Line 354 = Replace “days of lactation” by “DOL” since it has already been defined and is used in your tables.

Line 376 to 378 = Please discuss you argument based on what does that homogeneity of intake means…

Line 381 = Replace “of” by “involving”

Line 387 = Why? How would you justify no differences in milk yield (MY)? What were you EPD’s for MY?

Line 390 = Replace “milk fat” by “%F” since it has been defined on line 207

Replace “lactose percentages” by “%F” since it has been defined on line 208

Line 402= Replace “studied here” by “in this study”

Line 410 = Replace “milk fat” by “%F” since it has been defined on line 207

Line 422 = Why do you think that happened? Do you think the lack of differences associated with RFI limitations once evaluating productive efficiency

Line 416 = Replace “productive efficiency” by “PE” since it has been defined on line 172

Line 420 = Replace “productive efficiency” by “PE” since it has been defined on line 172

Line 427 = Add “(EBV)” after “value”

Line 435 = Complete your rationale…. Not more so on efficiency of the progeny but on decreasing feeding costs of the cows?

Line 437 = Please explain what is believed to be the reason for higher cholesterol found in more efficient cows?

Line 443 = What about yours? Why if you found quadratic effect on DOL fir cholesterol and SFT4? How lactation plays a role over the cholesterol metabolism?

Line 449 = Why wouldn’t you expect beta-hydorxybutyrate or glucose conc. differences for these growing animals? How would you explain this phenomena given the rate of growth of your animals and nature of your diet?

Line 458 = Please add information about your data to complete your rationale

Line 459 = What about Ca:P?

Line 464 = What about your cortisol? At any point, was cortisol ever an issue ? I didn’t see a big rationale toward this direction or a deeper application of it to your experimental goals.

Line 468-470 = What about yours? IF you found differences in DMI which led to differences in RFI, why there is no difference in insulin? Maybe a little discussion on how you believe your ad lib intake was controlled would enhance the quality of your findings.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 3;15(6):e0233926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233926.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Mar 2020

Dear Dr. Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor – PLoS ONE

We would like to thank you, associate editor and reviewers, for your time and effort to improve the quality of the manuscript.

We tried to follow every recommendation of the two reviewers.

Changes made to the previous version are in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes” file.

Below are the individual answers to the reviewers.

Sincerely yours,

Maria Eugênia Mercadante, PhD

Instituto de Zootecnia

Reviewer #1

Re1. Efficiency in the cow herd is a very important topic to study. This study evaluates the relationship between RFI and millk characteristics and plasma metabolites hormones in bos indicus cows. As the authors pointed out, there has been limited research on this topic in bos indicus cows. The design of the experiment seems to be adequate. More detail is needed in the methods section, justification for using RFI as the efficiency measure is needed, and the discussion needs to be shortened, integrated better, and more emphasis placed on why the specific results were observed and what the results mean. See more below.

Au: More details were added in the methods section. A justification for using RFI as the efficiency measure was added in Introduction section (Macdonald et al., 2014). Finally, we change the Discussion section to be shorter and clearer.

Re1. Line 28. What is meant by contemporary? include body weight

Au: Contemporary means that the cows were born in the same herd and birth season, however the SD of the age already shows the contemporaneity of cows and it was deleted. Body weight was included.

Re1. Line 36. These may be indicators of energy status but they do not measure energy status (same for protein, mineral, hormonal)

Au: Ok. Some words were changed or/and included to change the meaning.

Re1. Line 46. More emphasis should be placed on the milk and plasma measurement results in the abstract. The other results are expected (eg. low rfi cows had lower DMI).

Au: The results of milk and metabolites have already been well emphasized in the abstract: “….with performance and metabolic profile being similar to those of positive RFI cows, except for a lower milk protein content and higher blood cholesterol concentration. In conclusion, ……., produced similar amounts of milk, fat and lactose and had similar SFT, weight, calf weight as a percentage of cow weight and blood metabolite concentrations (except for cholesterol).”

I agree the DMI differences between positive and negative RFI are expected, but I think it is still important to emphasize this results.

Re1. Line 50. What are the implications of the work?

Au: Implications were include in the abstract.

Re1. Line 57. Change increasing to improving. Feed efficiency is a vague term and an increase could be a good or a bad thing so use the word improve or be specific in what feed efficiency measure you are talking about.

Au: Ok. It was changed.

Re1. Line 60. this is what the reference reported of what they calculated. It doesn't mean that this will always be exactly a fourfold influence and it also depends on how you calculate it. Use caution in wording.

Au: Ok, the sentence was changed to be less direct.

Re1. Line 65. Again, use caution in word. It could nullify any advantages but it depends on the magnitude of differences.

Au: Ok, the sentence was changed to be less direct.

Re1. Line 74: There is a large amount of data on time of lactation effects. This is not mentioned in the objectives and it is not justified why this was done.

Au: “From calving to weaning” gives the idea of time of lactation.

Re1. Line 84: Were they the same cows each year? This could influence how you approach the data analysis.

Au: No. Different cows were tested in each year (27 and 26 = 53 cows), all in their first breeding season at around 27 months of age, and all after their first calving.

Re1. Line 87: Why does it matter if the bull is a low-rfi bull?

Au: Ok. This information was removed.

Re1. Line 88: What does collective mean?

Au: Collective means that all cows were fed in the same feeder. However this was weird and was removed.

Re1. Line 99: Why for a gain of 0.75 kg/d. I assume this is maternal ADG and not gain of cow with calf.

Au: Ok, it was changed.

Re1. Line 106: Describe in more detail how TDN was estimated.

Au: More details of TDN estimation were included.

Re1. Line 123: These are approaches to estimate the weight of conceptus and associated fluids, tissues, etc. It should be indicated that it is an estimate and more detail is needed on how this was done. Also, is the ADG reported in the data this corrected ADG or actual. Was the corrected used for RFI calculations or actual? This needs to be more clearly presented.

Au: The paragraph was modified to include all modifications indicated above.

Re1. Line 143: use RFI as the efficiency measure? RFI is not a good measure of efficiency in cows as in practice your goal is on cow/calf efficiency (weaning weight divided by total intake of cow and calf) and considering BW change of the cow.

Au: In relation to the use of RFI as a cow efficiency measure, I could agree with you. However, even though originally developed in growing beef steers, the international scientific literature has focuses on RFI as a efficiency measure for a variety of livestock, including cows (for example, dairy cows: Fischer et al., 2018-JDS, Seymour et al., 2020-JDS; dairy heifer: Green et al., 2013-JDS; Lage et al., 2019-PLoS One; ram lambs: Cammack et al., 2005-JAS; broiler chickens: Mebratie et al., GSE2019; pigs: Lu et al, 2017; beef heifers: Fitzsimons et al., 2013; besides results of beef cows cited in our manuscript: Lawrence et al., 211 and 2013, Walker et al., 2015; Montanholi et al., 2013; Black et al., 2013 ), but none of them reported results from Nellore cows. Due these facts, I do believe that our results will fill a lacuna in the feed efficiency of Bos indicus cows, and are worth publishing.

Re1. Also, would it be useful to also examine relationships between the metabolites and milk data with the components of efficiency.

Au: The relationship between variables was not explored as a result for two reasons: 1st) due to the repeated data of milk yield and its components (63±5, 84±5 and 152±5 days of lactation) and blood metabolites (15±5, 41±5, 62±5 and 120±7 days of lactation) throughout the lactation. Correlation analysis does not consider the covariance between repeated measures within animal, which results in somewhat weak results; 2nd) the design and the objective of the research was not to estimate the relations among these variables. However, I agree with you that these results can be of interest for the readers. So, 2 Tables with simple correlations (Pearson correlation) among the feed efficiency components (DMI, ADG, and BW0.75) from the early period versus MY and metabolites, and the same for the entire period of lactation were included in the Supporting Information (S4 and S5 Table).

Re1. Additionally, it would be more appropriate to analyze RFI as a continuous variable rather than breaking into 2 groups.

In relation of considering RFI as a continuous effect instead of 2 classes. We chose to analyze RFI as class because we study RFI throughout the lactation, and it could be difficult to interpret the interaction between 2 continuous effects (days of lactation X RFI). Besides this, RFI as class (low, medium and high; or negative and positive) is a well-established and accepted method, and the idea of RFI class (more and less efficient) has a more practical demonstration.

Re1. Line 160. More detail is needed on how the milking was done.

Au: Ok, more details about the milking method were included.

Re1. Line 172. Rather than say productive efficiency just spell out what it was weaning weight as a percentage of cow weight. What cow weight was used? The weight of the cow at calving or at a different time?

Au: Ok, the term “productive efficiency” was changed by “calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” throughout the text. “Calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” was calculated using 8 calf and cow records of weight, throughout the lactation. We included “….from the beginning to the end of the lactation (8 calf and cow weight records)…” to be clearest.

Re1. Line 184, 189, 192, 195. These are indicators and does not measure the status.

Au: Ok, we included “indicators of” in each line.

Re1. Line 204. Why were several approaches used. Could the same story be told with just 1 approach.

Au: We deleted “The following traits…….” to avoid repetition about the traits analyzed, as well as the explanation on order of the effects in the model. The other descriptions of the analyzes remained because they are important for complete understanding and for replication.

Re1. The results and number of tables and figures could and should be reduced.

Au: In the original version, carefully we decide to show p-values table and the corresponding figure that shows the average of the trait throughout the lactation by RFI class. Together, table and figure (some figure include observed data) show the variation of each trait, the trend during lactation, the difference between RFI classes and the statistical tests for days of lactation effect as well as for RFI class.

Sorry, but in the revised version we decided to keep all the tables and figures for the reason explained above. However, if the Editor-in-Chief decides that the figures and tables should be cut, we can do that in the next correction.

The figures were remade using the R software and we think they have become clearer.

Re1. Line 227. why spearman correlations?

Au: Spearman correlation measures the strength and direction of association between two ranked variables. We were interested in correlation between cows classification (ranking) based on early lactation and based on entire lactation period. Spearman correlation is recommended for correlation between two classifications.

Re1. Line 245. Correlation of what? Should include p-values. Also, I am not sure that this information adds much as because of the approach used to calculate RFI you would expect there to be relationships between these variables. What is more unique is the plasma and milk data. The sections on other relationships could likely be deleted.

Au: As pointed out above, we estimated the correlation between cows classification (ranking) based on a part of lactation period and cows classification (ranking) based on the whole lactation period. The p-values were included.

I am confident that these correlations (Table 2) are useful. Primarily because they are unique in Bos indicus cows, and even in Bos taurus cows (for instance, Black et al. 2013; and Walker et al. 2015, in Bos taurus beef cows, they measured DMI, ADG, RFI during part of lactation and do not even know if that part is representative of lactation as a whole). Furthermore, in dairy cows there are recent studies defining the optimal period length and stage lactation to estimate residual feed intake in dairy cows (for instance, Connor et al., J Dairy Sci. 2019) which shows the usefulness of these correlations.

In relation of milk and plasma correlation between the early lactation (22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation) versus the entire lactation period (22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation). A Table was included in the Supporting Information (S3 Table), the description of analysis was included in “Statistical analysis” and a commentary of the results was included in “Results”.

Re1. Line 254. Not sure this is the best way to present the data. Because much of it is just p-values it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the results.

Au: We chose to show all-important results, avoiding repetition. Carefully we decide to show p-values table and the corresponding figure that shows the average of the trait throughout the lactation by RFI class. Together, table and figure (some figure include observed data) show the variation of each trait, the trend during lactation, the difference between RFI classes and the statistical tests for days of lactation effect as well as for RFI class. It is the reason a table with descriptive stats of traits studied was not shown in the first version of the manuscript. In the corrected version, a Table with descriptive stats (mean, minimum, maximum) was included as Supporting Information (S1 Table and S2 Table).

The figures were remade using the R software and we think they have become clearer.

Re1. Line 262. Not surprising. Could be deleted.

Au: It was deleted.

Re1. Line 279. Just discuss the higher order relationship - so just quadratic here.

Au: Ok, it was corrected.

Re1. Line 335. The discussion is quite long and discusses each result separately. It could be improved by better integrating the discussion to collectively come up with what you feel is most important. Also, the discussion largely focuses on comparing to other results rather than focusing on what is unique and what it means.

Au: The Discussion section was changed.

Re1. Line 339. Bos taurus? be consistent with terminology

Au: Ok. “taurine” was change by “Bos Taurus”

Re1. Line 342. Not sure that this is the reason why. Perhaps there are also differences in rumen capacity, etc.

Au: It was not modified because it is a citation of Kenny et al. (2018).

Re1. Line 356. Maybe your data suggest this but it does not mean that it can be.

Au: Ok. “indicating” was changed by “suggesting”

Re1. Line 359. Is this actual or maternal ADG. You formulated the diets for 0.75 kg ADG so maybe they gained less than expected.

Au: This is maternal ADG (i.e., the cow body weight was corrected for the estimate of the conceptus weight before ADG calculation). For your recommendation this paragraph was removed.

Re1. Line 360. How did you formulate the diets. Did you formulate it for ad lib intake. If so, this is not a good discussion.

Au: Ok, I agree. The DMI and ADG of the cows were similar to that predicted in the formulation of the diet. This discussion is out of context and was removed.

Re1. Line 366. This is a huge variation. Much of this discussion though is not needed.

Au: Ok, we removed much of this discussion and left only two results for comparison.

Re1. Line 379. If an objective was to examine milk characteristics throughout lactation this is ok to discuss but it should be clearly stated in the objectives.

Au: Ok. “maternal traits” was included in the objectives to be more specific. “…of cows from calving to weaning” specify that the study included the entire lactation period.

Re1. Line 409. DMI from the feed or from feed and milk?

Au: We add “DMI from the feed”.

Re1. Line 434. Of course we would encourage using efficient animals. Maybe it suggests that selecting for RFI in the cowherd could improve production efficiency.

Au: Sorry, but I do not agree with the term “selection in cowherd” because selection is performed when the animals (young bulls and heifers) are chosen for replacement, before the reproduction. In the cowherd, the cows are discarded for low fertility or performance.

Re1. Line 441. Why are your results different. Is it something about bos taurus vs bos indicus? What does this mean?

Au: We could not find reasons for these differences. Kenny et al. (2018), in a comprehensive review, had emphasized the inconsistence in the literature for systemic metabolic indicators traits between negative and positive RFI cattle.

Reviewer #2

Re2. The manuscript attempted to evaluate how feed efficiency in most and least efficient lactating Bos indicus cows, by means of residual feed intake, would correlate with the metrics associated with energy, protein, mineral and hormonal metabolism. The paper was cared for and thoroughly revised but some minor editing is still necessary.

Re2. The introduction section needs to be focus on the topic at stake. Often times, the arguments are rather confusing to the reader.

Au: Ok. The Introduction section was changed to be clearer.

Re2. Authors need to put a table with descriptive stats (mean, minimum, maximum) on variables of interest such as RFI, BW, ADG, DMI, MY, ECMY, SFT1, SF2, SFT3, SFT4, SFT5, glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, beta-hydroxybutyrate, albumin, urea, creatinine, Ca, P, Mg, insulin and cortisol so the reader can have an idea on the magnitude of your data and whether or not values make sense.

Au: Ok. A Table with descriptive stats (mean, minimum, maximum) of all variables studied was included in the “Supporting Information” section (S1 Table and S2 Table).

Re2. The figures are not clear and need to be redesigned. Please take into account the color-blind reader as well as ones that print the paper with no color. Using distinct symbols and making the figures more clear will enhance the reading experience. Figures need substantial improvement.

Au: The figures were remade using the R software and we think they have become clearer.

Re2. Line 28. Add “primiparous” after “contemporary”

Au: Added.

Re2. Line 43. Add “” after “efficiency”

Au: The words were changed according the Reviewer 1.

Re2. Line 48. Add comma “,” after cows. Replace “a high-forage diet ad libitum” by “and ad libitum high-forage diet”

Au: Added and replaced.

Re2. Line 57. why dairy has been brought up here? Suggest to introduce the topic related to your manuscript only so you don’t weaken the argument explored henceforth. This is a rather short space where authors should focus on the argument on lactation and how that is translated to efficiency of the pair cow-calf

Au: “or dairy” was deleted.

Re2. Line 58. Replace “cow feed ” by “feeding”

Au: Replaced.

Re. Line 59: Replace “consequently, the feed costs per” by “hence”

Au: Replaced.

Re. Line 65-66. Overall confusing introduction. Please explain what you mean by “maternal characteristics”. Did you mean mothering ability?

Au: “Characteristics” was changed for “traits”. I believe that “maternal traits” is more comprehensive than “mothering ability”. Even though “mothering ability” is a “maternal trait”, the first term does not seem to include milk quality, for example.

Re. Line 65-66. This whole section needs to be rewritten. I believe that point try to be made here is that consuming less feed is only advantageous if fertility and mothering ability are not jeopardized.

Au: Yes, it is what is written, according to Walker et al. (2015) and Berry & Crowley (2013).

Re2. Line 71 = Add “than the latter” after “day”

Au: “former” means “than the later”.

Re2.Line 72 = Replace ”of lactating Nellore cows, and the effect of feed efficiency class” by “of two groups of lactating Nellore cows, positive or negative residual feed intake,”

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 74 = Replace “birth” by “calving”. Delete “of their calves”

Au: Replaced and deleted.

Re2. Line 82. Add “born” after “pairs”. Replace “years of breeding” by “breeding seasons”

Au: Added and replaced.

Re2. Line 87. Why were the animals inseminated with only 1 bull? Could that potentially limit your inference given that only one father sired all the calves in this trial?

Au: The experiment was designed so that there was no interference of the sires breeding values for growth or RFI on the calf's performance (DMI and body weight), since the effect of RFI class can be small and difficult to detect in an experiment with relatively small number of animals. I do not believe this design limited the inference. We controlled one source of variation, which could be important.

Re2. Lines 87-88. The phrase “where they were fed silage” should be in another section “Diets and feed sample analysis”. Please remove from this section.

Au: Ok, it was removed.

Re2. Line 90. Add “each group” after “age”

Au: Sorry, I don’t think it is correct since it is the average of the two groups.

Re2. Line 99. Why did you use NRC Dairy (reference #9) to formulate beef diets?

Au: NRC Dairy was incorrectly cited. The diet was formulated using RLM 3.2 (https://www.integrasoftware.com.br/rlm31/produto.php), a version of the software for beef cattle diets. As the technology is based on equations developed by NRC (NRC. 1996. Nutrients Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.), we referenced NRC 1996. The reference was changed.

Re2. Line 100. Briefly describe the protocol of application for vitamin complex.

Au: Ok, it was included.

Re2. Line 105. Please call for Table 1 after “analyzed”

Au: Ok, it was included.

Re2. Line 109. Why there is a call for BR-CORTE (reference #10) after the equation since reference was previously made (line 109) for NRC Dairy (reference #9)?

Au: NRC Dairy was incorrectly cited. The diet was formulated using RLM 3.2 (https://www.integrasoftware.com.br/rlm31/produto.php), a version of the software for beef cattle diets. As the technology is based on equations developed by NRC (NRC. 1996. Nutrients Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.), we referenced NRC 1996. The reference was changed.

Re2. Line 111. Table 1. Delete superscript #1 in the “Item” and at the Legend/footnote

Au: Ok, it was deleted.

Re2. Line 111. Table 1. Please describe the supplemented vitamin A/D/E supplement (concentrations for the intramuscular application)

Au: It was included at line 100.

Re2. Line 111. Table 1.Please consider adding information on NEm, NEg, NEl, and pregnancy to this table

Au: Ok. NEl (NRC, 2001), NEm and NEg (NRC, 1996), were included included in Table 1, as well as in M&M.

Re2. Line 134. See lines 92 and 93 for proper citation of GrowSafe

Au: Ok, it was added.

Re2. Line 140. Replace “mothers” by “dams”

Au: Replaced

Re2. Line 160. In brief describe your protocol to measure milk production (e.g.: frequency, how many quarts at the time, which quarts…)

Au: The description was included.

Re2. Line 165 to 172. Please give the purpose for the 5 different SFT measurements and how these data were practically assessed by you.

Au: The purpose was to characterize the body condition at early, midlactation, and late lactation, using 2 sites proposed by Schwager-Suter et al., 2000 for dairy cows, and 3 sites proposed by BIF (2010) for beef cattle. They were obtained in 5 different body sites to assess the thickness of soft tissues in the lumbar (SFT1 and SFT2) and pelvic (SFT3, SFT4 and SFT5) region. Both publications bring schemes and images to recognize the body sites. After obtaining the images using Pie Medical ultrasound apparatus, they were “read” using the program Echo Image Viewer 1.0 (Pie Medical Equipment B.V., Maastricht, Netherlands, 1996). We modified the text to be clear.

Re2. Line 174-175. Replace “calf body weight” by “is the body weight of the calf”. Replace “cow body weight” by “is the body weight of the cow”

Au: Ok, replaced.

Re2. Line 208. I am not sure how SFT is different than SFT1 through SFT5. Please explain.

Au: They were obtained in 5 different body sites to assess the thickness of soft tissues in the lumbar (SFT1 and SFT2) and pelvic (SFT3, SFT4 and SFT5) region. We can observe the differences in the Figure 3, and in Table S1 with descriptive stats (added as Supporting Information).

Re2. Line 209. Productive efficiency has already been defined on line 172. Please use acronym

Au: As suggested by Reviewer 1, “Productive efficiency” was change by “calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” itself, without acronym.

Re2. Line 221. Italicize your beta so is standard throughout the manuscript

Au: Ok, it was done.

Re2. Line 237. Where is this data?

Au: These percentages are from variance analyses to obtain predicted DMI from the model DMIp = β0 + β1ADG + β2BW0.75 + ε. We did not show a table for this variance analyses.

Re2. Line 240 = Please delete “between” after “and”

Au: It was not deleted because it could change the actual sense. We estimated the correlation between cows classification (ranking) based on a part of lactation period and cows classification (ranking) based on the whole lactation period for the same trait.

Re2. Line 263. How much less?

Au: The number are given right after, in the next phrase: “The DMI of most efficient cows (negative RFI) was 11.6 kg DM/day and that of least efficient cows (positive RFI) was 13.1 kg DM/day, i.e., more efficient cows consumed -1.5 kg DM/day (or -11.5%) than positive RFI cows.”

Re2. Line 264. Is 11.6 kg/d the average?

Au: Yes, this is the least square mean for “Negative RFI class”.

Re2. Line 270. How much of the variation the model explained?

Au: R2 were shown in Table 3 for performance traits and in Table 4 for blood metabolites.

Re2. Line 272. How is the onset of calf DMI intake being determined? What is the threshold? Please consider using supplemental DMI since the solids in the milk are also part of DMI and have been ingested since the beginning of lactation.

Au: We could not consider the DMI before 35 days of age because the daily DMI was very low or zero, as explained in the text.

As explained in M&M, the two performance tests started at 22±5 days on milk (or calves with 22±5 days of age). From 22 to 34 days, there were 573 records of DMI of the calves, which divided by 53 calves=10.8days/calf shows that some calves even were not in the facility (GrowSafe) every day. Analyzing these 573 records, 71% (n=406) had daily DMI<0.050 kg; 13% (n=77) had daily DMI from 0.050 to 0.100kg; 7% (n=38) had daily DMI from 0.100 to 0.200kg; 3.5% (n=20) had daily DMI from 0.200 to 0.300kg; 2,6% (n=15) had daily DMI from 0.300 to 0.400kg; and so on. Because this distribution, the model including DMI of the calves from 22±5 to 34±5 days of age did not fit well, giving non-sense results.

Re2. Line 292-293 = How has body condition score been quantified and evaluated based on the ultrasound measurements of SFT (SFT1, SFT2,….SFT5)?

Au: Body Condition Scores (BCS) are based on visual and/or palpable assessment of the thickness of soft tissues in the lumbar and pelvic region. However, due to the subjective nature of BCS, their quality and repeatability has often been questioned. Nowadays, with ultrasound equipment BCS can be objectively assessed. Fat thickness of lumbar region was assessed by SFT1 and SFT2; and fat thickness of pelvic region was assessed by SFT3, SFT4 and SFT5.

Re2. Line 344. Replace “complicated” by “complex”

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 350 to 352. I am not sure where are you going with your rationale here. Please complete your line of thought. Maybe explain why you should rely solely, or not, on RFI for your breeding program regarding your cows or if not too far, what about other efficiency indexes more suitable for inherent variation of this category.

Au: Ok, some discussion about the use of RFI in cows was included at the beginning of Discussion section. Lines 350 to 352 were deleted.

Re2. Line 354. Replace “days of lactation” by “DOL” since it has already been defined and is used in your tables.

Au: Sorry but I thought the sentence would be unclear with this change.

Re2. Line 376 to 378. Please discuss you argument based on what does that homogeneity of intake means…

Au: Ok, a part of this paragraph was deleted. Two comparisons were maintained to show the consistency of our findings with the results of the literature.

Re2. Line 381. Replace “of” by “involving”

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 387. Why? How would you justify no differences in milk yield (MY)? What were you EPD’s for MY?

Au: We could not explain biologically the similar milk yield between negative and positive RFI cows, however this result was similar from all in the literature comparing milk yield and calf weight from negative and positive RFI cows (beef and dairy!!!). Since the cows evaluated here are from a breeding program, they have maternal EPD estimated by maternal component of weaning weight. The simple correlation between maternal EPD and ECMY22- 190 (energy-corrected milk yield from 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation) was low but significant (0.2977, P=0.0304), while simple correlations between maternal EPD and RFI22-102 or RFI22-102 class were 0.0819 (P=0.5599) and 0.0888 (P=0.5273). These numbers show that our results are consistent. These results were included in the Discussion section, as well as more discussion.

Re2. Line 390. Replace “milk fat” by “%F” since it has been defined on line 207. Replace “lactose percentages” by “%L” since it has been defined on line 208

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 402. Replace “studied here” by “in this study”

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 410. Replace “milk protein” by “%P” since it has been defined on line 207

Au: Replaced.

Re2. Line 416. Replace “productive efficiency” by “PE” since it has been defined on line 172

Au: As suggested by Reviewer 1, “Productive efficiency” was change by “calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” itself, without acronym.

Re2. Line 422. Why do you think that happened? Do you think the lack of differences associated with RFI limitations once evaluating productive efficiency

Au: I think the “calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” index is one trait to compare productive efficiency of cows, among others as MY or milk composition. In my point of view, this index has limitations for comparing cows in a herd. Firstly, it is useful only to compare cows that calved an alive calf and weaned the calf; secondly, “productive efficiency” is highly influenced by cow age/parity (for instance, heifers will be always more productive than mature cows). In the present study we proposed to compare cows that eat more or less independently of their metabolic weight and ADG, in terms of production (mainly MY, milk composition, calf weaning weight and calf weight as a percentage of cow weight) and metabolism (through the indicators glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, β-hydroxybutyrate, albumin, urea, creatinine, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, insulin and cortisol).

Re2. Line 420. Replace “productive efficiency” by “PE” since it has been defined on line 172

Au: As suggested by Reviewer 1, “Productive efficiency” was change by “calf weight as a percentage of cow weight” itself, without acronym.

Re2. Line 427. Add “(EBV)” after “value”

Au: Added.

Re2. Line 435. Complete your rationale…. Not more so on efficiency of the progeny but on decreasing feeding costs of the cows?

Au: Ok, it was included

Re2. Line 437. Please explain what is believed to be the reason for higher cholesterol found in more efficient cows?

Au: Ok, the references were changed, and a possible explanation was included.

Re2. Line 443. What about yours? Why if you found quadratic effect on DOL for cholesterol and SFT4? How lactation plays a role over the cholesterol metabolism?

Au: Ok, a possible explanation was included.

Line 449. Why wouldn’t you expect beta-hydorxybutyrate or glucose conc. differences for these growing animals? How would you explain this phenomena given the rate of growth of your animals and nature of your diet?

Au: Ok, it was changed. An explanation was also included.

Re2. Line 458. Please add information about your data to complete your rationale

Au: It was deleted. These results were integrated above.

Re2. Line 459. What about Ca:P?

Au: Ca:P was also analyzed but it was not different from the analyses of Ca and P separately, so we did not include in the results.

Re2. Line 464. What about your cortisol? At any point, was cortisol ever an issue ? I didn’t see a big rationale toward this direction or a deeper application of it to your experimental goals.

Au: Ok, we include a discussion and we think it had improved.

Re2. Line 468-470. What about yours? IF you found differences in DMI which led to differences in RFI, why there is no difference in insulin? Maybe a little discussion on how you believe your ad lib intake was controlled would enhance the quality of your findings.

Au: ok, we added another reference.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Marcio de Souza Duarte

22 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-35367R1

Feed efficiency and maternal productivity of Bos indicus beef cows

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mercadante,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 10th. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved. Thanks for the extensive revisions to improve the paper. I am OK with splitting the cattle into RFI groups but I do believe that it masks many of the effects and does not result int the data being used to its fullest extent. Yes it may be more practical to do this which may be more useful when presented to livestock producers but for scientific manuscripts analyzing data in a continuous fashion could result in a better explanation of the results (the shape of the curve of the relationship could be useful in understanding the physiology and for future prediction equations that could be developed). I will point out that just because there are many examples of publication breaking the data into RFI groups does not mean that it is the best way to analyze the data. I have a few other comments/suggestions for improvement. See below.

Line 75: This is an oversimplification of the concept of RFI. We have long known that there are many things besides BW that influence maintenance requirements. I would suggest rewording to be more careful with this interpretation of RFI.

Line 156: I think concept is supposed to be conceptus?

Line 388: I would suggest saying after accounting for ADG and BW rather than saying that it is independent. That is a very strong word and in actuality the traits are not independent - it is how the data is analyzed.

Line 470: change saved to improved energy balance (or something like that)

Line 519: This sentence is not clear. Please reword.

Line 530: Although there is evidence of a positive relationship between ...

Line 538: days of lactation

Line 540: Despite the fact that cows in the presebt styudt were fed for ad libitum intake, negative RFI cows ...

Line 557: This is highly dependent on the diet that the cows were fed. If I understand correctly, diets were formulated so that cows would be gaining maternal BW and BCS during the experiment. Because of this it may not be surprising that cows were not mobilizing body reserves. If a lower energy diet was fed, you likely would observe different results. This should be considered in this discussion.

Line 569: use alternative wording than balancing act

Line 583: need the last name of the author for the reference before 34

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

 

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 3;15(6):e0233926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233926.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Apr 2020

Dear Dr. Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor – PLoS ONE

We would like to thank you again, associate editor and #1 reviewer, for your time and effort to improve the quality of the manuscript.

We followed all recommendation of the Reviewer#1.

Changes made to the previous version are in the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes-R2” file.

Below are the answers to the Reviewer #1.

Sincerely yours,

Maria Eugênia Mercadante, PhD

Instituto de Zootecnia

Reviewer #1

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been improved. Thanks for the extensive revisions to improve the paper. I am OK with splitting the cattle into RFI groups but I do believe that it masks many of the effects and does not result int the data being used to its fullest extent. Yes it may be more practical to do this which may be more useful when presented to livestock producers but for scientific manuscripts analyzing data in a continuous fashion could result in a better explanation of the results (the shape of the curve of the relationship could be useful in understanding the physiology and for future prediction equations that could be developed). I will point out that just because there are many examples of publication breaking the data into RFI groups does not mean that it is the best way to analyze the data. I have a few other comments/suggestions for improvement. See below.

Line 75: This is an oversimplification of the concept of RFI. We have long known that there are many things besides BW that influence maintenance requirements. I would suggest rewording to be more careful with this interpretation of RFI.

AU: We changed the sentences to give suggestive idea rather than affirmative one.

Line 156: I think concept is supposed to be conceptus?

AU: Yes. It was changed.

Line 388: I would suggest saying after accounting for ADG and BW rather than saying that it is independent. That is a very strong word and in actuality the traits are not independent - it is how the data is analyzed.

AU: Ok, it was changed

Line 470: change saved to improved energy balance (or something like that)

AU: Ok, it was changed.

Line 519: This sentence is not clear. Please reword.

AU: The first sentence was changed to be clear.

Line 530: Although there is evidence of a positive relationship between ...

AU: Ok, it was changed.

Line 538: days of lactation

AU: Ok, it was changed.

Line 540: Despite the fact that cows in the presebt styudt were fed for ad libitum intake, negative RFI cows ...

AU: Ok, it was changed.

Line 557: This is highly dependent on the diet that the cows were fed. If I understand correctly, diets were formulated so that cows would be gaining maternal BW and BCS during the experiment. Because of this it may not be surprising that cows were not mobilizing body reserves. If a lower energy diet was fed, you likely would observe different results. This should be considered in this discussion.

AU: We added a commentary about the diet.

Line 569: use alternative wording than balancing act

AU: Ok, it was changed by “delicate balance”.

Line 583: need the last name of the author for the reference before 34.

AU: It was already ok in the final R1 version.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer-R2.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Marcio de Souza Duarte

15 May 2020

Feed efficiency and maternal productivity of Bos indicus beef cows

PONE-D-19-35367R2

Dear Dr. Mercadante,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have adequately addressed all concerns raised in the last revision. The manuscript is ready to be further published. 

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Marcio de Souza Duarte

20 May 2020

PONE-D-19-35367R2

Feed efficiency and maternal productivity of Bos indicus beef cows

Dear Dr. Mercadante:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marcio de Souza Duarte

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Descriptive statistics for performance traits, milk yield and blood metabolites of Nellore cows evaluated from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Descriptive statistics for milk yield and blood metabolites of Nellore cows evaluated from 103±7 to 190±13 days of lactation.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Spearman correlation coefficients of milk yield and blood plasma metabolites of cows between 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation and 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation.

    (DOCX)

    S4 Table. Pearson correlation among the components of feed efficiency with average of milk yield and blood metabolites evaluated from 22±5 to 102±7 days of lactation.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Table. Pearson correlation among the components of feed efficiency with milk yield and blood metabolites evaluated from 22±5 to 190±13 days of lactation.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer-R2.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES