Rd. Sainz et Be. Bentley, VISCERAL ORGAN MASS AND CELLULARITY IN GROWTH-RESTRICTED AND REFED BEEF STEERS, Journal of animal science, 75(5), 1997, pp. 1229-1236
Beef steers were fed in two phases to compare the effects of diet and
intake on growth and cellularity of visceral organs. During the growin
g phase (237 to 327 kg), steers were fed either a high (C) or low (F)
concentrate diet. Diet F was available ad libitum (FA), whereas diet C
was available either ad libitum (CA) or on a limited basis (CL) to ma
tch live weight gains of the FA group. During the finishing phase (327
to 481 kg), all steers received diet C either ad libitum (CA-CA, CL-C
A, and FA-CA) or restricted (CL-CL and FA-CL) to 70% of the intakes of
corresponding CA steers. Marked nutritional effects on liver growth (
e.g., -25 and -15% in CL and FA, respectively, relative to CA) were du
e mainly to changes in cell size (i.e., protein:DNA), with smaller cha
nges in cell numbers (i.e., DNA). Hyperplasia and hypertrophy played a
role in growth of the forestomachs, although cell numbers and sizes t
ended to change in opposite directions, limiting magnitudes of changes
in organ mass. Protein synthetic capacity (i.e., RNA) varied as well,
often in parallel with cell number. This result differed from that ob
served in intestines, which maintained constant cell sizes but underwe
nt marked changes in cell number. For liver, amounts of absorbed nutri
ents seemed to be the main factor driving hypertrophy. The organs of t
he gastrointestinal tract responded to physical and chemical signals,
as shown by the effects of dietary fiber on growth of the forestomachs
and intestines. Forestomachs responded mainly to diet fiber content,
whereas the intestines responded to diet type and nutrient supply. Fee
ding programs for beef animals often include changes in diet type and
periods of feed limitation, and these in turn affect visceral organ gr
owth and metabolism. Because visceral organs are a major contributor t
o whole-body energy expenditures, factors affecting these tissues must
be understood. This study supports the concept that workload determin
es organ size, but dietary factors influencing workload clearly vary f
or each organ.