# Multiparameter growth-performance monitoring of Holstein dairy heifers fed on moderate- or high-energy feeding plans from birth to puberty

Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Ludovic Métivier, Eric Briant, Mickaël Dupont, David Georget, Mathilde Daudon, Christelle Ramé, Frédéric Elleboudt, et al.

► To cite this version:

Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Ludovic Métivier, Eric Briant, et al. Multiparameter growth-performance monitoring of Holstein dairy heifers fed on moderate- or high-energy feeding plans from birth to puberty. PLoS ONE, 2024, 19 (11), pp.e0314015. 10.1371/journal.pone.0314015. hal-04883839

HAL Id: hal-04883839

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04883839v1

Submitted on 13 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Multiparameter growth-performance monitoring of Holstein dairy heifers fed on moderate- or high-energy feeding plans from birth to puberty

Clément Colas¹, Eric Venturi¹, Marine Saget¹, Ludovic Métivier¹, Eric Briant¹, Mickaël Dupont¹, David Georget¹, Mathilde Daudon², Christelle Ramé², Frédéric Elleboudt², Ludovic Ducrocq³, Cédric Ravineau⁴, Pascal Salvetti⁵, Rozenn Dalbies-Tran², Joëlle Dupont², Christophe Staub¹*

1 INRAE Centre Val de Loire, UE1297 Physiologie Animale de l'Orfrasière, Nouzilly, France, 2 CNRS, IFCE, INRAE, Université de Tours, UMR0085 Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, Nouzilly, France, 3 BONILAIT PROTEINES, Chasseneuil du Poitou, France, 4 TELLUS, Saint-Germain-de-Salles, France, 5 ELIANCE Station de phénotypage, Le Perroi, Nouzilly, France

* Christophe.staub@inrae.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Colas C, Venturi E, Saget M, Métivier L, Briant E, Dupont M, et al. (2024) Multiparameter growth-performance monitoring of Holstein dairy heifers fed on moderate- or high-energy feeding plans from birth to puberty. PLoS ONE 19(11): e0314015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314015

**Editor:** Angel Abuelo, Michigan State University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

**Received:** May 17, 2024

**Accepted:** November 4, 2024

**Published:** November 21, 2024

**Copyright:** © 2024 Colas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** Data are held in the Research Data French Government depository allowing the sharing of research data to the international community. During the review process, data are available for reviewers at the following private url: https://entrepot.recherche.data.gouv.fr/privateurl.xhtml?token=e3d50dd1-2d04-4262-9922-cf311e154cc0 When the manuscript will be accepted, data will be available without any restriction at the following public url as

## Abstract

Today, dairy cattle farmers are seeking to optimize expenditure and productivity throughout the lives of their animals by focusing on efficiency at all levels. One strategy for bringing forward the start of a dairy cow's profitability phase is to advance the onset of puberty and reduce the animal's age at their first calving. Thus, one objective of this study was to feed two groups of Holstein dairy heifers the same diet but in different quantities, with the aim of generating a growth differential of at least 200 g/day between the two groups. Thirty-eight heifer calves were followed from birth through puberty using body morphometric measurements and quantitative data collected by automatic feeders, which enabled the monitoring of both feed intake and growth for individual heifers. Routine ultrasonography was used to examine changes in the muscle and adipose tissue compartments, and x-ray tomography was used to monitor bone mineralization and rumen development. At 12 weeks of age, heifers in the optimized feeding (OPT) group had greater cortical bone thickness in the tibia compared with the control (CON) group. At 18 weeks of age, OPT heifers also had more trabecular cancellous bone. In contrast, the ruminal volumes of the heifers in the CON group were greater than those of the OPT heifers at 12 weeks. The OPT heifers had greater indices of general, skeletal, and muscular development at 9 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Among the circulating plasma indicators measured in this study, non-esterified fatty acids were highest in the CON calves at 6 and 12 months of age and at the onset of puberty, whereas IGF1 was highest in the OPT calves at all ages. The age at puberty of the OPT calves was 8.4 ± 0.6 months compared with 11.2 ± 1.1 months for the CON calves. The OPT heifers had an average daily weight gain of 1018 g/day from birth to the onset of puberty, which enabled them to achieve increased body fattening and to reach puberty 3 months earlier compared with the CON heifers; the average daily weight gain of the CON heifers was 780 g/day over the same period. Taken together, this study defines new
mentionned in the manuscript: https://doi.org/10.57745/5REPTP.

**Funding:** This work has been supported by the region Centre Val de Loire APR 2016 - 00108517.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

reference values for a multitude of morphometric indicators, thereby enabling precise monitoring of the growth of Holstein heifers from birth to puberty.

## Introduction

The "Farm to Fork" strategy is part of the European "Green Deal" that is aiming to make food systems fair, healthy, and environmentally-friendly, and to make Europe climate-neutral by 2050. To achieve this ambitious goal, French dairy cattle farms are focusing on efficiency at all levels with the aim of optimizing their expenditure and productivity throughout the lives of their animals. As the productive phase of a dairy cow follows their first calving, the entire initial-growth phase of heifers from birth to their first calving is referred to as the non-productive phase. During this non-productive phase, the animals represent a net expense for the farmer. However, this period appears to be a key element for later productivity. Many studies have quantified the cost of rearing replacement heifers from birth to first calving, and results from such studies have varied slightly according to the time, the country in which the study was performed, and the breeding system that was used [1-4]. Overall, the costs of raising and breeding of a heifer equate to, on average, half of what the farmer will recover as milk revenue during the heifer's first lactation period [5]. Moreover, as French dairy herds today have a first calving at 28 months, a calving interval of 12 months, and an average number of lactations per cow of 2.4, the duration of a heifer's non-productive phase is equivalent to half of the animal's productive lifetime [5].

One strategy for bringing forward the start of a dairy cow's productive phase is to enable them to calve at a younger age. In fact, there seems to be a consensus in favor of changing to a first-calving age of 24 months so as to optimize farm profitability [6, 7]. The idea of reducing the average age at first calving is a concept that was proposed almost 40 years ago [8]. Apart from any economic considerations, an age of 24 months at first calving requires breeding to take place at 15 months of age; this is the time when a heifer has the best chance of conceiving [9] given that it has reached puberty at 12 to 13 months and been able to complete at least three ovarian cycles before breeding [8, 10]. However, the average age of heifers at first calving is still around 28 months in France [5], indicating that there is room for improvement.

In addition to reducing the length of the non-productive period for a heifer, early calving will facilitate herd management by reducing the number of animals required to sustain herd size, and it will also allow more rapid introduction of genetic improvements into the herd. Earlier calving also makes it possible to carry out standard operating procedures and embryo transfers more quickly, which would contribute to the dissemination of genetic progress within farms and also between farms through breeding schemes.

Accelerated growth also has an impact on the long-term careers of dairy heifers. Many studies have already shown the effects of different growth trajectories during the non-productive phase—particularly during the early preweaning phase—on the lifelong performance of dairy cows [11–19]. Two main criteria must be taken into account when assessing the success of the careers of dairy cows: milk production (both quantity and quality) and reproduction. These two activities determine the profitability of the animal and, therefore, the perennity of the herd.

A heifer's age at first calving depends directly on their age at breeding, which in turn depends on their age at the onset of puberty. Puberty is a physiological event that occurs when a heifer has undergone sufficient development. In dairy cattle, the onset of puberty occurs at 9
to 11 months of age, and at an average body weight of 250 to 280 kg [20], which is 40% of a heifer's adult weight (average ranges from 625 to 700 kg) [11, 21]. A fast growth rate [22], especially during the postweaning period [23], is now known to be associated with an early onset of puberty [7, 24]. The following weight targets at key ages have been established to enable successful calving at 24 months: 200 kg at 6 months, 400 kg at 15 months (the time of insemination), and 600 kg at 24 months (parturition) [25]. Farmers who want to reduce the age at which heifers reach puberty are choosing to follow optimized feeding plans to accelerate the development of their heifers. Two periods during calf rearing are particularly risky in terms of a heifer's growth and health status: the immune gap in the first 2 weeks after birth and weaning, which is when a cow goes from receiving liquid feed to receiving solid feed. This feed-transition period must be closely managed to optimize calf growth; a minimum average daily weight gain of 800 g/day during the first 6 months of life is required to achieve early calving at 24 months [26, 27]. Does a nutrition plan generating growth at 800 g/day allow optimal expression of the heifers' genetic potential? In France today, the nutrition plan for dairy calves is not adjusted to the genetic potential of the animals; it is instead calculated to limit the rearing expenses of an animal in its non-productive period. As numerous studies have reported that milk production can be influenced by the prepubertal development of heifers [24, 28, 29], we must ask the following: is saving money on a calf's nutrition limiting their lifetime productivity?

In this study, we wanted to go one step further to achieve a high level of growth of above 1000 g/day in heifers during the birth to puberty period. For animals to reach this growth rate, the feeding and rearing programs being used must be very well designed. A wide range of variables to must be controlled to optimize a feeding plan, including the nature of the feed, its composition, and its availability. In particular, during the period of milk feeding, the number of meals per day, the duration of feeding, and the quality of milk are each important. All of the feeding and rearing criteria are effectors for obtaining controlled and optimized growth.

For a long time, farmers have been advised against increasing the amount of milk fed to calves in case it reduced their consumption of concentrated feed. Today, this trend is changing due to the availability of a new generation of milk substitutes that maximize the growth of calves from a very young age. An increase in the amount of nutritional composition improved milk replacer fed to calves during the lactation phase has been observed in farms seeking growth above 800 g/day from birth to weaning [30–32]. During this period, the animal undergoes a fundamental change that will endure for the rest of its life: it goes from the monogastric state to the ruminant state through rumen development. Rumen growth is allometric (with growth superior to that of other organs) up to 4 months of age and then is isometric (with growth that is equivalent to that of other organs) [29, 33]. This transition depends on the feeding conditions from birth, as a feeding plan that favors milk intake over concentrate or forages tends to complicate this transition phase toward the ruminant state [29, 34]. Finding a balance between high amounts of liquid-feed intake, starter-grain intake, and rumen development is challenging because of the difficulties involved in providing the correct nutrients. As summarized by Kahn [29], it is important to adequately balance the provision of liquid and solid feed (both from concentrate and roughage) to maximize nutrient intake and gastrointestinal tract development and to minimize postweaning growth reduction [35].

This study aimed to generate a growth differential of at least 200 g/day between two groups of calves and to identify its effect on the onset of puberty. The control (CON) group had a growth-rate target of 800 g/day, whereas the optimized-feeding (OPT) group had a growth-rate target of 1000 g/day from birth to puberty. To create this difference in growth rate, two feeding plans were designed using the US National Research Council (NRC) prediction equations [36]. The 800 g/day feeding plan enables first calving at around 25 months, which already
represents an improvement compared with what most breeders do in France today. The second feeding plan of 1000 g/day enables first calving at 22 months, and should define a safety margin for what could be done without altering the animals' development and health. Regular, standardized measurements of the animals were conducted to determine the impacts of both diets. We used body measurements and quantitative data from automatic feeders, which enabled automated monitoring of each cow's intakes of milk replacer and solid feed, which improved our understanding of the growth trajectories of individuals. Morphometric measurements such as the thoracic perimeter and the height at withers have long been used, and equations have been developed that enable breeders who do not have a weighing scale to estimate an animal's weight from these measurements [37]. However, over time morphometric reference values have evolved as a result of genetic selection, i.e., the evolution of animal genotypes.

In addition to aiming to compare the growth rate and age of puberty onset between groups of Holstein dairy heifers that were fed according to one of two feeding plans, this study had the following specific objectives: 1) to monitor changes in morphometric indicators measured from the three major compartments of bone, muscle, and fat; 2) to monitor rumen development; 3) to monitor changes in basic metabolic indicators; 4) and to follow the animals' global performance from birth to puberty.

# Materials and methods

## Ethical issues

All of the experiments described in this study were carried out in accordance with French National Guidelines concerning the living conditions and welfare of animals used for research purposes, and were performed after being approved by the local ethics committee and the National Department of Research (C2EA No. 19—authorization numbers 201904111810141 and 2019100915307850, APAFiS numbers #20243 and #22355, respectively).

## Animals

Two blocks of Holstein heifer calves were produced through artificial insemination (AI) of the cows and heifers in our research herd (PAO experimental unit, INRAE, Nouzilly, France, Table 1). Table 1 shows the numbers of heifers and cows that were bred to generate the animals used in this study.

The sexed semen used to produce the heifers were from two bulls, “Lyvolo” and “Miami” (Coopérative Evolution, Noyal sur Vilaine, France, Table 1), that were selected for their genetic profiles. At birth, the calves were allocated into two groups according to the following criteria: birth weight, the sire, the dam's parity, the dam's genetic score for morphology, the score that was created for ranking bulls according to the French breeding goal (ISU), and the dairy

<table><caption>Table 1. Animals bred to produce the calves of this study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Total</th><th colspan="2">Groups—diet<sup>1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Blocks—season<sup>2</sup></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SUM</th><th>WIN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Heifers/cows ratio</td><td>22/16</td><td>11/8</td><td>11/8</td><td>13/7</td><td>9/9</td></tr><tr><td>AI bulls ratio, Lyvolo/Miami</td><td>19/19</td><td>10/9</td><td>9/10</td><td>9/11</td><td>10/8</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) or optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Season: SUM = summer; WIN = winter.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2. Animals bred according to their genetic indices derived from the dam’s genotyping.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Groups—diet<sup>1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Blocks—season<sup>2</sup></th><th rowspan="2">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th colspan="3">Probability<sup>3</sup></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SUM</th><th>WIN</th><th>TGE</th><th>SE</th><th>TGE x SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ISU index<sup>5</sup></td><td>118</td><td>116</td><td>117</td><td>116</td><td>22</td><td>0.695</td><td>0.861</td><td>0.690</td></tr><tr><td>Morphology index<sup>6</sup></td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.474</td><td>0.245</td><td>0.531</td></tr><tr><td>INEL index<sup>7</sup></td><td>13.6</td><td>16.9</td><td>17.1</td><td>13.1</td><td>18.4</td><td>0.512</td><td>0.477</td><td>0.451</td></tr><tr><td>Gestation length (d)</td><td>279</td><td>278</td><td>279</td><td>278</td><td>5.2</td><td>0.478</td><td>0.608</td><td>0.523</td></tr></tbody></table>

economic index (INEL) that was derived from the dam’s genotyping (Table 2). A first block of 20 females (born from August 12th to September 4th, 2019) and a second block of 18 females (born from January 11th to February 16th, 2020) were randomized to one of the two treatment groups. The animals were allocated to create two groups of heifers in a way that reduced genetic and experimental bias. Animals in each block were provided the allocated treatment diets (control or optimized) and were followed from birth to puberty.

## Housing and feed intakes

At birth, the calves were housed individually in straw-bedded calf hutches (TopCalf, Melesse, France) equipped with individual heating lamps, inside an insulated building that had been specially built for calf rearing. They were fed with their 2 liters of their dam’s colostrum for each of their first two meals: the first meal was given within 2 hours of birth and the second was given within 8 hours of birth. The colostrum was evaluated for quality before administration to the calves using a hand-held digital refractometer (Pal-1—Atago; Marne-la-vallée, France); when the colostrum showed a value below 24 brix, it was supplemented with freeze-dried colostrum (Bonilait Protéines, Chasseneuil du Poitou, France) to reach a value of 24 brix.

Calves were then fed whole milk for two meals per day for 48 hours before switching to a milk replacer (Univor Premium™, Bonilait Protéines) at the beginning of the fourth day. To facilitate the transition between whole milk and milk replacer, the meal preceding the introduction of the milk replacer consisted of a rehydrating meal sachet containing mainly sugars, electrolytes and vitamins from groups A, C, D and E (Vitactif™ meal pack, Bonilait Protéines). On their fourth day, the animals were transferred to a straw-bedded area meeting European Union standards, where they stayed until they were weaned. The animals had ad libitum access to straw; for bedding, a layer of fresh straw was supplied every day. The two groups were then allocated to different dietary-treatment groups: a CON group following conventional recommended growth targets with an average daily gain (ADG) target from birth to puberty of 800 g/day; and an OPT group with an ADG target from birth to puberty of 1000 g/day.

As the study objective was to follow the heifers’ growth using individual intake measurements that were collected from birth to weaning and from weaning to puberty, our nursery was equipped with an autofeeder with two feeding stations (Alma Pro, Urban, Wüsting,

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized (OPT) nutrition groups with average daily gain targets (ADG) of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Season: SUM = summer; WIN = winter.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; SE = season effect; TGE x SE = interaction between treatment group and season effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ISU: index for ranking bulls according to the breeding goal (range: 80 to 180).</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Morphology score calculating from 30 basic measures mainly related to udder conformation, general bone quality and legs (ranged -2 to +2).</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷INEL: dairy economic index (ranged -20 °C to +80 °C).</footnote>
Germany) and automatic concentrate feeders (Hanskamp, Doetinchem, The Netherlands). The animals had access to water ad libitum. Following a specific request to the two above-mentioned companies, the raw data were exported from the feeders. Feeding stations were specially designed so that animals could not enter in groups, so there was no feed stealing. The feeders were recalibrated with each new delivery batch, using procedures specified by manufacturers (10 repetitions). To measure milk-replacer intake (4 meals per day), the volume of feed refused by each heifer was measured by the device at each feed intake and was re-offered to the animal at its next visit. For the solid feed, the feeding plan was designed and split (5 meals per day) as to avoid refusals (4 preliminary trials had been carried out previously). In the rare cases of refusals, the amount of solid feed that was refused was weighed and deducted from the quantity that was reported as having been ingested by the animals. The solid ration consisted solely of dry solid feed, to improve quantitative intake monitoring. Apart from straw, the consumption of which was not measured during this study, the animals had no access to other types of forage.

To maximize our chances of achieving a 200 g/day difference between the two feeding plans while avoiding any bias linked to the qualitative composition of the feed, we chose to base both diets on the same feeds and to change only the amounts of the feeds that were provided (volume and concentration for the milk replacer; weigh for the concentrate solid feed). In total, calves from the CON group each consumed 39.4 kg of milk replacer from day 4 to day 63 (weaning occurred at 9 weeks), whereas calves from the OPT group consumed 59.7 kg of milk replacer during the same time period.

After 2 weeks, calves were given access to concentrate (Floribelle™, Tellus, Saint Germain de Salles, France). For the first 7 weeks, the concentrate was not intended to create a difference in growth between the two groups; it was made available to the animals in both groups, in equivalent quantities, to familiarize them with the dry solid feed and facilitate the transition from liquid to solid feed during weaning. As the amount of milk replacer provided was reduced from week 7, the amount of dry solid feed that was provided was increased to become the calves' primary source of nutrients. As for before weaning, animals in both groups were raised in a straw-bedded area that complied with European standards, the animals had ad libitum access to straw, and fresh straw for bedding was supplied every day. Each calf's daily ration was split into five meals to avoid feed being left in the troughs. In summary, heifers in the CON group each received 980.1 kg of dry solid concentrate in their first year whereas heifers in the OPT group received 1664.8 kg of dry solid concentrate during the same period.

## Energy and protein formulations of the diets

Food rations were established based on the nutritional values of the feed components (Table 3). At birth calves are not yet ruminants, but they progress to a ruminant stage over the first few months of their development. To compare the two diets during the transition, the nutritional values of the milk replacer and of the solid feed were all converted into metabolizable energy (ME) and apparent digestible proteins (ADP) values using formulas published by the National Research Council in 2001 [36]. Both feeding plans (including milk replacer and solid feed) were designed using NRC prediction equations [36] to allow growths of 800 g/day for the control plan and 1000 g/day for the optimized plan from birth to puberty while providing enough energy and protein to support the desired growth rates without nutrient limitations nor imbalance between energy and protein intake in both diets.

For the milk replacer, Metabolizable energy (ME) in Mcal/kg DM = 0.97 x Digestible Energy (DE), where DE = 0.97 Gross Energy (GE), where GE in Mcal/kg DM = 0.057 crude proteins in % (CP%) + 0.092 crude fat in % (fat%) + 0.0395 lactose in % (where lactose = 100—
<table><caption>Table 3. Nutritional values of the feeds used in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>CMR<sup>1</sup></th><th>Dry solid feed<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>DM<sup>3</sup>, % of total weight</td><td>97</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>CP<sup>4</sup>, g/kg</td><td>240</td><td>190</td></tr><tr><td>ADP<sup>5</sup>, g/kg</td><td>223.2<sup>a</sup></td><td>142.5<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td>CF<sup>6</sup>, g/kg</td><td>200</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>NDF<sup>7</sup>, g/kg</td><td>-</td><td>236.2</td></tr><tr><td>Ash, g/kg</td><td>75.0</td><td>68.2</td></tr><tr><td>Starch, g/kg</td><td>5.0</td><td>275.3</td></tr><tr><td>ME<sup>8</sup>, Mcal/kg</td><td>4.82<sup>c</sup></td><td>2.87<sup>d</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314015.t003

CP%—fat%—ash% [NRC 2001 Eq. 10–5]). One kilogram of milk replacer (on a dry matter basis) is therefore equivalent to 4.82 Mcal/kg (Table 3). For solid feed, ME in Mcal/kg DM = 1.01 DE– 0.45) + 0.0046 (EE-3) [NRC 2001 Eq. 10–8], where DE = 3.20 Mcal/kg and EE = 23 g/kg as calculated from composition and feedstuffs values [Table 15–1 in NRC 2001]. One kilogram of solid feed (on a dry matter basis) is therefore equivalent to 2.87 Mcal/kg (Table 3).

To calculate the bioavailability of a heifer's protein intake, a digestibility coefficient was used to obtain an ADP value. This coefficient depends on the composition of the feed, it applied to crude proteins content, it is 0.93 for milk replacer and 0.75 for solid feed (Table 3) [36, 38].

## Determination of age at puberty onset

To determine the ages of heifers at the onset of puberty, we used two methods in parallel: 1) an assay was performed weekly to measure the progesterone concentration in blood, starting from 5 months of age; and 2) ultrasound was performed weekly to monitor uterine development and ovarian cyclicity. Plasma progesterone concentration was measured by an ELISA assay [39] using 10 µL of undiluted plasma from heifers and primiparous cows; the detection limit of the assay was 0.4 ng/mL, whereas the threshold for determining puberty or any luteal phase was 0.8 ng/mL. For the performance of ultrasonography in the field, we used an Expadap mini ultrasound and a 128-element LR760 transrectal linear probe (IMV imaging, Angoulême, France).

## BW and morphometry

From birth to 12 weeks of age, the animals were weighed once every week using a weighing scale (precision 50 g; Balea, Saint-Mathieu-de-Tréviers, France), after which the weighing

<footnote n="1">¹CMR = Calf milk replacer: Univor Premium, Trade mark of Bonilait Protéines, Chasseneuil du Poitou—France.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Dry solid feed: Floribelle, Trade mark of Tellus, Saint Germain de Salles—France.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³DM = Dry matter.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴CP = Crude protein.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ADP = Apparent digestible protein; ADP = 0.93 x CP for CMRª and ADP = 0.75 x CP for solid feedᵇ [NRC 2001].</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶CF = Crude fat.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷NDF = Neutral detergent fiber</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ME = Metabolizable energy; ME = 0.97 x DE with DE = 0.97 GE with GE (Mcal/kg) = 0.057 CP% + 0.092 fat% + 0.0395 lactose% for CMRᶜ (where lactose% = 100—CP%—fat%—ash% [NRC 2001 Eq. 10–5]) and ME = (1.01 x DE – 0.45) + 0.0046 (EE-3) [NRC 2001 Eq. 10–8] for solid feedᵈ (where DE = 3.20 Mcal/kg and EE = 23 g/kg as calculated from composition and feedstuffs values [NRC 2001 Table 15–1]).</footnote>
frequency was reduced to once every 2 weeks. Each month, seven specific measurements were taken from each animal as follows: 1) the length from the point of the shoulder to the tip of the left ischium (using a seamstress' measuring tape), 2) the chest circumference at the tip of the withers (using a barymeter, Chambre Régionale d'agriculture de Bretagne, Rennes, France), 3) the height at the withers, 4) the height at the sacrum (using an aluminum rigid gauge, Alliance pastorale, Montmorillon, France), 5) the width at the hips, 6) the width at the external trochanters, and 7) the width at the ischium pins (using a tree caliper Zimmer, Zimming, France). All measurements were recorded via Wi-Fi using a Nomad 800L portable terminal (Agid, Dijon, France).

## Imaging techniques

Ultrasound images were also taken each month using an Expad mini ultrasound and a 128-element 10 MHz L738P linear probe (IMV imaging; Angoulême, France). They were performed in several bodily locations as previously described [40]: 1) at the buttock at the point of convergence of the facia of the superficial, intermediate, and deep gluteus muscles; 2) at the spine of the 4th lumbar vertebra; and 3) between the 12th and 13th ribs, at the tip of the ribs, with the probe placed vertically.

A total of 12 heifers were given a CT examination at ages 12 and 18 weeks to assess the growth of the rumen and the tibia before animals weighed 200 kg, which is the weight limit supported by the CT table. These examinations were carried out under anesthesia using the following protocol: xylazine (Rompun 2%, Elanco, Germany) was administered by intramuscular injection at a dose of 0.05 mg/kg, and 10 min later butorphanol (Torbugesic Vet 10 mg/ml, Zoetis France, Malakoff, France) was administered by intramuscular injection at a dose of 0.05 mg/kg. With the approval of the ethics committee, the animals were denied access to solid feed on the morning of the CT examination; their last possible meal took place before midnight on the previous day, and the animals were weighed before anesthesia on the morning of the CT examination.

Examinations were carried out by x-ray computerized tomography (Somaton definition AS, Siemens Healthcare SAS, Saint Denis France) using the same x-ray source setting (140 kV, 640 mA/s) for all images to facilitate processing. Raw examinations were performed using Syngo.Via software (Siemens Healthcare SAS, Saint Denis France). All volumes were calculated using the volume tool of the Somaris/7 syngo CT 2012B software package (Siemens Healthineers International, Erlangen, Germany). Bone measurements were taken on the left and right tibias of each heifer. Four ranges in Hounsfield units (HU) were defined to allow the standardized assessment of the volumes of different parts of the bone as follows: total bone (–120 to 2000 HU), cortical bone (800 to 2000 HU), epiphyseal spongy cancellous bone (0 to 800 HU), and medullary cavity (–120 to 0 HU). The volume of the rumen was calculated by selecting pixels within the same range of Hounsfield units for a food bolus (–800 to –10 HU) and for air (–1000 to –800 HU). These assessment ranges were identical for all calves.

## Blood samples

Blood samples were collected from the jugular vein directly into heparinized Vacutainers (Dutcher, Brumath, France) and immediately centrifuged (4500 g for 5 min at 4°C). The separated plasma was stored at –20°C until it was required for assays. The plasma concentrations of triglycerides (Tg), phospholipids (PL), and cholesterol (Chol) were determined by enzymatic assays performed using specific kits from Biolabo SAS (Maizy, France) as follows: triglycerides (reference: LP80519), phospholipids (reference: 99105) and cholesterol (reference: 80106). For each of these assays, the inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variation (CV) were
both < 15%. Plasma concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) were determined by ELISA using a specific bovine kit (reference: RAB 1187-1KT) from Sigma Aldrich (Saint-Quentin-Fallavier, France). The intra- and interassay CVs were <10% and <12%, respectively. Non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) were determined using an enzymatic colorimetry assay (Wako Chemicals GmbH, Neuss, Germany), which had intra- and interassay CVs below 6%.

## Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out with SAS software (SAS version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA), and data are presented as means ± SEM. The Gaussian distribution of each measure was assessed by Fisher tests. If the variances were equal, then bi-parametric ANOVA were performed to compare treatment groups, season blocks, and interactions between treatment and season, either at a given age or a given weight. Otherwise, non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests and Wilcoxon's tests were performed. When it was useful to track parameters over time, mixed procedures for repeated effects, including the animal as random effect were used. For all tests, the level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

## Results

As birth weight was a criterion that was considered when allocating the calves into the optimized (OPT) and the control (CON) groups, it did not differ between the two groups of calves. However, there was a seasonal effect on this parameter, with summer-born (SUM) calves being lighter than winter-born (WIN) calves (p = 0.020). As is shown in Table 4, indicators related to the energy metabolism of the animals did not differ at birth between the CON and the OPT groups of calves, although calves born in summer showed lower circulating levels of plasma NEFA compared with those born in winter (p = 0.002). In addition, there were no differences at birth between groups or between seasons for plasma cholesterol, phospholipids, triglycerides, or IGF1.

The same CON and OPT lactation plans were followed by animals in the two breeding blocks. The differences that were identified between groups (Table 5) retained significance at each week. There was a difference between blocks in week 1 in favor of the WIN block and in

<table><caption>Table 4. Plasma indicators of the calves at birth.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Groups</th><th colspan="2">Groups—diet<sup>1</sup></th><th colspan="2">Blocks—season<sup>2</sup></th><th rowspan="2">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th colspan="3">Probability<sup>3</sup></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SUM</th><th>WIN</th><th>TGE</th><th>SE</th><th>TGE x SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Birth weight, kg</td><td>38.3</td><td>38.2</td><td>36.4</td><td><strong>40.3*</strong></td><td>6.5</td><td>0.939</td><td><strong>0.020</strong></td><td>0.749</td></tr><tr><td>Cholesterol, g/L</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.199</td><td>0.926</td><td>0.946</td></tr><tr><td>Phospholipids, g/L</td><td>3.1</td><td>3.2</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.2</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.711</td><td>0.515</td><td>0.580</td></tr><tr><td>Triglycerides, mg/L</td><td>178</td><td>174</td><td>173</td><td>179</td><td>16.4</td><td>0.485</td><td>0.207</td><td>0.617</td></tr><tr><td>NEFA<sup>5</sup>, µmol/L</td><td>623</td><td>617</td><td>597</td><td><strong>646*</strong></td><td>53</td><td>0.681</td><td><strong>0.002</strong></td><td>0.825</td></tr><tr><td>IGF1<sup>6</sup>, ng/mL</td><td>129</td><td>130</td><td>130</td><td>129</td><td>5.6</td><td>0.348</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.185</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized (OPT) nutrition groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Season: SUM = summer; WIN = winter.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; SE = season effect; TGE x SE = interaction between treatment group and season effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴SEM = Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵NEFA = non-esterified fatty acid.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶IGF1 = Insulin-like growth factor 1.</footnote>

<footnote>*Numbers in bold represent averages that are significantly different with P-value <0.05.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 5. Volumes and quantities of milk replacer consumed by calves in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Week</th><th colspan="3">Groups—diet<fnref n="1" /><br>CMR, kg/week</th><th colspan="3">Blocks—season<fnref n="2" /><br>CMR, kg/week</th><th colspan="3">Probability<fnref n="3" /></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<fnref n="4" /></th><th>SUM</th><th>WIN</th><th>SEM<fnref n="4" /></th><th>TGE</th><th>SE</th><th>TGE x SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1⁵</td><td>1.9</td><td>2.9*</td><td>0.4</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.7*</td><td>0.6</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.079</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>4.0</td><td>6.4*</td><td>0.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>5.2</td><td>1.3</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.866</td><td>0.146</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>4.8</td><td>7.4*</td><td>0.5</td><td>6.2</td><td>6.1</td><td>1.4</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.522</td><td>0.085</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>5.6</td><td>8.6*</td><td>0.4</td><td>7.1</td><td>7.1</td><td>1.6</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.553</td><td>0.083</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>6.4</td><td>9.5*</td><td>0.7</td><td>8.1</td><td>7.8</td><td>1.7</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.084</td><td>0.131</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>6.3</td><td>9.5*</td><td>0.3</td><td>8.1*</td><td>7.7</td><td>1.7</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.247</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>4.8</td><td>7.5*</td><td>0.1</td><td>6.2*</td><td>6.0</td><td>1.4</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>3.9</td><td>5.7*</td><td>0.2</td><td>5.0*</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.0</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.118</td></tr><tr><td>9⁶</td><td>1.6</td><td>2.1*</td><td>0.2</td><td>2.0*</td><td>1.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.133</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>Total</td><td>39.4</td><td>59.7*</td><td>1.9</td><td>50.0</td><td>49.0</td><td>2.5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td>0.634</td><td>0.683</td></tr></tfoot></table>

weeks 6 to 9 in favor of the SUM block. Overall, over the nine weeks of the lactation plan, there was a difference between treatments diets (p<0.001) but not between season (p = 0.634).

Up to week 5 after birth, the amount of solid feed consumption was around 100 g/day for each animal, with no differences observed between the two groups (Table 6). From weeks 6 and 7 onwards, feed intake increased without any attempt to differentiate between the animals in the two groups. From week 8 onwards, the feeding plans, and therefore feed consumption, differed significantly between the two groups (p<0.001). There was a difference between SUM and WIN blocks in the first few weeks up to week 8. Then, there was no difference between blocks until week 17. From week 17 to week 26, there was a season effect in favor of block WIN, then between weeks 30 and 36 in favor of block SUM. Overall, cumulative annual consumption differed between the two treatment diet groups (p<0.001) but not between the seasons (p = 0.358). A graph is presented in S1 Fig to illustrate the differences observed between blocks and between groups.

The amounts of dry matter (DM) intake, ME, and ADP that these quantities of milk and solid feed represent are presented in Table 7. The results are presented according to either age or target weight. The feed intake results were greater in the group of calves that ate the optimized treatment diet for all indicators between all time- and weight-based ranges. From birth to weaning, there was a seasonal effect on the quantities of both milk replacer (p = 0.014) and solid feed (p<0.001) that were consumed. There was also a seasonal effect between 200 and 300 kg in favor of the WIN block, and between 300 and 400 kg in favor of the SUM block. Overall, in terms of cumulative feed intake (i.e., energy and protein) over one year or to reach the target weight of 400 kg, there was a difference between treatments diet groups (p<0.001) but not between seasons (p = 0.173).

As shown in Fig 1A to 1D, we took images of each animals' tibia bone and its different tissue components using x-ray CT scanning with automatic thresholding.

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized (OPT) nutrition groups with ADG targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Season: SUM = summer; WIN = winter.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; SE = season effect; TGE x SE = interaction between treatment group and season effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵From day 4 to 7 as the milk-replacer feeding plan is beginning on day 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Weaning occurred on day 63.</footnote>

<footnote>*Numbers in bold represent averages that are significantly different with P-value <0.05.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 6. Quantities of solid feed consumed by calves in this study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Week</th><th colspan="3">Groups—diet<fnref n="1" /><br/>Solid feed, kg/week</th><th colspan="3">Blocks—season<fnref n="2" /><br/>Solid feed, kg/week</th><th colspan="3">Probability<fnref n="3" /></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<fnref n="4" /></th><th>SUM</th><th>WIN</th><th>SEM<fnref n="4" /></th><th>TGE</th><th>SE</th><th>TGE x SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2–5⁵</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.4</td><td><strong>0.9*</strong></td><td>0.6</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.715</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.361</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>0.5</td><td><strong>1.8*</strong></td><td>1.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.740</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.400</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.7</td><td>0.7</td><td><strong>3.1*</strong></td><td>2.5</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.727</td><td><strong>0.013</strong></td><td>0.965</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>5.7</td><td><strong>6.2*</strong></td><td>0.4</td><td><strong>6.2*</strong></td><td>5.7</td><td>0.6</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.693</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>8.6</td><td><strong>11.3*</strong></td><td>0.8</td><td>10.1</td><td>9.8</td><td>1.7</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.101</td><td>0.552</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>11.7</td><td><strong>18.4*</strong></td><td>1.9</td><td>16.0</td><td>14.0</td><td>4.1</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.240</td><td>0.410</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>12.7</td><td><strong>23.1*</strong></td><td>0.6</td><td>17.8</td><td>18.0</td><td>5.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.179</td><td>0.420</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>15.7</td><td><strong>26.3*</strong></td><td>2.2</td><td>20.9</td><td>21.1</td><td>5.7</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.975</td><td>0.124</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>17.2</td><td><strong>29.1*</strong></td><td>0.9</td><td>22.7</td><td><strong>23.7*</strong></td><td>6.3</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.141</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>18.5</td><td><strong>34.2*</strong></td><td>0.8</td><td>26.1</td><td><strong>26.7*</strong></td><td>8.1</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.006</strong></td><td>0.782</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>20.8</td><td><strong>40.3*</strong></td><td>1.6</td><td>30.0</td><td><strong>31.2*</strong></td><td>10.3</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.002</strong></td><td>0.257</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>22.1</td><td><strong>42.6*</strong></td><td>1.7</td><td><strong>33.2*</strong></td><td>30.8</td><td>10.6</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.933</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>21.7</td><td><strong>43.5*</strong></td><td>1.6</td><td><strong>32.6*</strong></td><td>32.0</td><td>11.3</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.015</strong></td><td>0.999</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>29.3</td><td><strong>44.1*</strong></td><td>1.3</td><td>36.2</td><td>36.9</td><td>7.9</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.425</td><td>0.213</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>980</td><td><strong>1665*</strong></td><td>19.0</td><td>1298</td><td>1330</td><td>360</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.784</td><td>0.958</td></tr></tbody></table>

Calves in the OPT group were heavier than those in the CON group (Table 8) at both 12 and 18 weeks. At 12 weeks of age, the only difference in bone volume found between the groups was in the cortical bone: greater cortical bone thickness was measured in the tibia of calves in the OPT group compared with those in the CON group. At 18 weeks of age, in addition to this difference in cortical bone thickness there was a difference in favor of calves fed with the optimized diet for trabecular cancellous bone. On a per-kilogram-weight basis, cortical bone volume remained greater at 18 weeks of age for OPT calves. At 12 weeks of age, the ruminal mean volumes (Fig 1E and 1F) of the calves in the CON group were higher than those of the calves in the OPT group; this difference in ruminal volume was no longer significant at 18 weeks. All parameters that were assessed changed as a function of time between the two dates, except for medullary cavity volume, which remained constant on a per-kilogram-weight basis.

The distribution of animals in the two treatments diet according to the age at puberty with a half-month increment is shown in Fig 2. The age at puberty onset of the OPT calves ranged from 7 months and 18 days to 9 months and 18 days, with an average age of 8.4 ± 0.6 months. In comparison, the age at puberty of the CON calves ranged from 9 months and 12 days to 13 months and 27 days, with an average age of 11.2 ± 1.1 months; this difference in age was statistically significant (p<0.001).

Various measures were selected to describe the heifers' growth at selected ages (Table 9) or target weights (Table 10). These measures were classified as parameters of general development, skeletal development, development of the muscle or fat compartments (Fig 3), and plasma parameters.

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Season: SUM = summer; WIN = winter.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; SE = season effect; TGE x SE = interaction between treatment group and season effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵No access to solid feed before day 15.</footnote>

<footnote>*Numbers in bold represent averages that are significantly different with P-value <0.05.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 7. Changes in DM intake, ME intake, and ADP according to age or target weight in both CON and OPT groups<fnref n="1" />.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Quantity, kg DM<sup>2</sup></th><th colspan="3">ME<sup>3</sup>, Mcal/kg DM<sup>2</sup></th><th colspan="3">ADP<sup>4</sup>, kg/kg DM<sup>2</sup></th><th colspan="3">Probability<sup>5</sup></th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>6</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>6</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>6</sup></th><th>TGE</th><th>SE</th><th>TGE x SE</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Birth to weaning, CMR<sup>7</sup></td><td>38.2</td><td><strong>57.9*</strong></td><td>1.8</td><td>184</td><td><strong>279*</strong></td><td>8.7</td><td>8.5</td><td><strong>12.9*</strong></td><td>0.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.634</td><td>0.683</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to weaning, DR<sup>8</sup></td><td>20.9</td><td><strong>25.1*</strong></td><td>3.4</td><td>60.0</td><td><strong>72.0*</strong></td><td>9.8</td><td>3.0</td><td><strong>3.6*</strong></td><td>0.5</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.047</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Birth to 6 mo<sup>8</sup></td><td>282</td><td><strong>494*</strong></td><td>8.4</td><td>809</td><td><strong>1418*</strong></td><td>24.1</td><td>40.3</td><td><strong>70.3*</strong></td><td>1.2</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.854</td><td>0.251</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to puberty<sup>8</sup></td><td>766</td><td><strong>869*</strong></td><td>128</td><td>2198</td><td><strong>2494*</strong></td><td>367</td><td>109</td><td><strong>124*</strong></td><td>18.3</td><td><strong>0.010</strong></td><td>0.307</td><td>0.591</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to 12 mo<sup>8</sup></td><td>862</td><td><strong>1465*</strong></td><td>16.7</td><td>2474</td><td><strong>4205*</strong></td><td>47.9</td><td>123</td><td><strong>209*</strong></td><td>2.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.784</td><td>0.958</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to 100 kg, CMR<sup>7</sup></td><td>38.2</td><td><strong>57.9*</strong></td><td>1.8</td><td>184</td><td><strong>279*</strong></td><td>8.7</td><td>8.5</td><td><strong>12.9*</strong></td><td>0.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.634</td><td>0.683</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to 100 kg, DR<sup>8</sup></td><td><strong>69.4*</strong></td><td>42.6</td><td>22.7</td><td><strong>199*</strong></td><td>122</td><td>65.1</td><td><strong>9.9*</strong></td><td>6.1</td><td>3.2</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.262</td><td>0.367</td></tr><tr><td>100kg to 200 kg<sup>8</sup></td><td>307</td><td><strong>361*</strong></td><td>51.9</td><td>881</td><td><strong>1036*</strong></td><td>149</td><td>43.8</td><td><strong>51.4*</strong></td><td>7.4</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.103</td><td>0.199</td></tr><tr><td>200 kg to 300 kg<sup>8</sup></td><td>381</td><td><strong>488*</strong></td><td>65.1</td><td>1093</td><td><strong>1401*</strong></td><td>187</td><td>54.3</td><td><strong>69.6*</strong></td><td>9.3</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.532</td></tr><tr><td>300 kg to 400 kg<sup>8</sup></td><td>456</td><td><strong>577*</strong></td><td>59.8</td><td>1309</td><td><strong>1656*</strong></td><td>172</td><td>65.0</td><td><strong>82.3*</strong></td><td>8.5</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.003</strong></td><td>0.589</td></tr><tr><td>Birth to 400 kg<sup>8</sup></td><td>1209</td><td><strong>1462*</strong></td><td>121</td><td>3470</td><td><strong>4196*</strong></td><td>347</td><td>172</td><td><strong>208*</strong></td><td>17.2</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.173</td><td>0.754</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** CT scan images of a tibia and a rumen. Photographs showing the different parts of a tibia discriminated by a CT scan with automatic thresholding (A, total bone; B, cortical bone; C, spongy cancellous bone; D, medullary cavity) and of a rumen (E, bolus; F, air) obtained by x-ray CT scanning. The bar represents 10 cm. r, rumen; o, omasum.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²DM: Dry matter.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ME: Metabolizable energy.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ADP = Apparent digestible protein.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; SE = season effect; TGE x SE = interaction between treatment group and season effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷CMR: Calf milk replacer.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸DR: Dry ration only.</footnote>

<footnote>*Numbers in bold represent averages that are significantly different with P-value <0.05.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 8. Parameters measured in the heifers at the 12-week and 18-week CT assessments.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Groups—diet<fnref n="1" /></th><th rowspan="3">SEM<fnref n="3" /></th><th colspan="3">Probability<fnref n="2" /></th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">12 weeks</th><th colspan="2">18 weeks</th><th rowspan="2">TGE</th><th rowspan="2">TE</th><th rowspan="2">TGE x TE</th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Weight (kg)</td><td>103.5</td><td><strong>123.5*</strong></td><td>136.0</td><td><strong>163.2*</strong></td><td>10.5</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.170</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume MC<fnref n="4" /> (cm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>47.1</td><td>48.2</td><td>66.7</td><td>75.7</td><td>16.5</td><td>0.209</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.330</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume CB<fnref n="5" /> (cm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>42.5</td><td><strong>53.7*</strong></td><td>58.5</td><td><strong>81.9*</strong></td><td>11.8</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.130</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume SCB<fnref n="6" /> (cm<fnref n="3" />)</td><td>97.7</td><td>111.8</td><td>110.5</td><td><strong>139.7*</strong></td><td>23.8</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>0.001</strong></td><td>0.204</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume MC<fnref n="4" /> (mm<fnref n="3" />/kg)</td><td>458</td><td>397</td><td>491</td><td>464</td><td>149</td><td>0.186</td><td>0.133</td><td>0.596</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume CB<fnref n="5" /> (mm<fnref n="3" />/kg)</td><td>408</td><td>436</td><td>430</td><td><strong>502*</strong></td><td>82</td><td><strong>0.002</strong></td><td><strong>0.006</strong></td><td>0.147</td></tr><tr><td>Tibia volume SCB<fnref n="6" /> (mm<fnref n="3" />/kg)</td><td>943</td><td>906</td><td>810</td><td>856</td><td>167</td><td>0.917</td><td><strong>0.027</strong></td><td>0.305</td></tr><tr><td>Rumen vol (l)</td><td><strong>14.9*</strong></td><td>9.8</td><td>19.2</td><td>16.6</td><td>3.2</td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td><strong>&lt;0.001</strong></td><td>0.077</td></tr></tbody></table>

When results are presented depending on the time, there was a significant difference in favor of the OPT group at 9 weeks, 6 and 12 months for all general and skeletal development indicators as well as for the muscle compartment (Table 9). As expected, ADG was greater for the OPT group at all ages.

At puberty, the indicators of skeletal and muscular development (gluteus, lumbar and flat rib muscles) were not significantly different between the two groups, but the indicators of development of the adipose compartment were higher in the OPT group compared with the CON group from 6 months of age (Table 9). The thoracic perimeter measurements were greater in the OPT group compared with the CON group at ages 9 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months; however, this measure was greater in the CON group at puberty. Finally, among the

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Distribution of the ages in months of heifers at puberty onset. Control (CON) group: white bars, average age at puberty 11.2 ± 1.1 months. Optimized-diet (OPT) group: gray bars, average age at puberty 8.4 ± 0.6 months.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Probability of treatment effects: TGE = treatment group effect; TE = time effect; TGE x TE = interaction between treatment group and time effects.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴MC: Medullary cavity.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵CB: Cortical bone.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶SCB: Spongy cancellous bone.</footnote>

<footnote>*Numbers in bold represent averages that are significantly different, with P-value <0.05.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 9. Changes with age in measurements related to skeletal, muscle, subcutaneous fat, and general growth in both CON and OPT groups¹.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Weaning (9 weeks)</th><th colspan="3">6 months</th><th colspan="3">Puberty</th><th colspan="3">12 months</th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">General development</td><td>Age, months</td><td>2.2</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>5.6</td><td>5.6</td><td>0.1</td><td><strong>11.2*</strong></td><td>8.4</td><td>1.1</td><td>12.1</td><td>12.0</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Weight, kg</td><td>81</td><td><strong>95*</strong></td><td>7.8</td><td>164</td><td><strong>206*</strong></td><td>12.6</td><td>304</td><td>298</td><td>31.6</td><td>324</td><td><strong>403*</strong></td><td>19.6</td></tr><tr><td>ADG<sup>3</sup>, g/day</td><td>650</td><td><strong>859*</strong></td><td>87.9</td><td>735</td><td><strong>982*</strong></td><td>54.5</td><td>780</td><td><strong>1018*</strong></td><td>61.9</td><td>779</td><td><strong>994*</strong></td><td>53.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Skeletal development</td><td>TP<sup>4</sup>, cm</td><td>101</td><td><strong>103*</strong></td><td>3.8</td><td>128</td><td><strong>136*</strong></td><td>3.0</td><td><strong>160*</strong></td><td>155</td><td>7.2</td><td>164</td><td><strong>174*</strong></td><td>4.6</td></tr><tr><td>Length, cm</td><td>90</td><td><strong>94*</strong></td><td>4.0</td><td>116</td><td><strong>124*</strong></td><td>6.2</td><td>142</td><td>142</td><td>7.0</td><td>145</td><td><strong>154*</strong></td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>HW<sup>5</sup>, cm</td><td>91</td><td><strong>95*</strong></td><td>3.3</td><td>108</td><td><strong>114*</strong></td><td>2.6</td><td>126</td><td>124</td><td>5.0</td><td>128</td><td><strong>133*</strong></td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>HS<sup>6</sup>, cm</td><td>96</td><td><strong>100*</strong></td><td>2.6</td><td>113</td><td><strong>120*</strong></td><td>2.9</td><td>132</td><td>131</td><td>4.2</td><td>134</td><td><strong>140*</strong></td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>WH<sup>7</sup>, cm</td><td>22.1</td><td><strong>23.3*</strong></td><td>1.0</td><td>29.7</td><td><strong>32.3*</strong></td><td>1.2</td><td>39.3</td><td>38.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>40.6</td><td><strong>44.7*</strong></td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>WT<sup>8</sup>, cm</td><td>26.1</td><td><strong>27.7*</strong></td><td>1.9</td><td>32.3</td><td><strong>35.5*</strong></td><td>1.1</td><td>40.7</td><td>40.9</td><td>1.9</td><td>41.8</td><td><strong>45.1*</strong></td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>WI<sup>9</sup>, cm</td><td>14.7</td><td><strong>16.4*</strong></td><td>2.0</td><td>18.6</td><td><strong>20.8*</strong></td><td>1.3</td><td>25.6</td><td>24.9</td><td>1.7</td><td>26.4</td><td><strong>29.1*</strong></td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Muscle comp.</td><td>GS<sup>10</sup>, mm</td><td>9.5</td><td><strong>11.7*</strong></td><td>1.1</td><td>13.0</td><td><strong>15.2*</strong></td><td>1.5</td><td>17.3</td><td>17.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>17.5</td><td><strong>19.6*</strong></td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>LD<sup>11</sup>, mm</td><td>15.0</td><td><strong>18.1*</strong></td><td>2.2</td><td>18.3</td><td><strong>22.4*</strong></td><td>3.4</td><td>22.9</td><td>23.5</td><td>3.5</td><td>23.2</td><td><strong>28.1*</strong></td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>FRM<sup>12</sup>, mm</td><td>6.4</td><td><strong>7.9*</strong></td><td>1.4</td><td>7.6</td><td><strong>9.9*</strong></td><td>1.7</td><td>11.4</td><td>12.2</td><td>2.0</td><td>12.0</td><td><strong>15.7*</strong></td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Adipose comp.</td><td>FB<sup>13</sup>, mm</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.8</td><td><strong>1.1*</strong></td><td>0.6</td><td>1.8</td><td><strong>2.7*</strong></td><td>0.8</td><td>2.1</td><td><strong>5.5*</strong></td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>FL<sup>14</sup>, mm</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.9</td><td><strong>1.4*</strong></td><td>0.4</td><td>1.8</td><td><strong>2.5*</strong></td><td>0.9</td><td>2.3</td><td><strong>4.6*</strong></td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>FR<sup>15</sup>, mm</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.8</td><td><strong>0.9*</strong></td><td>0.2</td><td>1.3</td><td><strong>1.6*</strong></td><td>0.5</td><td>1.5</td><td><strong>3.6*</strong></td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Plasma parameters</td><td>Chol<sup>16</sup>, g/L</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.7</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>1.0</td><td>2.5</td><td><strong>3.2*</strong></td><td>0.9</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>PL<sup>17</sup>, g/L</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.0</td><td>1.1</td><td>8.1</td><td>8.3</td><td>2.1</td><td>7.2</td><td>8.0</td><td>1.8</td><td>6.9</td><td>6.7</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Tg<sup>18</sup>, mg/L</td><td>179</td><td>176</td><td>57.1</td><td>200</td><td>202</td><td>27.7</td><td>177</td><td>207</td><td>84.0</td><td>200</td><td>185</td><td>107.8</td></tr><tr><td>NEFA<sup>19</sup>, mmol/L</td><td>383</td><td>376</td><td>38.8</td><td><strong>369*</strong></td><td>343</td><td>19.2</td><td><strong>395*</strong></td><td>332</td><td>19.1</td><td><strong>404*</strong></td><td>314</td><td>16.4</td></tr><tr><td>IGF1<sup>20</sup>, ng/mL</td><td>118</td><td><strong>191*</strong></td><td>13.9</td><td>144</td><td><strong>215*</strong></td><td>15.7</td><td>194</td><td><strong>237*</strong></td><td>18.3</td><td>201</td><td><strong>255*</strong></td><td>16.9</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.

²SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.

³ADG: average daily gain from birth;

⁴TP: thoracic perimeter;

⁵HW: height at withers;

⁶HS: height at the sacrum;

⁷WH: width at the hips;

⁸WT: width at trochanters;

⁹WI: width at ischial tuberosity;

¹⁰GS: gluteus superior thickness;

¹¹LD: longissimus dorsi thickness;

¹²FRM: flat rib muscle thickness;

¹³FB: fat thickness at the buttock;

¹⁴FL: fat thickness at the lumbar region;

¹⁵FR: fat thickness at the flat rib region;

¹⁶Chol: cholesterol;

¹⁷PL: phospholipids;

¹⁸Tg: triglycerides;

¹⁹NEFA: non-esterified fatty acids;

²⁰IGF1: insulin-like growth factor-1.

*Significantly greater due to feed treatment with P-value <0.05.
<table><caption>Table 10. Measurements related to bone, muscle, subcutaneous fat, and general growth made upon reaching target weights in both CON and OPT groups¹.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">100 kg</th><th colspan="3">200 kg</th><th colspan="3">300 kg</th><th colspan="3">400 kg</th></tr><tr><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th><th>CON</th><th>OPT</th><th>SEM<sup>2</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">General development</td><td>Age, mo</td><td><b>3.1</b>*</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.3</td><td><b>7.2</b>*</td><td>5.4</td><td>0.6</td><td><b>11.1</b>*</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.0</td><td><b>14.9</b>*</td><td>12.0</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Weight, kg</td><td>102</td><td>104</td><td>3.6</td><td>205</td><td>207</td><td>7.0</td><td>305</td><td>306</td><td>8.0</td><td>401</td><td>403</td><td>9.8</td></tr><tr><td>ADG<sup>3</sup>, g/day</td><td>674</td><td><b>886</b>*</td><td>80.4</td><td>749</td><td><b>991</b>*</td><td>63.8</td><td>778</td><td><b>1027</b>*</td><td>65.3</td><td>804</td><td><b>993</b>*</td><td>58.9</td></tr><tr><td>TP<sup>4</sup>, cm</td><td>108</td><td>107</td><td>3.9</td><td><b>138</b>*</td><td>136</td><td>3.0</td><td><b>161</b>*</td><td>157</td><td>3.8</td><td><b>178</b>*</td><td>175</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Skeletal development</td><td>Length, cm</td><td>99</td><td>98</td><td>4.8</td><td>124</td><td>124</td><td>4.8</td><td>145</td><td>143</td><td>4.8</td><td>156</td><td>154</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>HW<sup>5</sup>, cm</td><td>96</td><td>96</td><td>2.6</td><td>114</td><td>114</td><td>3.1</td><td>126</td><td>125</td><td>3.4</td><td>134</td><td>133</td><td>3.0</td></tr><tr><td>HS<sup>6</sup>, cm</td><td>101</td><td>101</td><td>2.5</td><td>120</td><td>120</td><td>2.9</td><td>133</td><td>132</td><td>2.7</td><td>140</td><td>140</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>WH<sup>7</sup>, cm</td><td>24.8</td><td>24.5</td><td>1.2</td><td>33.1</td><td>32.4</td><td>1.2</td><td>39.8</td><td>39.4</td><td>1.7</td><td>44.5</td><td>44.5</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>WT<sup>8</sup>, cm</td><td>27.7</td><td><b>28.8</b>*</td><td>1.5</td><td>35.2</td><td>35.8</td><td>1.4</td><td>41.1</td><td>41.5</td><td>1.3</td><td>44.7</td><td>44.9</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>WI<sup>9</sup>, cm</td><td>15.8</td><td>16.5</td><td>1.2</td><td>21.2</td><td>21.1</td><td>1.2</td><td>26.0</td><td>25.8</td><td>1.4</td><td>29.4</td><td>28.8</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Muscle comp.</td><td>GS<sup>10</sup>, mm</td><td>10.7</td><td><b>12.0</b>*</td><td>1.1</td><td>13.9</td><td><b>15.4</b>*</td><td>1.7</td><td>17.1</td><td>17.6</td><td>1.7</td><td>19.2</td><td>20.0</td><td>2.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Adipose comp.</td><td>LD<sup>11</sup>, mm</td><td>15.1</td><td><b>18.5</b>*</td><td>2.5</td><td>18.0</td><td><b>22.3</b>*</td><td>2.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>23.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>26.9</td><td>28.2</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>FRM<sup>12</sup>, mm</td><td>6.5</td><td><b>8.3</b>*</td><td>1.5</td><td>8.5</td><td><b>9.8</b>*</td><td>1.9</td><td>11.3</td><td>12.6</td><td>2.5</td><td>14.1</td><td>15.4</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td>FB<sup>13</sup>, mm</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.8</td><td><b>3.0</b>*</td><td>0.9</td><td>3.6</td><td><b>5.5</b>*</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Plasma parameters</td><td>FL<sup>14</sup>, mm</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.2</td><td><b>1.4</b>*</td><td>0.4</td><td>2.1</td><td><b>3.1</b>*</td><td>1.0</td><td>3.3</td><td><b>4.2</b>*</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>FR<sup>15</sup>, mm</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.3</td><td><b>1.8</b>*</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.2</td><td><b>3.2</b>*</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Chol<sup>16</sup>, g/L</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>1.0</td><td>2.3</td><td><b>3.1</b>*</td><td>0.9</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PL<sup>17</sup>, g/L</td><td>4.2</td><td>4.6</td><td>1.1</td><td>8.5</td><td>7.8</td><td>2.0</td><td>7.1</td><td><b>8.3</b>*</td><td>1.4</td><td>7.2</td><td>7.1</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Tg<sup>18</sup>, mg/L</td><td>185</td><td>167</td><td>59.2</td><td>202</td><td>179</td><td>60.0</td><td>172</td><td>206</td><td>84.2</td><td>193</td><td>201</td><td>64.7</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>NEFA<sup>19</sup>, mmol/L</td><td>373</td><td>397</td><td>44.6</td><td><b>373</b>*</td><td>345</td><td>19.1</td><td><b>397</b>*</td><td>332</td><td>19.9</td><td><b>409</b>*</td><td>323</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>IGF1<sup>20</sup>, ng/mL</td><td>119</td><td><b>187</b>*</td><td>19.4</td><td>159</td><td><b>209</b>*</td><td>18.2</td><td>195</td><td><b>238</b>*</td><td>20.0</td><td>210</td><td><b>251</b>*</td><td>20.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Treatment: calves were assigned to control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups with average daily gain (ADG) targets of 800 g/day and 1000 g/day, respectively.

²SEM: Greatest value of standard error of the mean within group.

³ADG: average daily gain from birth;

⁴TP: thoracic perimeter;

⁵HW: height at withers;

⁶HS: height at the sacrum;

⁷WH: width at the hips;

⁸WT: width at trochanters;

⁹WI: width at ischial tuberosity;

¹⁰GS: gluteus superior thickness;

¹¹LD: longissimus dorsi thickness;

¹²FRM: flat rib muscle thickness;

¹³FB: fat thickness at the buttock;

¹⁴FL: fat thickness at the lumbar region;

¹⁵FR: fat thickness at the flat rib region;

¹⁶Chol: cholesterol;

¹⁷PL: phospholipids;

¹⁸Tg: triglycerides;

¹⁹NEFA: non-esterified fatty acids;

²⁰IGF1: insulin-like growth factor-1

*Significantly greater due to feed treatment with P-value <0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314015.t010
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Photographs showing the three locations of ultrasound measurements. Measurements were made at the buttock at the point of convergence of the facia of the superficial, intermediate, and deep gluteus muscles (A); at the spine of the 4th lumbar vertebra (B); and between the 12th and 13th ribs, at the tip of the ribs with the probe placed vertically (C). The bar represents 1 cm in all photographs. Double white arrows and double white open arrows represent the locations where measurements were performed for fat and muscles, respectively. sk: skin, fb: fat thickness at the buttock, gs: gluteus superior thickness, gi: gluteus intermediate, gd: gluteus deep, fl: fat thickness at the lumbar region, ld: longissimus dorsi thickness, fr: fat thickness at the flat rib region, frm: flat rib muscle thickness.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314015.g003

circulating plasma indicators, NEFA was higher in the CON calves at 6 and 12 months of age and at puberty, whereas IGF1 was higher in the OPT calves at all ages. Note that circulating cholesterol was higher in OPT heifers at puberty.

When the groups were compared according to target weights (Table 10), there was still an advantage for the OPT calves with respect to the width at trochanters and at all three muscle locations at 100 kg. These greater muscular-compartment sizes were maintained at 200 kg; at this weight and in heavier animals, there were greater levels of adipose in the OPT group compared with the CON group. As seen previously at puberty, the thoracic perimeter measurements were higher in the CON group heifers at weights of 200 kg, 300 kg, and 400 kg. As was expected, the ADG was greater for OPT animals at all target weights. Concerning the circulating plasma indicators, we found higher NEFA levels in the CON animals at 200 kg, 300 kg and 400 kg. Finally, we found higher IGF1 levels in the OPT animals at all target weights and higher circulating levels of cholesterol and phospholipids in the OPT animals at 300 kg, i.e., during a period corresponding to puberty.

Discussion

There was a seasonal effect on the birth weights and the plasma NEFA concentrations of the newborn calves. The phenomenon of the exposure of cows to elevated ambient temperatures during late gestation shortening gestation has already been described by Wright et al. [41], and it results in lighter calves being born during the summer. In summer, reduced daily intake of DM during the last part of gestation, heat stress [42, 43], and/or decreased forage availability may contribute to the lower birth weights of calves [44]. As calf weight positively influences the plasma NEFA at birth [45-47] on one hand, and heat stress is inversely correlated with plasma NEFA concentration at birth on the other hand [48], we expected to see lower NEFA plasma concentrations in the lighter calves that were born in summer [49, 50].

As calf development occurs in the bone and muscle compartments before it occurs in the adipose tissue compartment [51], the first question we wanted to answer was whether the optimized feeding plan enabled earlier mineralization of the skeleton and earlier general body development. An interesting result is that the increased bone development at the cortical level in heifers fed the optimized diet correlated with the early development of bone tissue that later
mineralizes. This effect persisted even when the results were normalized to the weights of the animals. At equal weights, the calves fed the optimized diet showed better skeletal development due to the ingestion of the milk replacer almost exclusively for their first 7 weeks, after which they ingested the solid dry feed.

On the contrary, calves of the CON group had greater ruminal development according to the measurements of rumen volume. The rumen volumes of the CON calves are in agreement with what has already been described in the literature, with postweaning rumen volumes of around 14 liters and volumes of 19 liters having been measured at 16 weeks of age [52]. In contrast, the volumes of the rumens of the OPT calves were lower at 12 weeks compare to those of the CON calves. Because the rumen volume increases mainly due to the consumption of fibrous forages [29, 33], we attribute the deficit in rumen development of the calves fed the optimized diet to lower straw intake, even though straw was distributed ad libitum in the present study. It should be noted that smaller rumens do not reflect a functional deficit because the ADG of the OPT calves at this age was on average 1100 g/day, with exceptional calves gaining more than 1300 g/day; at this age, ADG was only around 750 g/day for the CON calves.

The calves on the optimized diet had distinctly earlier ages at the onset of puberty. The oldest age at which puberty was reached in that group was within a few days of puberty onset of the youngest CON calf to reach puberty. Due to their greater nutrient intake and ADG, puberty was achieved on average 3 months earlier in the OPT group compared with the CON group. Puberty does not occur at a fixed age, but rather occurs when the animals have reached a certain level of development. It is common to say that puberty is a function of weight, and this was true in our study as heifers reached puberty at an average weight of about 300 kg. Obviously, it took longer for the heifers in the CON group to reach 300 kg and therefore to reach puberty, but this was also achieved at lower energy and protein costs. What is interesting to note is that as with weight, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups for all other indicators of skeletal and muscular development at puberty. Our data show that puberty can be achieved at an earlier age using the optimized feeding plan, allowing the heifers' genetic potentials to express themselves. Another characteristic of heifers in the OPT group is that they have a higher fattening rate as early as 6 months of age, i.e., well before puberty, or at equivalent weight compared with animals in the CON group, from 200 kg upward. This raises the question of whether these fat reserves will be an advantage or a disadvantage for the animal's health, reproduction, and milk production throughout their career on the farm. With an ADG greater than 1000 g/day between the weights of 90 and 320 kg [53, 54] and a solid feed containing 19% crude protein [55], we may have exceeded the recommended levels; time will tell us whether we have impacted the animals' metabolic balance or influenced their milk production.

The management of feeding of both the control and optimized diets had the expected effects on growth. When the results are presented as a function of time, all indicators greater in the animals that were fed with the OPT plan compare to those feed with the CON plan. Despite the use of the same experimental design and feeding plans in the two blocks of calves, differences corresponding exclusively to minor intake refusals were observed according to the calves' birth season. Indeed, some calves from the WIN block were affected by a short-lived viral infection between birth and weaning; this episode was responsible for the differences observed in weeks 6 to 9 between the SUM and WIN blocks, for both milk replacer and solid feed. It should be noted that the difference between blocks in week 1 was not due to the viral episode, but rather to the promptness of the calves to go to the teat of the automatic feeder from day 4. These health problems generated slight differences between blocks, which fortunately had no impact on the different feeding treatments in place. Finally, concerning the other differences between the two blocks, sometimes in favor of the SUM block, sometimes in
favor of the WIN block, we believe that these are minor differences in growth kinetics around the 300 kg weight target, due to the animals being in summer or winter at different times in their development.

In line with the developmental pattern described by Robelin [51], parameters relating to skeletal and muscular development were initially higher for the calves of the OPT group, followed by those related to adipose tissue. This remained true when animals were compared at an equivalent weight. Among the morphometric indicators measured, trochanter width appeared to be the most sensitive parameter, perhaps because it reflects bone and muscle development. The heifers in the group that benefited from the optimized feeding treatment clearly retained an advantage in terms of muscle development at 100 kg and 200 kg; they lost this advantage at 300 kg (i.e., puberty) and at 400 kg, when their observed advantage switched to indicators reflecting the development of adipose tissue. Some metabolic parameters were also associated with lipid development, such as cholesterol and phospholipids, circulating levels of which are known to be positively correlated with feed intake and white adipose tissue mass [56]. Circulating TG levels were comparable in heifers from both groups. The storage capacity of adipocytes for TG is enormous, resulting in the lowering plasma levels as the volume of adipose tissue expands [57]. Circulating NEFA levels, on the other hand, reflected the mobilization of resources by heifers in the CON group at a time when the animals' energy requirements were increasing as they approached puberty [58, 59]. Levels of IGF1, which is an important developmental indicator [60-62], were also correlated with feed intake [63, 64]. Furthermore, plasma IGF1 was greater with the high levels of energy and protein in the milk replacer used in the optimized diet [65-67]. Plasma IGF1 concentrations in heifers from the CON group never caught up to those from the optimized diet. This indicates that the somatotropin axis had been the activated from birth in animals fed with the optimized nutritional plan [68, 69].

It is each heifer's age and weight at breeding, and then age at first calving, that set the growth targets to be aimed for. A heifer's age at puberty could be considered an indicator of the quality of its growth, as the onset of puberty is more dependent on an animal's level of development than on its age. We observed that skeletal and muscular morphological parameters were identical in the pubertal heifers of the two groups in this study, irrespective of their age. However, it is costly and time-consuming to determine age at puberty precisely, using progesterone assay or ultrasound, and although research institutes and experimental farms can afford to do this, breeders cannot.

Few studies have made the effort required to simultaneously assess so many zootechnical and metabolic parameters in dairy heifers from birth to one year of age. In the present study, we set out to monitor animal growth by measuring reference indicators for each of the major bone, muscle, and fat compartments, and then to study the interaction of these zootechnical indicators with rumen development and plasma metabolic indicators. Our model does not necessarily correspond to the model that would be chosen by a farmer who does not rely entirely on dry solid feed (the price of which has recently risen sharply), but who seeks to diversify his or her inputs by using any kind of forage available on the farm. On the other hand, this model does have the advantage of being highly analytical, enabling us to accurately follow the growth of individual calves at each stage of development, while also enabling us to calculate the associated costs. In our study, for example, for around 95 US$ extra per calf (90 € as 1 € equals 1.06 US$ today), we produced animals that reached puberty 80 days earlier than normal. If we take into account the advantages of early puberty for the farmer in terms of herd management, in addition to the costs of feeding animals awaiting renewal and the costs of labor and building maintenance, then there is no doubt that the slight extra cost of feeding is offset by what is gained. If we extended the exercise to the 400 kg target weight, a weight that
allows heifers to be inseminated, then the extra nutritional costs associated with the optimized diet reached a total of 135 US$ (127 €) per heifer (including milk replacer and solid feed), considering that heifers with the OPT diet will reach this milestone at 12 months, while those with the CON diet will reach this milestone at 15 months on average. Finally, this difference between treatment diets is minimal but these calculations do not include straw consumption by the animals in our study.

To avoid having to economize on calf nutrition while guaranteeing optimal development of the animals, it is necessary to select animal for feed efficiency. Curiously, this trait has changed little over the past 30 years, unlike in other species such as broilers, whose efficiency has improved by 250% in 50 years [70]. Because of their ruminant nature, cattle are destined to be much less efficient than other animal species, as they lose a large part of their energy in ruminal fermentation, and they have a high basal level of energy expenditure due to their large size. Nevertheless, according to Connor [71], selection for improved feed efficiency in growing and lactating dairy heifers by measuring residual feed intake combined with other economically important traits, is certainly a potential way to improve the profitability of milk production. In this study, we saw that the heifers that were fed the optimized diet were all able to reach puberty at 9.5 months of age or earlier. In contrast, the most efficient heifers in the CON group reached puberty at 9.5 months of age, but the control feeding plan allowed the wasteful animals in the CON group to reach puberty much later, with some heifers not reaching puberty until after 13.5 months of age. By combining automated daily weighing with automatic feeders, it would be possible to enable "à la carte" management that is based on each animal's effective growth rate and achieves optimum growth for all individuals in a population, thereby reducing heterogeneity and maintenance costs.

In conclusion, we created two groups of heifers that were allocated to different feeding plans—optimized versus control—that aimed to achieve first calving at the ages of 21 months (OPT) and 24 months (CON). Compared with the CON group, the heifers in the OPT group showed earlier skeletal mineralization, an increased body fattening and an ADG of 1018 g/day from birth to puberty, which enabled them to reach puberty 3 months earlier; the ADG of the CON heifers was 780 g/day over the same period. Despite the limitations of this study, in which the straw was neither restricted nor measured, this work defines new references for a multitude of morphometric indicators, thus enabling the precise monitoring of Holstein heifer growth from birth to puberty. We will continue to monitor these animals to see whether the advantages gained by the heifers in the OPT group in terms of energy reserves will give them an advantage during their milk production phase, or more generally over their entire careers, without compromising their reproductive potential or health.

**Supporting information**

S1 Fig. Evolution of body weight according to age in both control (CON) and optimized-feeding (OPT) groups in both summer (SUM) and winter (WIN) blocks.
(TIF)

**Acknowledgments**

The authors would like to thank Amandine Arnouil and Sophie Lancelin for assistance in the field; Gilles Gomot and Christian Moussu for performing anesthesia and taking care of the animals during imaging procedures; François Lecompte and Hans Adriaensen for their technical expertise in animal scanning and image production using computerized tomography; Asma
Lablarhi for her help in processing images of bones; and Alain Bouttier for his expert informat-
ics assistance.

The authors also would like to thank Professor Nancy H. Ing from Texas A&M University
for kindly agreeing to proofread this manuscript.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Eric Venturi, Ludovic Ducrocq, Cédric Ravineau, Pascal Salvetti, Rozenn Dalbies-Tran, Joëlle Dupont, Christophe Staub.

**Data curation:** Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Mathilde Daudon, Christophe Staub.

**Formal analysis:** Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Mathilde Daudon, Christelle Ramé, Frédéric Elleboudt, Joëlle Dupont, Christophe Staub.

**Funding acquisition:** Ludovic Ducrocq, Cédric Ravineau, Pascal Salvetti, Rozenn Dalbies-Tran, Joëlle Dupont, Christophe Staub.

**Investigation:** Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Ludovic Métivier, Eric Briant, Mickaël Dupont, David Georget, Mathilde Daudon, Christelle Ramé, Frédéric Elleboudt, Christophe Staub.

**Methodology:** Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Marine Saget, Mathilde Daudon, Christelle Ramé, Frédéric Elleboudt, Joëlle Dupont, Christophe Staub.

**Project administration:** Christophe Staub.

**Supervision:** Christophe Staub.

**Validation:** Clément Colas, Eric Venturi, Joëlle Dupont, Christophe Staub.

**Writing – original draft:** Clément Colas, Christophe Staub.

**Writing – review & editing:** Eric Venturi, Ludovic Ducrocq, Cédric Ravineau, Pascal Salvetti, Rozenn Dalbies-Tran, Joëlle Dupont.

**References**

1. Macdonald KA, Penno JW, Bryant AM, Roche JR. Effect of feeding level pre- and post-puberty and body weight at first calving on growth, milk production, and fertility in grazing dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2005; 88(9):3363-3375. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73020-4 PMID: 16107427

2. Heinrichs AJ, Jones CM, Gray SM, Heinrichs PA, Cornelisse SA, Goodling RC. Identifying efficient dairy heifer producers using production costs and data envelopment analysis. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96 (11):7355-7362. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6488 PMID: 24054291

3. Mohd Nor N, Steeneveld W, Derkman THJ, Verbruggen MD, Evers AG, De Haan MHA, et al. The total cost of rearing a heifer on Dutch dairy farms: calculated versus perceived cost. Ir Vet J. 2015; 68:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13620-015-0058-x PMID: 26675380

4. Boulton AC, Rushton J, Wathes DC. An empirical analysis of the cost of rearing dairy heifers from birth to first calving and the time taken to repay these costs. Animal. 2017; 11(8):1372-1380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117000064 PMID: 28173887

5. Thomas G, Bourrigan X. IDELE-FCEL. Résultats de contrôle laitier. France 2021. Coll: Résultats, IDELE (Ed), Paris, France;2021. p. 1-174.

6. Duplessis M, Cue RI, Santschi DE, Lefebvre DM, Lacroix R. Weight, height, and relative-reliability indicators as a management tool for reducing age at first breeding and calving of dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 2015; 98(3):2063-2073. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8279 PMID: 25597973

7. Heinrichs AJ, Zanton GI, Lascano GJ, Jones CM. A 100-Year Review: A century of dairy heifer research. J Dairy Sci. 2017; 100(12):10173-10188. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-12998 PMID: 29153161
8. Lin CY, McAllister AJ, Batra TR, Lee AJ, Roy GL, Vesely JA, et al. Production and reproduction of early and late bred dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 1986; 69(3):760–768. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302 (86)80465-9 PMID: 3711408

9. Kuhn MT, Hutchison JL, Wiggans GR. Characterization of Holstein heifer fertility in the United States. J Dairy Sci. 2006; 89(12):4907–4920. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72541-3 PMID: 17106123

10. Byerley DJ, Staigmiller RB, Berardinelli JG, Short RE. Pregnancy rates of beef heifers bred either on puberal or third estrus. J Anim Sci. 1987; 65(3):645–650. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.653645x PMID: 3667429

11. Troccon JL. Elevage des génisses laitières et performances ultérieures. INRA. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 3R; 1996. p. 9605.

12. Brown EG, VandeHaar MJ, Daniels KM, Liesman JS, Chapin LT, Forrest JW, et al. Effect of increasing energy and protein intake on mammary development in heifer calves. J Dairy Sci. 2005a; 88(2):595–603. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72723-5 PMID: 15653526

13. Brown EG, VandeHaar MJ, Daniels KM, Liesman JS, Chapin LT, Keisler DH, et al. Effect of increasing energy and protein intake on body growth and carcass composition of heifer calves. J Dairy Sci. 2005b; 88(2):585–594. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72722-3 PMID: 15653525

14. Meyer MJ, Capuco AV, Ross DA, Lintault LM, Van Amburgh ME. Developmental and nutritional regulation of the prepubertal bovine mammary gland: II. Epithelial cell proliferation, parenchymal accretion rate, and allometric growth. J Dairy Sci. 2006; 89(11):4298–4304. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72476-6 PMID: 17033017

15. Raeth-Knight M, Chester-Jones H, Hayes S, Linn J, Larson R, Ziegler D, et al. Impact of conventional or intensive milk replacer programs on Holstein heifer performance through six months of age and during first lactation. J Dairy Sci. 2009; 92(2):799–809. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1470 PMID: 19164694

16. Moallem U, Werner D, Lehrer H, Zachut M, Livshitz L, Yakoby S, et al. Long-term effects of ad libitum whole milk prior to weaning and prepubertal protein supplementation on skeletal growth rate and first-lactation milk production. J Dairy Sci. 2010; 93(6):2639–2650. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-3007 PMID: 20494173

17. Soberon F, Raffrenato E, Everett RW, Van Amburgh ME. Preweaning milk replacer intake and effects on long-term productivity of dairy calves. J Dairy Sci. 2012; 95(2):783–793. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4391 PMID: 22281343

18. Van De Stroet DL, Calderón Díaz JA, Stalder KJ, Heinrichs AJ, Dechow CD. Association of calf growth traits with production characteristics in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 99(10):8347–8355. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10738 PMID: 27448860

19. Rauba J, Heins BJ, Chester-Jones H, Diaz HL, Ziegler D, Linn J, et al. Relationships between protein and energy consumed from milk replacer and starter and calf growth and first-lactation production of Holstein dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2019; 102(1):301–310. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15074 PMID: 30343927

20. Sejrsen K, Purup S. Influence of prepubertal feeding level on milk yield potential of dairy heifers: a review. J Anim Sci. 1997; 75(3):828–835. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.753828x PMID: 9078503

21. Brocard V, Leclerc M-C. Guide pratique de l'alimentation du troupeau bovin laitier, Les incontournables. Institut de l'élevage, Paris; 2010.

22. Little W, Kay RM. The effects of rapid rearing and early calving on the subsequent performance of dairy heifers. Anim Sci. 1979; 29(1):131–142.

23. Bruinjé TC, Rosadiuk JP, Moslemipur F, Sauerwein H, Steele MA, Ambrose DJ. Differing planes of pre- and postweaning phase nutrition in Holstein heifers: II. Effects on circulating leptin, luteinizing hormone, and age at puberty. J Dairy Sci. 2021; 104(1):1153–1163. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18810 PMID: 33131818

24. Le Cozler Y, Lollivier V, Lacasse P, Disenhaus C. Rearing strategy and optimizing first-calving targets in dairy heifers: a review. Animal. 2008; 2(9):1393–1404. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731108002498 PMID: 22443830

25. Agabriel J, Sepchat B, Cantalapiedra-Hijar G, Ortigues-Marty I. Bovins en croissance et à l'engrais. Alimentation des ruminants, Quae, Versailles, France; 2018. p. 341–375.

26. Brickell JS, Bourne N, McGowan MM, Wathes DC. Effect of growth and development during the rearing period on the subsequent fertility of nulliparous Holstein-Friesian heifers. Theriogenology. 2009a; 72 (3):408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2009.03.015 PMID: 19481791

27. Brickell JS, McGowan MM, Wathes DC. Effect of management factors and blood metabolites during the rearing period on growth in dairy heifers on UK farms. Dom Anim Endocrinol. 2009b; 36(2):67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2008.10.005 PMID: 19059748
28. Kusaka H, Yamazaki T, Sakaguchi M. Association of the age and bodyweight at first calving with the reproductive and productive performance in one herd of Holstein dairy heifers in Japan. Vet Rec Open. 2022; 9:e44. https://doi.org/10.1002/vro2.44 PMID: 36177342

29. Khan MA, Bach A, Weary DM, Von Keyserlingk MAG. Invited review: Transitioning from milk to solid feed in dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 99(2):885-902. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9975 PMID: 26709160

30. Jensen MB, Jensen A, Vestergaard M. The effect of milk feeding strategy and restriction of meal pat- terning on behavior, solid feed intake, and growth performance of male dairy calves fed via computer- controlled milk feeders. J Dairy Sci. 2020; 103(9):8494-8506. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18166 PMID: 32684463

31. Deikun LL, Habing GG, Quigley JD, Proudfoot KL. Health and growth of veal calves provided a fatty acid supplement and a dry teat. J Dairy Sci. 2020; 103(5):4633-4642. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-17240 PMID: 32147256

32. Schubert DC, Chuppava B, Hoffmans S, Pries M, Visscher C, Kamphues J, et al. Impacts of reducing protein content in milk replacer on growth performance and health of young calves. Animals. 2022; 12 (14):1756. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12141756 PMID: 35883303

33. Tamate H, McGilliard AD, Jacobson NL, Getty R. Effect of Various Dietaries on the Anatomical Devel- opment of the Stomach in the Calf. J Dairy Sci. 1962; 45(3):408-420.

34. Bach A. Ruminant Nutrition Symposium: Optimizing Performance of the Offspring: Nourishing and man- aging the dam and postnatal calf for optimal lactation, reproduction, and immunity. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90 (6):1835-1845. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4516 PMID: 21926322

35. Molano RA, Saito A, Luchini DN, Van Amburgh ME. Effects of rumen-protected methionine or methi- onine analogs in starter on plasma metabolites, growth, and efficiency of Holstein calves from 14 to 91 d of age. J Dairy Sci. 2020; 103:10136-10151. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18630 PMID: 32952015

36. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle: Seventh Revised Edition. National Academies Press, Washing- ton, D.C.; 2001.

37. Heinrichs AJ, Rogers GW, Cooper JB. Predicting Body Weight and Wither Height in Holstein Heifers Using Body Measurements. J Dairy Sci. 1992; 75(12):3576-3581. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78134-X PMID: 1474218

38. Troccon JL, Toullec R. Aliments d'allaitement pour veaux d'élevage. Remplacement de la poudre de lait écrémé par d'autres sources protéiques. INRA Prod Anim. 1989; 2(2):117-128.

39. Canepa S, Laine A-L, Bluteau A, Fagu C, Flon C, Monniaux D. Validation d'une méthode immunoenzymatique pour le dosage de la progestérone dans le plasma des ovins et des bovins. Cahier des Tech- niques de l'INRA. 2008; 64:19-30.

40. Schröder UJ, Staufenbiel R. Invited Review: Methods to determine body fat reserves in the dairy cow with special regard to ultrasonographic measurement of backfat thickness. J Dairy Sci. 2006; 89(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72064-1 PMID: 16357263

41. Wright EC, Boehmer BH, Cooper-Prado MJ, Bailey CL, Wettemann RP. Effect of elevated ambient tem- perature at parturition on duration of gestation, ruminal temperature, and endocrine function of fall-calv- ing beef cows. J Anim Sci. 2014; 92(10):4449-4456. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-8055 PMID: 25085395

42. Umphrey JE, Moss BR, Wilcox CJ, Van Horn HH. Interrelationships in lactating Holsteins of rectal and skin temperatures, milk yield and composition, dry matter intake, body weight, and feed efficiency in Summer in Alabama. J Dairy Sci. 2001; 84(12):2680-2685. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01) 74722-4 PMID: 11814024

43. Tao S, Dahl GE, Laporta J, Bernard JK, Orellana Rivas RM, Marins TN. Physiology symposium: Effects of heat stress during late gestation on the dam and its calf. J Anim Sci. 2019; 97:2245-2257.

44. West JW. Effects of heat-stress on production in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2003; 86(6):2131-2144. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X PMID: 12836950

45. Petit M, Remond B, Bourlot G, Trillat G, Vérité M. Note sur les variations du taux d'acides gras non estérifiés plasmatiques chez la Vache à la fin de la gestation. Ann Zootech. 1977; 26(1):131-138.

46. Guedon L, Saumande J, Desbals B. Relationships between calf birth weight, prepartum concentrations of plasma energy metabolites and resumption of ovulation postpartum in limousine suckled beef cows. Theriogenology. 1999; 52(5):779-789. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(99)00171-5 PMID: 10735119

47. Abeni F, Bergoglio G, Masoero G, Terzano GM, Allegrini S. Plasma hormones and metabolites in Pied- montese cows during late pregnancy: Relationships with calf birth weight. J Anim Sci. 2004; 82(2):438-444. https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.822438x PMID: 14974541
48. Tao S, Thompson IM, Monteiro APA, Hayden MJ, Young LJ, Dahl GE. Effect of cooling heat-stressed dairy cows during the dry period on insulin response. J Dairy Sci. 2012; 95:5035-5046. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-5405 PMID: 22916907

49. Monteiro APA, Guo J-R, Weng X-S, Ahmed BM, Hayden MJ, Dahl GE, et al. Effect of maternal heat stress during the dry period on growth and metabolism of calves. J Dairy Sci. 2016a; 99:3896-3907. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10699 PMID: 26947308

50. Monteiro APA, Tao S, Thompson IMT, Dahl GE. In utero heat stress decreases calf survival and performance through the first lactation. J Dairy Sci. 2016b; 99:8443-8450. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11072 PMID: 27522427

51. Robelin J. Bases physiologiques de la production de viande: croissance et développement des bovins. Production de viande bovine. D Micol (Ed), INRA publications, Paris, France; 1986; p. 35-60.

52. Harrison HN, Warner RG, Sander EG, Loosli JK. Changes in the tissue and volume of the stomachs of calves following the removal of dry feed or consumption of inert bulk. J Dairy Sci. 1960; 43(9):1301-1312.

53. Van Amburgh ME, Fox DG, Galton DM, Bauman DE, Chase LE. Evaluation of National Research Council and Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein Systems for predicting requirements of Holstein heifers. J Dairy Sci. 1998; 81:509-526. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(98)75603-6 PMID: 9532506

54. Van Amburgh ME, Soberon F, Meyer MJ, Molano RA. Integration of postweaning nutrient requirements and supply with composition of growth and mammary development in modern dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 2019; 102:3692-3705.

55. Kertz AF, Prewitt LR, Ballam JM. Increased Weight Gain and Effects on Growth Parameters of Holstein Heifer Calves from 3 to 12 Months of Age. J Dairy Sci. 1987; 70:1612-1622. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(87)80189-3 PMID: 3668033

56. Anderson JL, Kalscheur KF, Clapper JA, Perry GA, Keisler DH, Garcia AD, et al. Feeding fat from distillers dried grains with solubles to dairy heifers: II. Effects on metabolic profile. J Dairy Sci. 2015; 98 (8):5709-5719. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9163 PMID: 26074235

57. DiMarco NM, Beitz DC, Whitehurst GB. Effect of fasting on free fatty acid, glycerol and cholesterol concentrations in blood plasma and lipoprotein lipase activity in adipose tissue of cattle. J Anim Sci. 1981; 52(1):75-82. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1981.52175x PMID: 7240041

58. Abeni F, Petrera F, Le Cozler Y. Effects of feeding treatment on growth rates, metabolic profiles and age at puberty, and their relationships in dairy heifers. Animal. 2019; 13(5):1020-1029. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118002422 PMID: 30301479

59. Staub C, Venturi E, Cirot M, Léonard L, Barrière P, Blard T, et al. Ultrasonographic measures of body fatness and their relationship with plasma levels and adipose tissue expression of four adipokines in Welsh pony mares. Dom Anim Endocrinol. 2019; 69:75-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2019.02.002 PMID: 31374538

60. Breier BH, Gluckman PD, Bass JJ. Plasma concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and insulin in the infant calf: ontogeny and influence of altered nutrition. J Endocrinol. 1988; 119(1):43-50. https://doi.org/10.1677/joe.0.1190043 PMID: 3057103

61. Khan MA, Weary DM, Von Keyserlingk MAG. Invited review: Effects of milk ration on solid feed intake, weaning, and performance in dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci. 2011; 94(3):1071-1081. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3733 PMID: 21338773

62. Hammon HM, Steinhoff-Wagner J, Schönhusen U, Metges CC, Blum JW. Energy metabolism in the newborn farm animal with emphasis on the calf: endocrine changes and responses to milk-born and systemic hormones. Dom Anim Endocrinol. 2012; 43(2):171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.domaniend.2012.02.005 PMID: 22480719

63. Thisissen J-P, Ketelslegers J-M, Underwood LE. Nutritional regulation of the insulin-like growth factors. endocrine reviews. 1994; 15(1):80-101. https://doi.org/10.1210/edrv-15-1-80 PMID: 8156941

64. Savage MO. Insulin-Like Growth Factors, Nutrition and Growth, in: Shamir R, Turck D, Phillip M. (Eds.), World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics. S. Karger AG; 2013. p. 52-59.

65. Bartlett KS, McKeith FK, VandeHaar MJ, Dahl GE, Drackley JK. Growth and body composition of dairy calves fed milk replacers containing different amounts of protein at two feeding rates. J Anim Sci. 2006; 84(6):1454-1467.

66. Maccari P, Wiedemann S, Kunz H-J, Piechotta M, Sanftleben P, Kaske M. Effects of two different rearing protocols for Holstein bull calves in the first 3 weeks of life on health status, metabolism and subsequent performance. J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr. 2015; 99(4):737-746.

67. Schäff CT, Gruse J, Maciej J, Mielenz M, Wirthgen E, Hoeflich A, et al. Effects of Feeding Milk Replacer Ad Libitum or in Restricted Amounts for the First Five Weeks of Life on the Growth, Metabolic
Adaptation, and Immune Status of Newborn Calves. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11:e0168974. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168974 PMID: 28036351

68. Frieten D, Gerbert C, Koch C, Dusel G, Eder K, Hoeflich A, et al. Influence of ad libitum milk-replacer feeding and butyrate supplementation on the systemic and hepatic insulin-like growth factor I and its binding proteins in Holstein calves. J Dairy Sci. 2018; 101(2):1661–1672. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13603 PMID: 29248211

69. Govoni KE, Hoagland TA, Zinn SA. The ontogeny of the somatotropic axis in Hereford calves from birth to one year of age and its response to administration of exogenous bovine somatotropin 1. J Anim Sci. 2004; 82:1646–1655.

70. Shike DW. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Driftless Region Beef Conference 2013 Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency. 2013.

71. Connor EE. Invited review: Improving feed efficiency in dairy production: challenges and possibilities. Animal. 2015; 9:395–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731114002997 PMID: 25482927