2013 north dakota beef report - north dakota state university

2013 North Dakota Beef Report

2 2013 North Dakota Beef Report


Welcome to the 2013 North Dakota Beef Research Report.

North Dakota State University; the College of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Natural Resources; and the Agricultural Experiment Station are pleased to be able to provide the report to the beef industry and cattle ranchers in the state. This report provides the most recent results from research related to beef cattle, beef products, and environmental and range sciences from North Dakota.

The beef research programs at the NDSU main campus in Fargo and at the Research Extension Centers across North Dakota are dedicated to serving the producers and stakeholders in North Dakota by developing new knowledge and technology to improve the management, efficiency, and production of high-quality cattle and beef using sustainable and safe approaches.

This report includes a broad range of research from on-campus departments, schools and centers, as well as Research Extension Centers across the state, and provides producers and stakeholders with one document that contains all beef-related research conducted at NDSU each year.

We thank the federal, state and industry sponsors who support our research programs. Without this support, this research would not be possible. We also thank all of the faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students who have contributed to this work.

We hope you enjoy this research report, and we look forward to continuing to serve the North Dakota beef industry in the coming year and in the future.

Sincerely,

Ken Grafton, VP, Dean, and Director

Cows, calves, fat cattle and rich grasslands are synonymous with North Dakota beef. It’s a

strong industry that is supported by dedicated NDSU animal scientists and Extension specialists. The NDSU Extension Service is pleased to collaborate with animal scientists on campus and at several Research Extension Centers and to partner with industry to help address the beef needs of today and tomorrow.

As a result of these relationships, Extension also is pleased to assist in supporting the publication of the 2013 North Dakota Beef Report. It contains a wealth of information on current applied and basic research and survey results. I hope you take time to review this information for ideas and just to stay abreast of the latest in beef research at NDSU.

I encourage you to contact the scientists or Extension specialists who are involved in these projects if you have questions or additional input. They always are interested in hearing your thoughts.

Thank you for your continued support of these beef research projects and the other animal science programs as well. We want to work together with you to support the successful future of North Dakota beef.

Sincerely,

Chris Boerboom, Director NDSU Extension Service

2013 North Dakota Beef Report 3

ContentsCow-CalfCorn stover and distillers grains for lactating drylot beef cows .............................................................. 4

V.L. Anderson, B.R. Ilse and C.L. Engel

Effects of natural service and artificial insemination breeding systems on calving characteristics and weaning weights ........................... 6

P.L. Steichen, S.I. Klein, Q.P. Larson, K.M. Bischoff, V.R.G. Mercadante, G.C. Lamb, C.S. Schauer, B.W. Neville and C.R. Dahlen

Maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation during early to midgestation on mammary gland development in beef cows ...................................................................... 9

L.E. Camacho, C.O. Lemley, J.S. Haring, P.P. Borowicz, D.M. Hallford, K.C. Swanson and K.A. Vonnahme

Drylot vs. pasture beef cow/calf production: Three-year progress report .......................................... 13

V.L. Anderson, B. R. Ilse and C.L. Engel

Backgrounding and FinishingAn evaluation of Cellulo-Gest supplement to enhance forage digestibility and improve performance of growing calves ................................... 17

V.L. Anderson, C.L. Engel and R. Dvorak

Management strategies for summer-fed growing cattle: Effects of dietary protein levels and the use of bedding to alleviate heat stress on animal performance ................................................ 20

C.L. Engel, V.L. Anderson and B.R. Ilse

Effects of pen bedding and feeding high-crude protein diets on manure composition and feedlot pen surface temperature ................................. 23

S. Rahman, M.S. Borhan, C.L. Engel and V.L. Anderson

Distillers grains support equal steer performance in finishing diets with reciprocal levels of corn and barley .............................................. 26

V.L. Anderson, C.L. Engel and B.R. Ilse

Influence of feed restriction and feeding time to growing calves on growth performance and feeding behavior .................................................... 29

L.D. Prezotto, T.C. Gilbery, M.L. Bauer, A. Islas and K.C. Swanson

Pancreatic enzyme activity in high- vs. low-efficiency steers ...................................................... 32

F.E. Doscher, L.D. Prezotto, S.I. Paisley, A.M. Meyer and K.C. Swanson

Management strategies for summer-finished feeder cattle: Effects of dietary protein levels and use of bedding to alleviate heat stress on animal performance and carcass traits....................... 34

C.L. Engel, V.L. Anderson and B.R. Ilse

Consequence of two grazing systems before feedlot entry on yearling steer grazing and feedlot performance, carcass traits, tenderness and sensory panel response, and net return ............. 38

S. Senturklu, D.G. Landblom, R. Maddock and S. Paisley

Finishing beef cattle on totally mixed and self-fed rations ............................................................... 41

C. L. Engel, B.R. Ilse and V. L Anderson

Effects of artificial insemination and natural service breeding systems on steer progeny backgrounding performance ....................................... 45

P.L. Steichen, M.R. Schook, C.S. Schauer, B.W. Neville and C.R. Dahlen

Discovering value in North Dakota calves: Dakota Feeder Calf Show feedout project XII, 2012-13 ..................................................................... 48

Karl Hoppe and Dakota Feeder Calf Show Livestock Committee

Effects of dietary forage concentration in finishing diets on growth and carcass characteristics of steers ................................................. 51

K.S. Sorensen, V.L. Anderson, K.R. Maddock-Carlin, C.L. Engel, C.S. Schauer, K. Olsen and R.J. Maddock

Influence of dry-rolled corn processing and increasing dried corn distillers grains plus solubles inclusion for finishing cattle on growth performance and feeding behavior .............. 55

K.C. Swanson, A. Islas, Z.E. Carlson, R.S. Goulart, T.C. Gilbery and M.L. Bauer

2012 North Dakota Beef Industry SurveyThe 2012 North Dakota Beef Industry Survey: Yesterday, Today and Into the Future ........................ 59

C.R. Dahlen, J.C. Hadrich and G.P. Lardy


Corn stover and distillers grains for lactating drylot beef cowsV.L. Anderson1, B.R. Ilse2 and C.L. Engel1

This project evaluated the use of corn stover and distillers grains as the primary ingredients in lactating beef cow diets. The control diet included corn silage, wheat middlings, barley hulls and straw as the primary feeds. Cow performance and calf growth appear to be similar for both diets in this nonreplicated field study. The daily feed cost was lower for the stover-distillers grain diet at $1.71/head vs. $2.22 for the control diet.

research is needed to understand the value of corn stover and give producers confidence in using corn stover-distillers grain rations for lactating cows.

IntroductionNorth Dakota livestock enter-

prises are primarily beef cow-calf operations. Cow numbers continue to decrease here and nationally as a result of drought and the fact that more grazing land is being farmed for corn, soybeans and other profit-able crops. The high cost of conven-tional feed ingredients also has been a factor in reducing cow numbers, yet underutilized and undervalued feed resources are available to live-stock producers in North Dakota.

Feed resources in the region include crop residues, grains and nearly 3 million tons of a variety of coproducts produced each year in North Dakota. The market price for many coproducts may decrease in the summer due to reduced demand as more cattle are grazing vs. fed in confinement.

Distillers grain often is very competitively priced as an energy and protein source. Corn stover is increasing in availability with corn production migrating north, and it is becoming a primary forage for beef

cow production. The preferred uti-lization of stover is by postharvest grazing in the fall and early winter. Harvesting corn stover in large bales is highly weather dependent but makes year-round use of stover for feed possible.

Drylot cow-calf production is a new concept in beef production that is increasingly viewed as an option as the cost of rental pastures or purchasing grazing land escalate beyond economic thresholds. A separate article in this publication addresses drylot vs. pasture beef production.

An integrated crop-livestock production system has the advan-tages of maximizing biological efficiencies such as stover and straw used as feed or bedding, and return-ing manure to the fields. Ruminant animals help diversify the North Dakota agricultural economy and can add to the net profit of an appro-priately managed integrated crop-livestock farming operation.

Experimental ProceduresCrossbred spring-calving Red

Angus x Red Simmental mature beef cow-calf pairs (n = 42) were allotted to one of two drylot ration treat-ments based on calf birth date. The treatments were: 1) corn stover and distillers grains as the primary feed ingredients and 2) corn silage, straw, wheat middlings and barley hulls as the control diet (T able 1), with nu-trient composition listed in Table 2.

The two diets were balanced to meet or exceed the nutrient require-ments of lactating beef cows of average milking ability according to NRC (National Research Council, 1996), specifically a 0.56 megacalo-

1Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU 2Big Horn County Extension office, Montana State University

SummaryBeef cows can be fed a variety

of feeds as long as nutrient require-ments are met. With the increase in corn acres, corn stover is more available and may be a useful feed for beef cows. Distillers grain is produced at several ethanol plants in North Dakota and has been a very competitively priced energy and protein source for livestock. Spring-calving, mature crossbred beef cows managed in drylot during the summer were fed a ration of primarily corn stover and distillers grain compared with corn silage, wheat middlings, barley hulls and straw. Cows fed the control diet lost 57 pounds while cows fed the stover-distillers grain diet lost 90 pounds during the 92-day study. Calves gained 2.57 and 2.73 pounds, respectively, for the control and sto-ver-distillers grain diets. Condition score decreased by 1 for the control and 1.1 for the stover-distillers grain cows during the summer feeding period. The daily ration cost was $1.71 per head for the stover-distill-ers grain treatment and $2.22 for the control ration with corn silage. More


rie (Mcal)/pound of net energy for maintenance (NEm) and 9.27 per-cent crude protein requirement for cows during the months of lactation in this trial.

The control diet contained ap-proximately 0.56 Mcal NEm per pound and 9.87 percent crude pro-tein, with the stover-distillers grain ration providing 0.57 Mcal NEm per pound and 10.82 percent crude pro-tein. These values are based on feed delivered to the bunk and estimated intake (and waste) of the free-choice forages.

Ration ingredients were mixed in a truck-mounted Knight “Little Augie” three-auger mixer wagon and delivered to fence-line bunks once daily. A portion of the straw and stover was ground and mixed with other ingredients fed in the bunk line. Cows were allowed 3 feet of fence-line bunk space per head. Free-choice straw or stover was offered as large, round bales placed in ring feeders in respective treat-ments.

In this study, actual feed costs were used for purchased ingredi-ents, including delivery and farm-raised feeds, and the feeds were valued according to production costs reported in the North Dakota Farm Business Management Pro-gram (Metzger and Hanson, 2012). Feed costs used include: corn si-lage,$50/ton; straw, $35/ton; barley hulls, $80/ton; wheat midds, $234/ton; corn stover, $40/ton for ground stover and $35/ton for bales fed; modified distillers grain, $116/ton; and grass hay, $85/ton.

Cows and calves were moni-tored daily at feeding for any health issues, with no unusual problems observed. Cows were bred by natural-service sires for 45 days. Bulls were tested for fertility and passed a breeding soundness exam prior to use. Creep feed (16 percent crude protein) was offered to all calves starting in late June at equal

Table 1. Rations for lactating drylot beef cows with stover and distillers grain.

Diet treatments Diet Treatments

Stover/ Stover/ Distillers Distillers Control Grain Control Grain

Lb/hd/day, as fed Percent, DM basis

Bunk fed as mixed ration Corn silage 24.23 30.31 Wheat/pea straw, ground 6.77 18.86 Barley hulls 7.71 24.78 Wheat midds 7.71 23.93 Ionophore/min supplement 0.52 0.47 2.12 2.28 Corn stover, ground 10.35 43.71 Modified distillers grains 11.35 30.47 Mixed hay, ground 5.21 23.54Offered free choice, estimate of intake Wheat/pea straw 8.38 Corn stover 28.34

Total 55.32 55.72 100 100

Table 2. Ration specifications for lactating drylot beef cows fed a control ration vs. corn stover and distillers grain.

Diet Treatments

Control Stover/Distillers Grain

NEm, Mcal/lb. 0.56 0.57Crude protein, % 9.87 10.82Feed cost/hd/day, $ 2.22 1.71

Table 3. Performance of drylot cow-calf pairs fed a control ration vs. corn stover and distillers grain.

Diet Treatments

Control Stover/Distillers Grain

Cow weight, lb. Initial wt., June 21 1,540 1,500 Final wt., Sept. 20 1,483 1,410 Weight change -57 -90Cow condition score Initial 6.2 5.9 Final 5.3 4.8 Change -1.0 -1.1Percent pregnant 86 86Calf weight, lb. Initial wt., June 21 287 304 Final wt., Sept. 20 521 552 Gain 234 248 Avg. daily gain 2.57 2.73


amounts per head daily. The study started on June 21 (80 days post-partum) and concluded on Sept. 20, 2012, when all drylot calves were weaned.

Results and DiscussionFeed intake and nutrient content

appear to be similar for both diets and meet the nutrient requirements for lactating beef cows in this study. Cows fed the stover-distillers grain diet lost 90 pounds during the trial period, while control cows lost only 57 pounds. Condition score changes reflect weight loss with a decrease of 1 and 1.1, respectively, for control and stover-distillers grain treat-ments.

The weight loss and decrease in condition score are not unusual for this stage of production. Cows were still in adequate condition at wean-ing. Calf gains were numerically

higher for the stover-distillers grain treatment at 2.73 vs. 2.57 pounds per head daily for the control ration. The small numerical increase may be a result of bypass protein from distill-ers grain, but greater weight loss suggests milk production potential might have been greater than “aver-age,” as described in NRC (1996). Meeting nutrient requirements to ensure breeding success and subse-quent performance is critical.

Feed cost favored the stover-distillers grain diet, but ingredient costs can vary widely. Eighty-six percent of cows in both groups were diagnosed as pregnant at palpation in the fall. From this field trial data, feeding a ration of primarily corn stover and distillers grain appears to support satisfactory cow perfor-mance and calf growth. Pregnancy rates were relatively low but similar between treatments.

More replications of this trial and other nutrition and manage-ment studies with corn stover and distillers grains are needed to give cow-calf producers confidence in the use of these ingredients for drylot management of lactating beef cows.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the technical

and administrative staff for their contributions to this study. Appreci-ation is also expressed to the North Dakota Corn Utilizations Council for funding to support this study.

Literature CitedMetzger, Steve, and Jory Hanson. 2012.

North Dakota Farm Business Man-agement Report.

National Research Council. 1996. Nutri-ent Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Academy of Science. Washington, D.C.

Effects of natural service and artificial insemination breeding systems on calving characteristics and weaning weightsP.L. Steichen1, S.I. Klein1, Q.P. Larson1, K.M. Bischoff2, V.R.G. Mercadante2, G.C. Lamb2, C.S. Schauer3, B.W. Neville4 and C.R. Dahlen1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU 2North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna 3Hettinger Research Extension Center, NDSU 4Central Grasslands Research Extension Center, NDSU

A similar proportion of females exposed to estrous synchronization (ES) and artificial insemination (AI) became pregnant during the breeding season, compared with females mated during a natural service (NS) breeding system. Females in a breeding system that included ES and AI calved earlier in the calving season, compared with females mated with natural service, and a weaning weight advantage was observed in AI calves born within the first 21 days of the calving season, compared with NS calves born within the first 21 days of the calving season.

SummaryCrossbred Angus beef cows and

heifers (n = 480 and 86, respectively) were used to compare the effects of two breeding systems on calving characteristics and weaning weights. Cattle were assigned randomly to one of two treatments: 1) exposed to natural service bulls (NS; n = 284) or 2) exposed to estrous synchro-nization and a fixed-time artificial insemination (AI), followed by natural service bulls (TAI, n = 282). A greater proportion (P < 0.05) of TAI females (54.2 percent) gave birth in the first 21 days of the calving season, compared with the NS treat-


ment (39.5 percent). From day 22 to 42, a greater (P < 0.05) proportion of females in the NS treatment (34.3 percent) gave birth, compared with cattle in the TAI treatment (18.8 per-cent). No differences (P > 0.05) were present among treatment in the proportion of females that calved after day 43 or failed to have a calf. Overall, the mean calving date for females in the TAI treatment (day 17.6) was seven days earlier (P < 0.01) than that of females in the NS treatment (day 24.6). Calves born in the AI treatment were lighter (P < 0.05) at birth, compared with calves in the NS treatment. A 19.4-pound weaning weight advantage (P < 0.05) was observed in AI calves born within the first 21 days of the calving season, compared with NS calves born within the first 21 days of the calving season.

IntroductionIncorporating estrous synchro-

nization (ES) and artificial insemina-tion (AI) into beef operations may result in improved reproductive performance, weaning weight, carcass quality and genetic value, along with reduced calving dif-ficulty (Sprott, 2000). Experiments have used cleanup bulls after the use of ES and AI (Geary et al., 2001; Stevenson et al., 1997) but do not utilize the use of a traditional breed-ing system as a control. We reported that no differences in season-ending pregnancy rates existed among groups that were assigned to a natu-ral service (NS) breeding system or a breeding system that incorporated AI (Steichen et al., 2012).

Ultrasound was used to deter-mine the fetal age of all pregnancies in the previous study, and females in the AI treatment became pregnant earlier in the breeding season, com-pared with females in the NS treat-ment. The objectives of the current study were to compare the effects of natural service and artificial insemi-

nation breeding systems on calving characteristics and weaning weights.

Experimental ProceduresCrossbred Angus cows and

heifers were used in two locations: 1) Central Grasslands Research Extension Center (n = 86 heifers and n = 405 cows) and 2) Hettinger Research Extension Center (n = 81 cows). Females were assigned to one of two treatments: 1) exposed to natural service bulls (NS, n = 284) or 2) exposed to ES and fixed-time AI (day 0), followed by natural service bulls (TAI, n = 282).

Females in the TAI treatment were synchronized with the seven-day CO-Synch + CIDR protocol (Beef Reproductive Task Force, 2013). Bulls were introduced to the herd on day one, and both treat-ments were managed as a cohort in the same pastures. The breeding season for the CGREC and HREC was 49 and 63 days, respectively.

Calving began at the CGREC on March 14, 2012, /and at the HREC on April 3, 2012. Date, calving ease, calf vigor and birth weights were re-corded at calving. Calving ease and calf vigor were determined subjec-tively. Calving ease was rated on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 being no assistance and 5 being caesarean. Calf vigor

was rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being a normal, vigorous calf and 5 being a stillbirth.

All calves were managed on the same pastures as a cohort. Calf weights were collected at wean-ing (Sept. 14, 2012). For purposes of analyzing calving and weaning data, calves were grouped into 21-day intervals according to birth date within the calving season (about 21 days, 22 to 42 days and more than 42 days).

All data were analyzed using the GLM procedures of SAS (SAS Ins. Inc., Cary, N.C.). The statistical model included the effects of treat-ment, calving group, location and the respective interactions. Signifi-cance was determined with an alpha of P < 0.05.

Results and Discussion The pregnancy rate (overall 55

percent of TAI became pregnant to AI) and days to conception data were reported in the “2012 North Dakota Beef Report” (Steichen et al., 2012). During the calving season, a greater proportion (P < 0.05) of TAI cattle gave birth in the first 21 days of the calving season, compared with the NS treatment (Figure 1). From day 22 to 42, more females in the NS treatment (P < 0.05) gave

Figure 2. Effect of treatment and calving period on weaning weight of calves.

Treatment × Calving period interaction (P < 0.001).

w,x,y,z Means lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 1. Effect of treatment on calving distribution. *Means within factor lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05). NC, either was called open at final pregnancy check or pregnant but did not calf.

*

*

Days of calving season

Figure 1. Effect of treatment on calving distribution.

*Means within factor lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05). NC, either was called open at final pregnancy check or pregnant but did not calf.


birth, compared with cattle in the TAI treatment.

No differences (P > 0.05) were evident among treatment in the pro-portion of females that calved after day 42 or failed to have a calf (NC, either were classified as nonpreg-nant at final pregnancy diagnosis or failed to calve between the final pregnancy diagnosis and the end of the calving season).

The mean calving date for females in the TAI treatment (day 17.6) was seven days earlier (P < 0.01) than that of females in the NS treatment (day 24.6). This relative difference was similar to that antici-pated after our original pregnancy diagnosis and fetal aging via ultra-sound (Steichen et al., 2012).

The length of the calving season was similar (P > 0.10) between the two treatments. Similarly, Rodg-ers et al. (2012) reported the mean calving date was shifted earlier by incorporating ES and AI, but the length of the calving season was not different, compared with that of the natural service treatment. Calving season length is determined by the length of bull exposure and was not influenced by incorporating AI in the current study.

Calves born in the TAI treatment were lighter (P < 0.01) at birth (82.2 pounds), compared with calves born in the NS treatment (85.1 pounds). The anticipated reduction in birth weight because of slight expected progeny differences (EPD) of bulls among treatments would have been 0.6 pound.

The realized difference among treatments was greater, however, giving a greater advantage to calves born in the AI treatments. Even though a birth weight advantage did exist, primarily for calves that were sired by AI sires, calving ease and vigor were not different (P > 0.10) among treatments.

Overall, the average weaning weight of calves was 452 pounds

Figure 2. Effect of treatment and calving period on weaning weight of calves.

Treatment × Calving period interaction (P < 0.001).

w,x,y,z Means lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

Figure 1. Effect of treatment on calving distribution. *Means within factor lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05). NC, either was called open at final pregnancy check or pregnant but did not calf.

*

*

Days of calving season

at an average age of 150 days (five months). Calves born in the AI treat-ment during the first 21 days of the calving season were 19.4 pounds heavier at weaning (P < 0.05) than those born during the first 21 days of the calving season in the NS treat-ment (Figure 2). Calves that calved later in the calving season were progressively lighter at weaning, compared with their earlier-born counterparts. However, no differ-ences among treatments (P > 0.10) were present within the two remain-ing calving groups analyzed (22 to 42 and greater than 42 days, respec-tively).

Because the same bulls that sired the natural service calves were used as cleanup bulls to the AI breeding, no differences in wean-ing weight of later-born calves was expected. The weaning weight ad-vantage of AI calves born during the first 21 days of the calving season highlights the potential gain produc-ers can receive if they choose proven bulls with high growth potential.

Incorporating artificial insemi-nation and estrous synchronization altered the calving season by having a greater proportion of cattle give birth earlier in the calving season to lighter calves. The advantage of artificial insemination also was

observed in the weaning weights of calves born within the first 21 days of the calving season. Subsequent studies will compare additional postweaning performance traits among TAI and NS treatments.

Literature CitedBeef Reproductive Task Force. 2013.

2013 estrus synchronization proto-cols for cows and heifers. Available at: http://beefrepro.unl.edu/pdfs/Protocols%20for%20Sire%20Directo-ries%202013.pdf

Geary, T.W., J.C. Whittier, D.M. Hall-ford and M.D. MacNeil. 2001. Calf removal improves conception rates to the Ovsynch and CO-Synch proto-cols. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1-4.

Rodgers, J.R., S.L. Bird, J.E. Larson, N. DiLorenzo, C.R. Dahlen, A. DiCostanzo and G.C. Lamb. 2011. An economic evaluation of estrous synchronization and timed artificial insemination in suckled beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 90:4055-4062.

Sprott, L. R. 2000. Management and financial considerations affecting the decision to synchronize estrus in beef females. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1-10.

Steichen, P.L., S.I. Klein, Q.P. Larson, K.M. Bischoff, V.G.R. Mercadante, G.C. Lamb, C.S. Schauer, B.W. Neville and C.R. Dahlen. 2012. Effects of natural service and artificial insemi-nation breeding systems on preg-nancy rates and days to conception. The 2012 North Dakota Beef Report. Pp. 12-15.

Figure 2. Effect of treatment and calving period on weaning weight of calves

Treatment × Calving period interaction (P < 0.001). w,x,y,z Means lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.05).

http://beefrepro.unl.edu/pdfs/Protocols%20for%20Sire%20Directories%202013.pdf




Maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation during early to midgestation on mammary gland development in beef cowsL.E. Camacho1, C.O. Lemley2, J.S. Haring1, P.P. Borowicz1, D.M. Hallford3, K.C. Swanson1 and K.A. Vonnahme1

1Animal Sciences Department, NDSU 2Animal and Dairy Sciences Department, Mississippi State University 3Animal and Range Sciences Department, New Mexico State University

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of early to midgestation maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation on mammary gland development in beef cows. The results indicate that nutrient restriction (40 percent less than National Research Council [NRC] recommendations) during early to midgestation does not appear to impact mammary gland weight; however, composition may be altered.

IntroductionBeef cows commonly are man-

aged in grazing systems where forage quality varies according to regional conditions. Forage quality or availability often is poor, affect-ing the nutritional and physiological status of the animal (Funston et al., 2010). During this period of reduced nutrient availability, the dam will undergo a series of metabolic and physiologic adaptations to protect her body stores from depletion as the increase in nutrient demands by the conceptus occurs (Rosso and Streeter, 1979).

Maternal nutrition during preg-nancy not only plays an important role in fetal and placental growth and development, but mammary development as well. To continue to nourish the offspring after birth, the mammary gland needs to be de-veloped properly. Mammary gland milk production depends on several factors; one of them is the amount of secretory cells (alveoli) in the gland that secretes milk (Anderson et al., 1985). In addition, maternal nutrition also affects milk composi-tion and production (Miranda et al., 1983).

Our laboratory (Swanson et al., 2008; Vonnahme et al., 2011) previ-ously reported that nutritional plane during gestation decreased mam-mary gland size and proliferation, and altered mammary gland vascu-larity in sheep. Meyer et al. (2011) reported decreased colostrum and milk production in nutrient-restrict-ed ewes; moreover, this decrease in milk production continued after ewes were realimented to control

SummaryOn day 30 of pregnancy, mul-

tiparous, nonlactating cows (initial body weight [BW] = 620.5 ± 11.3 kilograms [kg], body condition score [BCS] = 5.1 ± 0.1) were assigned to three different dietary treatments: control (C; 100 percent NRC; n = 18) and restricted (R; 60 percent NRC; n = 28). On day 85, cows were slaugh-tered (C, n = 6; R, n = 6), remained on control (CC; n = 12) and restrict-ed (RR; n = 12), or were realimented to control (RC; n = 11). On day 140, cows were slaughtered (CC, n = 6; RR, n = 6; RC, n = 5), remained on control (CCC, n = 6; RCC, n = 5), or were realimented to control (RRC, n = 6). On day 254, all remaining cows were slaughtered.

The diet consisted of grass hay to meet 100 or 60 percent net energy (NE) recommendations for mainte-nance and fetal growth and to meet or exceed metabolizable protein (MP) recommendations. At slaugh-ter, mammary glands were removed and weighed immediately. Glands were analyzed for fat and cellular

proliferation, and quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was used to determine mes-senger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its recep-tors (fms-related tyrosine kinase 1 [FLT1] and kinase insert domain receptor [KDR]).

Mammary gland weight was not affected (P ≥ 0.15) by treatment. Fat (percent) did not differ (P ≥ 0.35) at days 85 and 140; however, at day 254, RRC and RCC cows had less (P = 0.02) fat vs. CCC. Maternal dietary treatment had no effect (P ≥ 0.45) on mammary alveolar cellular prolifer-ation. We found no treatment effect (P ≥ 0.27) on mRNA expression of VEGF, FLT1 and KDR.

Nutrient restriction during early to midgestation does not appear to impact mammary gland weight; however, composition may be al-tered. Further information is needed to determine how nutritional inter-ventions could improve lactation in beef cattle.


diets during lactation (Meyer et al., 2011).

We hypothesize that longer nutrient restriction would impact maternal mammary gland develop-ment negatively compared with controls. Our objectives were to determine the effects of realimenta-tion after maternal nutrient restric-tion during early to midgestation on mammary gland development.

Experimental ProceduresAll procedures involving ani-

mals were approved by the NDSU Animal Care and Use Committee. A total of 54 nonlactating, multipa-rous crossbred beef cows of similar genetic background were synchro-nized using a Select Synch plus progesterone insert (CIDR; Pfizer Animal Health, New York, N.Y.) and fixed-time AI (TAI) protocol.

At the NDSU Beef Research and Teaching Unit (Fargo, N.D.), cows were assigned to one of six breeding groups, with breeding dates ranging from July 13 to Oct. 24, 2011. Cows received GnRH (100 µg as 2 mL of Factrel i.m.; Fort Dodge Animal Health, Fort Dodge, Iowa) and a CIDR on day 0. On day seven, CIDR devices were removed and cows were given an injection of PGF2" (25 mg as 5 mL of Lutalyse i.m., Phar-macia & Upjohn Co., Kalamazoo, Mich.). Estrotect Heat Detectors (Rockway Inc., Spring Valley, Wis.) were used to monitor estrous behav-ior for a minimum of 72 ours. Arti-ficial insemination was performed utilizing the a.m./p.m. rule 12 hours after the first detected estrus. Cows not detected in estrus after 72 hours received a second GnRH injection and TAI was performed.

Inseminated cows were trans-ported to the Animal Nutrition and Physiology Center (ANPC; Fargo, N.D.) within three days post-insem-ination. From arrival at the ANPC until confirmed pregnant, cows were grouped in pens (n = 4 to 5/

pen) and trained to use the Calan gate feeding system. At this time, all cows were fed chopped grass hay (8.02 percent crude protein [CP], 69.2 percent neutral detergent fiber [NDF], 41.5 percent acid detergent fiber [ADF] and 57.9 percent total digestible nutrients [TDN] [dry-matter, or DM, basis]), and a mineral and vitamin supplement to meet NE recommendations for maintenance and fetal growth and to meet or exceed recommendations for MP, minerals and vitamins (NRC, 2000) until pregnancy was confirmed. The hay net energy for maintenance (NEm) concentration was predicted using equations described by Weiss (1993) and NRC (2000).

On days 27 and 28 post-insem-ination, pregnancy was confirmed via transrectal ultrasonography (500-SSV; Aloka, Tokyo, Japan) using a linear transducer probe (5 mega-hertz). Nonpregnant cows restarted the same breeding protocol. On day 30 of pregnancy, cows (initial BW = 620.5 ± 11.3 kg, BCS = 5.1 ± 0.1) were assigned randomly to dietary treatments: control (C; 100 percent NRC; n = 18) and nutrient restriction (R; 60 percent NRC; n= 28). On day 85, cows were slaughtered (C, n = 6 and R, n = 6), remained on control (CC; n = 12) and restricted (RR; n = 12) treatments, or were realimented to control (RC; n = 11). On day 140, cows were slaughtered (CC, n = 6; RR, n = 6; RC, n = 5), remained on control (CCC, n = 6; RCC, n = 5) or were realimented to control (RRC, n = 6). On day 254, all remaining cows were slaughtered (CCC, n = 6; RCC, n = 5; RRC, n = 6).

The control diet consisted of grass hay (Table 1) to meet 100 percent NE recommendations for maintenance and fetal growth (NRC, 2000) and to meet or exceed MP recommendations. Nutrient-restricted cows received 60 percent of the same control hay diet. Cows were fed individually once daily in

a Calan gate system at 10 a.m. and had free access to water. The mineral and vitamin supplement (Trouw dairy VTM with optimins; Trouw Nutrition International, Highland, Ill.) was top-dressed three times per week at a rate of 0.18 percent of hay dry-mater intake (DMI) to meet or exceed mineral and vitamin require-ments relative to dietary NE intake (NRC 2000). Cows were weighed weekly at approximately 8 a.m. throughout the experiment, and dietary intake was adjusted relative to BW.

On days 85, 140 and 254, a randomly selected subset of cows from each treatment was slaugh-tered at the NDSU Meat Laboratory. The mammary gland was removed, weighed and processed. Glandular tissue from the mammary gland was snap-frozen in super-cooled isopentane (submerged in liquid nitrogen) and stored at minus 80 C until analysis for mRNA expres-sion and fat content (Neville et al., 2010). Mammary gland mRNA was analyzed for relative expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptors fms-related tyrosine kinase 1 (FLT1), and kinase insert domain receptor (KDR). Also, glandular tissue was fixed for prolif-eration analysis via histology using Ki-67 as the proliferation marker. Statistical analysis was performed to interpret our results.

Results and DiscussionMammary gland weight was

not affected (P ≥ 0.15) by dietary treatment. Average mammary gland

Table 1. Nutrient analysis of grass hay.

Ingredient percent of DM

Ash 11.8CP 8.1NDF 69.2ADF 41.5


weights, regardless of dietary treat-ment, were 9.96 ± 1.30, 7.30 ± 1.01 and 13.67 ± 0.97 pound at days 85, 140 and 254 of gestation, respec-tively. Similarly, mammary gland weight did not differ (P ≥ 0.16) when expressed relative to eviscerated BW. Mammary gland fat (percent) did not differ (P ≥ 0.35) among groups at day 85 (35.1 ± 12.1percent) and day 140 (31.6 ± 14.8percent); however, at day 254, RRC and RCC cows had less (P = 0.02) fat vs. CCC (12.65 ± 2.2 and 13.88 ± 2.4 vs. 22.06 ± 2.2percent, respectively). Maternal dietary treatment had no effect (P ≥ 0.45) on mammary alveolar cellular proliferation at day 85 (average = 0.74 ± 0.15percent), day 140 (aver-age = 0.82 ± 0.14percent) and day 254 (average = 0.82 ± 0.12percent) of gestation. We found no dietary treatment effect (P ≥ 0.27) on mRNA expression of VEGF, FLT1 and KDR at days 85, 140 and 254 of gestation.

The only mammary gland parameter measured in the current study that was influenced by nutri-ent restriction was fat content within the gland. Perhaps a depletion of this energy source would impact milk performance negatively. Our laboratory (Swanson et al., 2008; Vonnahme et al., 2011) previously reported that sheep fed 60 percent of nutrient recommendations during gestation had decreased mammary gland size and proliferation and altered mammary gland vascularity, compared with control ewes.

In the current study, maternal nutrient restriction in beef cows followed by realimentation did not affect maternal mammary gland weight or cellular proliferation. What is important to note is that the beef cow mammary gland might be less sensitive to nutrient restric-tion, compared with sheep, at the time points we have investigated. In addition, the restriction periods in Swanson et al. (2008) and ours are different and perhaps will have a

different impact on mammary gland responses.

Nutrient restriction in crossbred dairy cows from two weeks before calving to 11 weeks postpartum re-sulted in decreased mammary gland weight and lower number of mam-mary cells, compared with control diets. However, mammary gland epithelial cell proliferation was not affected by nutrient restriction (Des-sauge et al., 2010). Because more mammary gland growth occurs after parturition, perhaps we did not investigate glandular growth long enough.

Previously, Swanson et al. (2008) showed that maternal nutri-ent restriction during late gestation decreased postpartum colostrum, which matches the decreased mam-mary gland weight of the underfed ewe. In addition, cellular prolif-eration in the alveoli of mammary glands from nutrient-restricted ewes was decreased, while the alveolar area was increased (Swanson et al., 2008).

In the current study, bovine mammary cellular proliferation was not altered by nutrient restriction followed by realimentation from early to midgestation. Neville et al. (2010) previously reported that mammary glands from ewes that were restricted to 60 percent of NRC recommendations had an increase in VEGF mRNA expression. In the present study, we did not alter mRNA expression of VEGF and its receptors due to nutrient restriction during early to midgestation.

In sheep, the mammary gland grows exponentially during preg-nancy and continues to grow during early lactation until peak lactation, and it is controlled by hormones (Anderson et al., 1985). Mammary gland growth is slow during early pregnancy, but as pregnancy ad-vances, the growth is accelerated (Anderson et al., 1985). Prolactin (PRL) plays an important role in the

maintenance of mammary gland function (Flint and Knight, 1997), and synergistically with other mam-motrophic factors, can control mam-mary gland development (Brisken et al., 1999). In our study, maternal nutrient restriction followed by realimentation did not affect PRL concentrations prior to slaughter or through gestation.

Maternal nutrient restriction during early to midgestation fol-lowed by realimentation does not appear to impact mammary gland weight; however, fat content was decreased. Our laboratory is analyz-ing mammary gland samples and serum samples for vascularity and other hormones involved in mam-mary gland development.

In conclusion, nutrient restric-tion during early gestation appears to alter mammary gland fat content without affecting weight and cel-lular proliferation. More research is necessary to further understand the effects of nutrient restriction fol-lowed by realimentation on mam-mary gland development and milk composition in beef cows.

AcknowledgmentsThis project was supported by

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2009-65203-05812 from the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The authors thank the employees of the NDSU Animal Nutrition and Physiology Center and Meat Labo-ratory. The authors also thank sev-eral NDSU Animal Sciences faculty, staff, and graduate and undergradu-ate students for their assistance with animal husbandry and tissue collections.

Literature CitedAnderson, R.R. 1975. Mammary gland

growth in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 41:118–123.

AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analy-sis. Vol. I. 15th ed. Association of


Official Analytical Chemists, Arling-ton, Va.

Brisken, C., S. Kaur, T.E. Chavarria, N. Binart, R.L. Sutherland, R.A. Wein-berg, P.A. Kelly and C.J. Ormandy. 1999. Prolactin controls mammary gland development via direct and indirect mechanisms. Dev. Biol. 210:96-106.

Dessauge, F., V. Lollivier, B. Ponchon, R. Bruckmaier, L. Finot, S. Wiart, E. Cutullic, D. Disenhaus, S. Barbey and M. Boutinaud. 2010. Effects of nutrient restriction on mammary cell turnover and mammary gland remodeling in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 94:4623-4635.

Flint, D.J., and C.H. Knight. 1997. Interactions of prolactin and growth hormone (GH) in the regulation of mammary gland function and epi-thelial cell survival. J. of Mammary gland Biol. and Neoplasia 2:41-48.

Funston, R.N., D.M. Larson and K.A. Vonnahme. 2010. Effects of maternal nutrition on conceptus growth and offspring performance: implications for beef cattle production. J. Anim. Sci. 88:E205-E215.

Meyer, A.M., J.J. Reed, T.L. Neville, J.F. Thorson, K.R. Maddock-Carlin, J.B. Taylor, L.P. Reynolds, D.A. Redmer,

J.S. Luther, C.J. Hammer, K.A. Von-nahme and J.S. Caton. 2011. Nutri-tional plane and selenium supply during gestation affect yield and nu-trient composition of colostrum and milk in primiparous ewes. J. Anim. Sci. 89:1627–1639.

Miranda, R., N.G. Saravia, R. Acker-man, N. Murphy, S. Berman and D.N. McMurray. 1983. Effect of maternal nutritional status on immunological substances in human colostrum and milk. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 37:632–640.

Neville, T.L., D.A. Redmer, P.P. Borow-icz, J.J. Reed, M.A. Ward, M.L. John-son, J.B. Taylor, S.A. Soto-Navarro, K.A. Vonnahme, L.P. Reynolds and J.S. Caton. 2010. Maternal dietary restriction and selenium supply alters messenger ribonucleic acid expres-sion of angiogenic factors in maternal intestine, mammary gland, and fetal jejunal tissues during late gestation in pregnant ewe lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2692–2702.

NRC. 2000. Nutritional Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D.C.

Rosso, P., and M.R. Streeter. 1979. Ef-fects of food or protein restriction on plasma volume expansion in preg-nant rats. J. Nutr. 109:1887-1892.

Spoon, R.A., and D.M. Hallford. 1989. Growth response, endocrine profiles, and reproductive performance of fine-wool ewe lambs treated with ovine prolactin before breeding. The-riogenology 32:45-53.

Swanson, T.J., C.J. Hammer, J.S. Luther, D.B. Carlson, J.B. Taylor, D.A. Red-mer, T.L. Neville, J.J. Reed, L.P. Reyn-olds, J.S. Caton and K.A. Vonnahme. 2008. Effects of gestational plane of nutrition and selenium supplementa-tion on mammary development and colostrum quality in pregnant ewe lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 86:2415–2423.

Vonnahme, K.A., D.A. Redmer, E. Borowczyk, J.J. Bilski, J.S. Luther, M.L. Johnson, L.P. Reynolds and A.T. Grazul-Bilska. 2006. Vascular com-position, apoptosis, and expression of angiogenic factors in the corpus luteum during prostaglandin F2α-induced regression in sheep. Repro-duction 131:1115–1126.

Weiss, W.P., H.R. Conrad and N.R. St. Pierre. 1993. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and con-centrates. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 39:95-110.


Drylot vs. pasture beef cow/calf production: Three-year progress reportV.L. Anderson1, B. R. Ilse2 and C.L. Engel1


This study compares drylot feeding of lactating beef cows and calves with conventional pasture-based beef cow-calf production. This is a three-year interim report of a planned six-year study. Beef cows and calves can be fed in a pen during the summer, but gains were lower for drylot calves and feed costs were higher, depending on pasture costs. Animal health was satisfactory in both treatment groups and conception was similar. Feed cost for the cows’ required nutrients at critical production stages is an important factor in the economic competitiveness of drylot production.

SummaryDrylot and pasture beef cow-calf

production systems were compared for three years. Different weaning dates and cow management practic-es were used for the two groups to integrate drylot beef cows with crop production. Beef cows kept in drylot during the normal grazing season require more feed and labor than pasture cows and their calves. Pas-ture calves were 40 pounds heavier at the same age in the fall. Good fa-cility and nutritional management is required to support optimal growth and reproduction of the drylot cows. Feed, yardage and creep feed costs were $1.72 per day for drylot cows and calves and $1 per day for pasture pairs, which included trips to pasture, fencing materials, labor and creep feed. The higher costs for drylot pairs in this study resulted in a partial budget cost of $1.02 per pound of weaning weight for drylot production compared with 79 cents for the pasture system.

IntroductionPasture and rangeland for graz-

ing beef cattle are diminishing in some parts of the country due to a variety of decisions and external fac-tors, including cropland competition for grain farming, drought, alter-native uses such as urbanization and recreation, and environmental regulations.

Drylot beef cow-calf produc-tion has been used for various research trials at the NDSU Car-rington Research Extension Center since 1972, with a focus on nutrition and management. Feedstuffs used in various research studies include multiple crop residues, several different coproducts, deliberately grown forages and low-quality grain products.

A study comparing the perfor-mance of lactating beef cows and their calves fed in a pen during the normal grazing season (drylot) with conventionally pastured cow-calf pairs was initiated in 2009. This ar-ticle was developed after three years of the six-year study to provide an interim report on animal perfor-mance and the economics of drylot vs. pasture cow-calf production through weaning. Additional data

will be reported on the postweaning performance of steers and heifers raised under the two management systems.

Experimental ProceduresMature, crossbred, spring-

calving Red Angus x Simmental beef cows (n = 80) and their calves were randomly allotted by birth date to one of two treatments — 1) drylot production or 2)pasture production — at the initiation of this system study in late May 2009. Cows as-signed to respective treatments in year one stayed in that group in subsequent years.

Pasture cows and calves were hauled to native grassland 20 miles away for the approximate six-month grazing season. Pasture grasses were primarily bluegrass and a variety of native warm-season grasses. Pas-tures were stocked at one pair per six acres. Water was provided by a flowing stream through the pasture.

Drylot cows and calves were housed in south-sloping dirt pens with approximately 1,200 square feet of space per pair and 2 feet of fence-line bunk per cow. Automatic waters provided fresh water to cows and calves.

Drylot cow diets were formu-lated with a variety of feeds based on availability, nutrient content and price. Formulations varied for each year, with the primary ingre-dients being crop residues (wheat straw, pea straw or corn stover) and coproducts (distillers grains, wheat middlings, barley hulls and various grain screenings), plus corn silage and grass hay. Feeds were tested and diets formulated to meet or exceed NRC (National Research


Council, 1996) nutrient requirements for mature lactating beef cows of average milking ability.

Creep feed was offered to both group of spring-born calves begin-ning on the same date each year. Creep feeds were formulated to 16 percent crude protein and included coproducts and rolled grains with grass hay offered to drylot calves. Salt and minerals were supplement-ed free choice to the pasture cows and included in the mixed ration for drylot cows.

Cows were exposed to natural-service sires during a 45-day breed-ing season, with two sires used in each group of cows. Sires were semen tested and passed a breeding soundness exam prior to use. Cows were culled for infertility or un-soundness and replacements were added prior to turnout in subse-quent years to maintain numbers in respective treatment groups.

Drylot calves were weaned in late September and placed on a growing ration (47 megacalories of net energy for gain per pound, or Mcal NEg/lb) in the feedlot. Weaning occurred at different times for the two production systems to better accommodate the use of feed resources. After weaning, drylot cows grazed on crop aftermath and regrowth as it became available. Pasture calves were weaned in late October and placed in the feedlot for growing and finishing. Pasture cows remained in the same pasture until late November, when winter weather conditions dictated cows be returned to a pen environment at the Research Extension Center.

Midgestation and late-gestation rations were similar for each treat-ment group. Cows and calves were weighed individually at the initiation of grazing, at the end of breeding during the summer, at drylot weaning in September and at pasture weaning in late October.

Considerable variation occurred

in temperature and rainfall dur-ing the three years of this progress report. As a result, dates of turn-out and weaning varied by up to 10 days, so the timing of events is given in general terms (Table 2), with some variation in days of lacta-tion, etc., from year to year.

Feed costs used in this report re-flect actual costs for purchased feeds and production costs for farm-raised feeds as reported by the North Dakota Farm Business Management program participants across North Dakota (Metzger and Hanson, 2012). The production costs are a close ap-proximation of typical market prices for crop residues and farm-sourced

feeds.Yardage was billed at 35 cents

per head per day for cows in drylot during the summer. Pasture rent was $20 per acre in years one and two and $25 per acre in year three. Expenses for hauling cattle to and from pasture, fencing materials, labor and mileage for checking cows biweekly were included in the pas-ture cost calculations.

This project was approved by the NDSU Animal Care and Use Committee.

Results and Discussion Cow weight change varied by

production stage (Table 1), with an

Table 1. Beef cow/calf performance from drylot or pasture production ystems.

Pasture Item Drylot (DL) (PSTR) Difference

Cow weight, lb. Turnout (TO), late May 1,516 1,508 End breeding (EB), late July 1,411 1,454 Change, TO to EB -105 -54 51 DL weaning, late September 1,424 1,461 Change, EB to DL weaning 13 7 -4 PSTR weaning, late October 1,489 1,488 Change, DL wn to PSTR wn 65 27 -38 Winter pen (WP), early December 1,445 1,475 Change, PSTR wn to WP -44 -13 31 Change, TO to WP -69 -29 40Conception, % (45 d nat svc) 84.2 85.2 Calf data Birth date April 1 March 30 Sex ratio, 1 = H, 2 = B 1.45 1.58 Percent assisted 14.0 5.3 Calf weight, lb. Birth 95.5 94.1 TO in late May (initiation of drylot comparison) 222 228 EB in late July 371 410 Gain, TO to EB 149 182 33 DL weaning in late September 571 617 Gain, EB to DL weaning 200 207 7 PSTR weaning in late October 667 707 Gain, DL wn to PSTR wn 96** 90 -6 Gain, TO to DL weaning 348 388 40 Gain, birth to PSTR wn 572 613 41

* Difference is advantage of pasture management.** Drylot calves were weaned and in the feedlot during this time.


average advantage of 40 pounds for pasture cows vs. drylot cows from turnout in late May to winter penning in early December. Several factors may affect weight difference, including the nutrient density of the diet offered to drylot cows or the quality of aftermath grazing for dry-lot cows compared with the quality of fall pastures for grazing cows.

Even though drylot cows lost 105 pounds from late May to the end of breeding season, compared with 54 pounds for pasture cows, conception rates were similar at 84.2 and 85.2 percent, respectively. Little difference in weight change was ob-served for cows from the end of the breeding season until drylot calves were weaned in late September. Drylot cows gained more weight (65 pounds) after calves were weaned than pasture cows still being nursed (27 pounds).

The average calf birth date was two days later for drylot calves after three years in the drylot treatment. Fourteen percent of drylot cows were assisted during parturition, compared with 5.3 percent for pas-ture cows.

Pasture calves gained more weight from turnout in late May to late September (388 pounds) than drylot calves (348 pounds) (Table 1). Drylot calves consumed 653 pounds of creep feed per head, with pasture calves nursing longer consuming 806 pounds of creep feed. Drylot calves placed in the feedlot from weaning in late September until late October, when pasture calves were weaned, gained 96 pounds vs. 90 pounds for pasture calves still nurs-ing and consuming creep feed.

Feed costs (Table 2) were higher for drylot cows during lactation ($1.72/head/day), compared with pasture ($1/head/day). If pasture rental rate was $43/acre, the cost per head per day for drylot and pasture cows would be equal. Midgestation feed costs were lower when drylot

cows grazed crop aftermath.A partial budget (Table 3) indi-

cates annual feed costs were higher for drylot cows ($518.91/cow) than pasture cows ($456.98/cow) in this study, with more creep feed con-sumed by pasture calves ($100.51/calf) vs. drylot calves ($84.19/calf). The total feed cost for drylot pairs was $600.13/pair, while the feed ex-pense for pasture pairs was $557.49/pair.

Drylot cows were charged 35 cents/head/day for yardage, which includes feed delivery, pen deprecia-tion and water. Manure produced by drylot cows is credited as fertil-izer for the crops based on prices for nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) (Table 3).

The net cost/pair/year totaled $580.13 for drylot pairs and $557.49 for pasture pairs. The cost per pound of weaned calf was 23 cents lower for pasture cows in this study. The difference in weaning time (late

September vs. late October) and weaning weight (571 pounds for drylot vs. 707 pounds for pasture) may affect market price, with an advantage to lighter calves, reduc-ing the net difference in the two management systems.

Feed costs, including grazing, are major economic factors in beef production. All farm-raised feeds and forages were valued at real production costs as published in the North Dakota Farm Business Management reports (Metzger and Hanson, 2012). This study was con-ducted with drylot cows managed in a conventional feedlot setting with calves offered creep feed in a small pen with slotted gates.

Several management variations not incorporated into the drylot pro-duction system in this study poten-tially can improve the performance and economics of drylot beef cows. Practices evaluated prior to this study that can lower feed costs for

Table 2. Daily feed costs for drylot vs. pasture beef cows by stage of production.

Drylot Pasture

Feed cost/head/day, $

Lactation 1.72 1.00Midgestation/winter 1.25* 1.36Late-gestation/calving 1.63 1.59

*Includes aftermath grazing in two of three years (avg 20 days/year)

Table 3. Partial budget for drylot vs. pasture beef cow-calf production.

Drylot Pasture

Annual cost/cow, $ * 518.91 456.98Creep feed, cost/calf, $ 84.19 100.51 Subtotal, cost/pair/year, $ 600.13 557.49Summer drylot yardage @ 35 cents/head/day 40.02 –Manure (NPK) value, $/drylot cow per summer 67.13 –Net cost/pair/year 580.13 557.49Cost/lb. calf weaned, $ ** 1.02 0.79

*Includes aftermath grazing in two of three years (avg 20 days/year) for drylot cows and all feed and other costs for grazing pairs. **Drylot calves weaned late September, pasture calves weaned late October.


drylot production systems include creep grazing for nursing calves and extensive aftermath grazing for midgestation cows in the fall.

Creep-grazing calves gained 12 percent more per day and consumed 6 percent less creep feed (Anderson, 1981) than drylot calves offered only creep feed. The cost of aftermath grazing can be less than the pasture cost, but that depends on a variety of factors, including fencing, labor needs, trucking, and land or forage charges. Maximizing crop-aftermath grazing will lower feed and labor costs and utilize cow manure for fertilizer. Weaning prior to aftermath grazing is recommended because milk production may be affected and calves can grow faster in a feed-lot pen setting.

Additional research is needed to compare calf growth and production costs during the residue-grazing pe-riod. Severe weather can occur any time after early October in northern areas, with negative effects on calf health and weight gains. Delivering

the mixed ration to lactating drylot cows on alternate days can lower la-bor and machine costs, and did not affect performance in prior trials.

More research is needed on reducing feed costs, supplementing residues and cost-saving manage-ment practices for drylot cows. Understanding that the successful performance of the lactating beef cow and calf in drylot is dependent on the manager feeding a balanced diet to meet the cows’ needs is critical. The economic success of a drylot production system is based on optimum care of the animals and competitively priced feeds.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors express their ap-

preciation to the dedicated technical staff for the long-term contribu-tions to this project. Dale Burr, Tim Schroeder and Tyler Ingebretson have managed, fed and cared for the cattle in this study for multiple years.

Literature CitedAnderson, V.L., 1981. Creep grazing for

drylot beef cows. NDSU Beef Produc-tion Report. Carrington Irrigation Station. Vol. 3:7.

Anderson, V.L., 1991. Reducing labor for drylot beef cows. NDSU Beef Produc-tion Report. Carrington Research Extension Center. Vol. 14:10-12.

Anderson, V.L., and B.G. Schatz. 2002. Biological and economic synergies of integrating beef cows and field crops . NDSU Beef Production Report. Car-rington Research Extension Center. Vol. 25:38-41.

Anderson, V.L. 1998. Performance of pri-miparous lactating drylot beef cows fed crop residues and processing co-products. NDSU Beef Production Report. Carrington Research Exten-sion Center. Vol. 21:1-4.

Sell, R.S. 1989. Adding a drylot cow-calf enterprise to an eastern North Dakota grain farm. Master of Science thesis. Agriculture Economics Department. North Dakota State University, Fargo.

Anderson, V.L. 2002. Sunflower screen-ings, barley malt or wheat midds in lactating beef cow diets. NDSU Beef Production Report. Carrington Research Extension Center. Vol. 25:33-36.

Metzger, Steve, and Jory Hanson. 2012. Farm Business Management Report.\


An evaluation of Cellulo-Gest supplement to enhance forage digestibility and improve performance of growing calvesV.L. Anderson1, C.L. Engel1 and R. Dvorak2

1Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU 2Old Mill-Troy Inc., North Troy, Vt.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new feed enzyme additive product marketed to improve forage digestion. Cellulo-Gest was fed as part of the formulated supplement that included an ionophore in growing rations for weaned steers. Calf gains improved and feed efficiency tended to improve with the supplement vs. a negative control (no enzyme additive). A positive net return was observed when including this feed additive in growing diets fed to steers.

Experimental ProceduresWeaned steer calves (n=172)

consigned by the Central Dakota Feeder Calf Show were used in this growing study. Steers were weighed individually after arrival at the Carrington REC Feedlot on Oct. 17, 2012. Calves were blocked by weight and assigned randomly to one of four pens within each of the four weight blocks. Ten or 11 head were assigned to each pen, and eight pens were allotted to the control or enzyme supplement treatments. Steers were weighed a second time after sorting to initiate the trial. Individual weights were taken every 28 days during the 84-day trial. The 16 pens were identical in size, slope, orientation, bunk space and water fountain access. The study started on Oct. 26, 2012, and concluded on Jan. 16, 2013.

Supplements were prepared at the Northern Crops Institute feed mill (NDSU, Fargo, N.D.) and contained the ionophore Rumensin (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, Ind.) at 300 milligrams/head/day, plus vitamin and mineral supplement for growing calves. The enzyme additive evaluated in this study is Cellulo-Gest from The Old Mill-Troy Inc., North Troy, Vt.

According to company informa-tion, the product contains calcium carbonate, fermentation extracts of Aspergillus oryzae and Aspergil-lillus niger, dextrose, lactose, cobalt carbonate, mineral oil and natural flavorings. The enzyme product was included in the treatment supple-ment at 4 grams per head per day at a cost of 4 cents.

Feed intake was recorded daily with a total mixed ration (TMR)

SummaryA new enzyme product (Cel-

lulo-Gest, Old Mill-Troy, North Troy, Vt.) promoted to enhance forage digestion was tested in growing rations fed to beef steer calves (n = 172) during an 84-day feeding period following weaning. Producer-consigned calves from 32 ranches were blocked by weight and randomly assigned within four blocks to one of 16 identical pens, with 10 or 11 head per pen. Calves were fed a totally mixed ration to appetite that averaged 52 mega-calories of net energy for gain (Mcal NEg) per hundredweight (cwt). The trial started on Oct. 26, 2012. Feed intake was not affected by inclusion of the enzyme supplement Cellulo-Gest fed at 4 grams per head daily at a cost of 4 cents. Gains improved throughout the feeding period (P = 0.09) with the addition of the enzyme product. The control steers gained 3.87 pounds daily, while the enzyme steers gained 4.04 pounds per day. Feed efficiency tended to improve (P=0.12) throughout the feeding trial from 6.03 to 5.84 feed dry matter (DM)/gain, respectively,

for control and enzyme supplement treatments. Based on a live weight value of $1.25/pound, enzyme inclusion returned17 cents per head per day, or $14.49 per head during an 84-day feeding period, compared with the control ration.

IntroductionA number of different feed ad-

ditives developed with the intention of improving animal performance have been marketed to cattlemen during the past several years with varying results in scientific testing. Those products proven to be effec-tive in unbiased research have given cattle feeders options for natural (yeasts, enzymes and microbial products) and conventional (iono-phores, beta androgenics) cattle markets. Some products may con-tribute to both production systems. Some new products are combi-nations of ingredients that have demonstrated promise in improving animal performance. This study is an evaluation of a new combination feed additive product, (Cellulo-Gest, Old Mill-Troy Inc., North Troy, Vt.) fed in mixed rations to growing feedlot cattle.


offered to appetite based on morn-ing bunk readings (Table 1). Feed samples were collected each weigh period and analyzed at a certified commercial laboratory. Diets were formulated on a dry-matter basis to meet or exceed NRC (National Research Council, 1996) nutrient requirements. Dietary NEg (Mcal/cwt) by period was 49, 52 and 55 Mcal/cwt, respectively, for both treatments.

Modified distillers grain was 51 percent DM. Switchgrass hay was tub-ground at 2 to 4 inches in length. Harvested just after head-ing, the hay was 9.26 percent crude protein, 43.45 percent acid detergent fiber (ADF) and 74.2 percent neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Dietary en-ergy increased during transition to the finishing ration, which occurred during the last 10 days of period three.

Calves were bedded equally with wheat straw during inclem-ent weather, and windbreaks were provided in each pen. Dry-matter intake, average daily gain and feed efficiency were calculated for each weigh period and summarized dur-ing the entire trial.

The totally mixed rations were

assembled in a three-auger Knight “Little Augie” mixer wagon (170 cubic foot) mounted on electronic weigh bars on a 1¼-ton truck chassis. Rations were mixed for a minimum of three minutes prior to feeding. Each ration treatment was mixed as one batch and distrib-uted to respective pens. Water was provided in automatic heated water fountains.

Calves were monitored daily for health challenges and pulled and treated as needed in coordina-tion with local veterinarians. Three calves were removed from the trial for health and disposition issues.

Steers were consigned from 32 central North Dakota ranches (gen-erally, multiples of four head per ranch), representing a diversity of ranch management practices, breed-ing and geographic areas.

Calves were delivered to the Turtle Lake, N.D., weigh station on Saturday, Oct. 20, 2012, processed and exhibited during the feeder calf show. Processing at Turtle Lake included vaccinations with Pyramid 5 with Presponse (viral vaccine), Bar Vac 7 with Somnus (clostridial complex) and Nasalgen (TSV2 and PI3). Calves were implanted with

Ralgro and given new ear tags, and a metaphylactic antibiotic Zuprevo was injected prior to shipment to the Carrington Research Extension Center late the same day. Calves were weighed individually after a day of rest, allotted into block and pens, and sorted prior to weighing a second time at the start of the study.

Data were analyzed using SAS Mixed procedures with pen as the experimental unit. Economics were determined based on differences in feed intake, gain and feed efficiency for the entire feeding period.

This study was approved by the NDSU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Results and DiscussionDry-matter intake was gener-

ally higher (average of 23.5 pounds/head/day) than predicted by NRC (1996) (20.4 pounds/head/day) for steers in this weight range. This was approximately 115 percent of pre-dicted intake. As a result, gains were greater than expected.

Dry-matter intake (Table 2) was not affected by treatment (P = 0.73). Control steers’ ADG was 3.87 pounds for the entire 84-day feed-ing period, while Cellulo-Gest steers

Table 1. Ration formulations for growing steers fed Cellulo-Gest (%, DM basis).

Treatments

Day 0-28 Day 29-56 Day 57-84 Day 0-84

Cellulo- Cellulo- Cellulo- Cellulo- Feedstuff Control Gest Control Gest Control Gest Control Gest

Suppl. w/ionophore 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5Coccidiostat1 0.6 0.7 --- --- --- --- 0.2 0.2Corn, dry rolled 19.5 19.5 23.2 23.2 26.5 26.7 23.4 23.4Barley, dry rolled 9.5 9.5 11.8 11.8 16.2 16.5 12.8 12.8Modified distillers grains 21.0 21.0 20.9 20.9 21.7 21.8 21.2 21.2Switchgrass hay 16.0 16.0 12.9 12.9 8.0 7.7 11.9 12.0Corn silage 30.8 30.8 28.7 28.6 25.2 25.0 27.9 27.9

DMI, lb./head/day 20.26 20.16 24.30 24.58 25.67 26.04 23.42 23.58Crude protein, % 13.28 13.27 13.48 13.45 13.85 13.88 13.55 13.55NEg, Mcal/cwt 49 49 52 52 54 55 52 52

1Decoquinate, brand name Decoxx, Alpharma, LLC., Bridgewater, N.J.


gained 4.04 pounds, 0.17 pound more per day, or a 4.4 percent im-provement.

Steers on the enzyme supple-ment gained numerically more than control steers each month. For the entire feeding period, ADG was greater (P = 0.09), indicating the supplemental enzyme had a positive effect. Feed efficiency (DM/gain) tended to favor the enzyme supple-ment at 5.84 vs. 6.03 (DM/gain) for the control (P = 0.12), a 3.2 percent improvement.

The supplement cost 4 cents per head per day. If live weight is valued at $1.25 per pound and ADG is 0.17 pound more for the supple-ment, a net return to feeding the supplement is calculated at 17 cents per head per day. With this calcula-tion, net profit increased $14.49 per head for the 84-day feeding period.

Because a very small amount of product is incorporated into the ra-tion, the preferred delivery method would be to add it to a manufac-tured supplement that includes oth-er additives and micro-ingredients (ionophore, vitamins and minerals) or add it using a micromachine at the feedlot.

The dry forage in this ration was tub-ground switchgrass hay, which is not known to be a highly palatable or digestible forage. We considered that a positive effect of the supplement on this forage would indicate that it may provide

a response as good as or better with other more common forages.

A series of in vitro tests is under way in the NDSU nutrition labo-ratory to test this supplement on several other forages; results will be reported in the future. Further ani-mal research is justified with other forages and crop residues, especially corn stover, which increasingly is being used in beef rations.

Table 2. Performance of growing steers fed Cellulo-Gest.

Control Cellulo-Gest SEM P-Value

Number of pens 8 8 Number of steers 86 86 Live wt., lb. Initial wt. 613.5 606.2 5.09 0.25 Day 28 711.7 707.6 8.29 0.65 Day 56 818.7 817.9 7.91 0.93 Day 84 930.9 938.1 7.52 0.41Avg. daily gain, lb. Day 0-28 3.78 3.95 0.22 0.47 Day 29-56 3.96 4.01 0.19 0.82 Day 57-84 3.87 4.14 0.13 0.13 Day0-84 3.87 4.04 0.07 0.09Dry-matter intake, lb./head/day Day 0-28 20.26 20.16 0.58 0.85 Day 29-56 24.30 24.58 0.73 0.72 Day 57-84 25.67 26.04 0.67 0.62 Day0-84 23.42 23.58 0.41 0.73Feed efficiency, DM/gain Day 0-28 5.40 5.17 0.23 0.39 Day 29-56 6.17 6.14 0.27 0.92 Day57-84 6.63 6.31 0.27 0.28 Day 0-84 6.03 5.84 0.09 0.12

AcknowledgmentsNo grant funds were received

for this project. The authors express their appreciation to the technical and administrative support staff at the Carrington Research Extension Center.


Management strategies for summer-fed growing cattle: Effects of dietary protein levels and the use of bedding to alleviate heat stress on animal performanceC.L. Engel1, V.L. Anderson1 and B.R. Ilse2


The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of higher protein diets and the use of corn stover as bedding to alleviate heat stress on the performance of summer-fed growing beef steers. Higher levels of crude protein (CP) in growing beef steer diets when corn is replaced with modified distillers grains did not influence animal performance. While bedding did lower pen surface temperatures, it does not appear to result in improved animal performance.

SummaryIn a 2-by-2 factorial design, two

levels of dietary protein and two levels of pen surface bedding were evaluated for effects on summer feedlot growing performance of fall-born Angus steer calves (n = 66). The dietary protein treatments were similar in energy (0.50 megacalorie per pound [Mcal/lb] of net energy for gain [NEg]) and 12.24 (Con) or 16.08 percent CP (HP). Bedding treatments were pens bedded with corn stover (BD) or a no bedding control (NB). Air temperature and pen surface temperatures on the bedding pack and the nonbedded pen surface were recorded three times daily (morning, noon and evening). The protein level treat-ments had similar (P ≥ 0.17) average daily gain (ADG), dry-matter intake (DMI) and feed efficiency (DMI/ADG; 4.17 pounds, 23.8 pounds/head/day and 5.71, respectively). While we found no difference (P = 0.41) between bedding treatments in DMI, the BD treatment had lower (P = 0.05) ADG and required more (P =

0.05) feed per pound of gain, com-pared with the NB treatment group. Average air temperature readings numerically increased from morning to evening. The pen surface temper-atures for both bedding treatments were numerically greater than the air temperature and numerically in-creased from morning to afternoon through evening.

IntroductionFeedlot managers need to man-

age cattle for optimum performance and net return. Beef feedlot diets often include corn distillers grain at more than nominal levels be-cause it is one of the lower-cost feed ingredients for supplying protein and energy. Typical protein require-ment recommendations for feedlot growing diets are between 12 and 13 percent crude protein. Diets replac-ing corn with distillers grains can be upwards of 16 percent crude protein or greater.

At the NDSU Carrington Re-search Extension Center feedlot, we have observed cattle fed diets higher than National Research Council (NRC) recommendations typically will gain more than models predict. We hypothesized feeding higher protein levels in diets replacing

corn with modified distillers grains would improve growing feedlot cattle performance and carcass char-acteristics.

Additionally, feeding cattle in North Dakota in the winter and summer pose environmental tem-perature extremes that can affect animal performance negatively. Annually, economic losses to the livestock industry resulting from en-vironmental heat stress are between $1.69 billion and $2.36 billion (Holt and Pritchard). Winter bedding of feedlot cattle has been shown to be beneficial to alleviate cold stress and improve performance of feedlot cattle (Anderson et. al. 2004; Birkelo and Loundsbery, 1992).

However, summer bedding of feedlot cattle is not practiced com-monly, and no comparative data is available to support its use for al-leviating heat stress in summer-fed growing feedlot cattle. We hypoth-esized that using corn stover, which is lighter in color and has greater light reflectance potential, for bed-ding may provide a cooler surface for cattle, compared with dirt sur-faces of feedlot pens, and improve animal performance in the heat of the summer.

Additionally, more carbon added to the pen surface as bedding may sequester more nutrients in manure. A separate article addresses this comparison.

Experimental ProceduresBlack Angus and Angus-cross

fall-born steer calves (n = 66; 703 pounds average body weight) consigned to the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center by sev-


eral North Dakota beef producers in the first annual North Dakota Angus University feed-out program were used in this 56-day growing study. Steers were fed a common high-forage diet for approximately two weeks prior to trial allocation.

Steers were blocked by weight (n = 2) and allotted to one of eight pens. The study was a 2-by-2 facto-rial design with two levels of dietary protein and two bedding treat-ments. Treatments were assigned randomly to pen within block. Pen was the experimental unit. Statistical analysis was performed using Proc Mixed procedures of SAS. If no diet by bedding interaction effects were detected, then only main treatment effects were reported.

The dietary protein treatments were similar in energy (0.50 Mcal/lb NEg) and were control (Con; 12.24 percent CP) and high protein (HP; 16.08 percent CP). Bedding treat-ments were pens bedded with corn stover (BD) or a no-bedding control (NB), or a bare pen surface. The base diets were similar for each treatment and included corn silage, chopped forage and supplement (ionophore Rumensin, vitamins and miner-als). Protein level differences were achieved by increasing the percent-age of modified distillers grain in the diet (Table 1) substituting for corn.

Initial body weights were recorded at the start of the feeding trial and subsequent interim weights were taken approximately every 28 days. All calves were implanted with a Synovex S anabolic growth implant at the start of the growing trial.

Cattle were fed to appetite. Feed for each ration was mixed in a truck-mounted Knight “Little Au-gie” three-auger mixer wagon and delivered to fence-line bunks once each day. Ration adjustments were made daily according to morning bunk readings and were performed

by experienced personnel.A corn stover bedding pack was

established in the center of each bed-ding treatment pen. Additional corn stover (about half of a 900-pound bale per pen every other week) was added as needed to maintain a fresh, dry bedding pack

Pen surface temperatures on the bedding pack and the nonbed-ded pen surface were recorded three times daily (morning, noon and evening) using an infrared digital temperature gun (Fluke, model 568IR). Average air temperatures were collected from the North Da-kota Agricultural Weather Network (NDAWN) station at the NDSU Car-rington Research Extension Center at similar times as the pen surface temperatures were recorded. One mortality occurred (circumstances were unrelated to treatments).

Results and DiscussionInitial and final weights were

similar (P ≥ 0.22) for dietary and bedding treatments (703.5 and 937.3 pounds, respectively; Table 2). The protein level treatments had simi-lar (P ≥ 0.17) ADG, DMI and feed efficiency (DMI/ADG) during the 56-day trial period (4.17 pounds, 23.8 pounds/head/day and 5.71, respectively). While the NB treat-

ment group consumed 0.6 pound/head/day more dry matter than the BD treatment group, we found no statistical difference (P = 0.41) in DMI. However, the BD treatment group had lower (P = 0.05) ADG and required more feed per pound of gain, compared with the NB treat-ment group (3.97 vs. 4.37 pounds/head/day and 5.91 vs. 5.51, respec-tively).

Average air temperature read-ings numerically increased from morning to evening and were 68.1, 78.2 and 81 F for morning, midday and evening, respectively. The pen surface temperatures for both bed-ding treatments were numerically greater than the air temperature and numerically increased from morning to afternoon through evening.

At the morning reading, the pen surface temperature spread between the NB and BD surface was minimal (less than 2 F, Figure 1). At the mid-day and evening readings, the tem-perature spread between BD and NB surfaces had increased, with the NB being between 5.5 and 4.6 F higher than the BD surface for midday and evening, respectively.

Higher levels of CP in grow-ing beef steer diets when corn is replaced with modified distillers grains did not improve animal

Table 1. Diet composition for steers fed high-protein or control growing diets in pens with or without corn stover bedding.

Control High ProteinItem (Percent of the diet, dry-matter basis)

Corn, dry rolled 45.29 25.90Wheat midds, pelleted 0.78 1.08MDGS 19.65 39.16Corn Silage 16.62 16.21Hay1 15.32 15.18Supplement2 2.34 2.47

Diet dry matter, % 63.42 58.19Diet crude protein, % 12.24 16.08Diet NEg, Mcal/lb. 0.50 0.49

1This was a pea wheat straw forage 2Includes ionophore (Rumensin), mineral mix and calcium carbonate


performance but did not cause any negative effects to animal perfor-mance. While bedding did lower pen surface temperatures, it does not appear to be significant enough to result in improved animal perfor-mance. Contrary to our hypothesis, bedding pens for growing cattle in the summer with corn stover ap-pears to cause reductions in animal performance and feed efficiency.

Literature CitedAnderson, V.L., E. Aberle and L. Swen-

son. 2004. Effects of bedding on win-ter performance of feedlot cattle and nutrient conservation in composted manure. NDSU Beef Feedlot Research Report. Vol. 27:30-37.

Birkelo, C.P., and J. Loundsbery. 1992. Effect of straw and newspaper bed-ding on cold season feedlot perfor-mance in two housing systems. South Dakota Beef Report p42-45.

Figure 1. Average air temperature, pen surface (bedding or bare dirt) temperatures and difference (bare dirt minus bedding surface) for feedlot pens that were bedded with corn stover or not (bare-dirt pen surface) for 56-day summer beef cattle feedlot growing period.

No pens 4 4 4 4 --- --- --- Live wt., lbs. Initial wt. 709 698 704 703 65.87 0.22 0.98 Final wt. 944 930 927 948 72.49 0.35 0.20 Avg. daily gain, lb. 4.21 4.13 3.97 4.37 0.12 0.59 0.05 Dry-matter intake, lb. 23.60 24.00 23.50 24.10 0.97 0.41 0.48 Feed efficiency, feed/gain 5.60 5.82 5.91 5.51 0.27 0.17 0.05

morning Midday Evening Air Temperature 68.14 78.18 80.98Bedding Surface temp 73.39 95.94 95.80Bare Dirt surface Temp 75.32 101.41 100.41Average of Diff 1.92 5.47 4.60

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00110.00

Tem

pera

ture

, Deg

rees

F

Figure 1. Average air temperature, pen surface (bedding or bare dirt) temperatures and difference (bare dirt minus bedding surface) for feedlot pens that were bedded with corn stover or not (bare-dirt pen surface) for 56-day summer beef cattle feedlot growing period.

Table 2. Summer feedlot performance for steers fed high-protein or control growing diets in pens with or without corn stover bedding.

Diet and Bedding Treatments

Dietary Bedding High Treatment Treatment Item Protein Control Bedding None Std Err P Value P Value

No. head, total 32 34 33 33 --- --- ---No pens 4 4 4 4 --- --- ---Live wt., lbs. Initial wt. 709 698 704 703 65.87 0.22 0.98 Final wt. 944 930 927 948 72.49 0.35 0.20Avg. daily gain, lb. 4.21 4.13 3.97 4.37 0.12 0.59 0.05Dry-matter intake, lb. 23.60 24.00 23.50 24.10 0.97 0.41 0.48Feed efficiency, feed/gain 5.60 5.82 5.91 5.51 0.27 0.17 0.05

Holt, S.M., and R.H. Pritchard. Manag-ing heat and cold stress of feedlot Holstein Steers. South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D. Ac-cessed June 25, 2013. (https://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdon-lyres/ E805E929-2CEC-4DA8-A98C-CE1F618022D3/87061/Managing-HeatAndColdHolt.pdf ).

National Research Council. 1996. Nutri-ent Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/%20E805E929-2CEC-4DA8-A98C-CE1F618022D3/87061/ManagingHeatAndColdHolt.pdf






Effects of pen bedding and feeding high-crude protein diets on manure composition and feedlot pen surface temperatureS. Rahman1*, M.S. Borhan1, C.L. Engel2 and V.L. Anderson2

1Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, NDSU 2Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of two dietary protein levels (12 and 16 percent) fed to beef cattle in pens with and without bedding on pen surface temperature and feedlot manure characteristics. Results indicated that higher crude protein feed resulted in higher nutrient content in manure. Bedded pens had lower surface temperatures, compare with no-bedding pens, which may reduce nutrient volatilization, reduce heat stress and provide comfort to cattle.

SummaryBedding pens with corn stover

and altering dietary crude protein levels for feedlot cattle may be an effective tool in capturing or even reducing nutrient excretion, and odorous and gaseous emissions. In this article, the effect of two dietary crude protein levels (12 and 16 per-cent) fed to beef steers in pens with or without corn stover bedding has been evaluated. Manure character-istics were measured from feedlot pen surfaces. Sixteen equally sized feedlot pens (60 by 75 feet) were used. Eight were bedded approxi-mately biweekly with corn stover, and the remaining eight feedlot pens were not bedded. Angus steers (n = 136) were blocked by live weights (lighter and heavier), with seven to 10 animals per pen. The trial was a 2-by-2 factorial design with factors of two protein levels and two corn stover bedding levels (bedding vs. nonbedding), with four replicates. The study was conducted from June through September and consisted of four approximately 28-day periods. Composite manure samples were

collected from each pen monthly. The manure samples were analyzed for crude protein (CP), total nitrogen (TN), ammonia (NH3), total volatile fatty acid (TVFA), total carbon (TC), total phosphorus (TP) and potas-sium (K). At manure sampling, the pen surface temperatures of bed-ded vs. nonbedded pens also were measured. The concentration of TN was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in manure from pens with cattle fed the high-protein diets. Bedded pens had lower surface temperatures than the nonbedded pens.

Introduction Dietary manipulation by limit-

ing carbon/nitrogen inputs into the digestive system of livestock ap-pears to be an effective tool in reduc-ing nutrient/mineral pollution, and odorous and gaseous emissions. Reduction in nitrogen (N) excre-tion can be achieved by limiting N content in the diet and changing the proportions of rumen-degradable protein supplements in the diet (Ke-breab et al. 2010; Castillo et al. 2001).

Previous work suggests fresh manure from lactating Holstein cows on a high-crude protein (HCP; 16.7 percent, dry basis) diet had higher total nitrogen content than manure from cows fed a low-protein

(LCP; 14.8 percent, dry basis) diet (Lee et al. 2012).

Corn-based dry distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) are a read-ily available byproduct from the ethanol industry and are used extensively in dairy and beef cattle diets. They traditionally have been one of the lowest cost feed ingredi-ents, supplying energy and protein (Schroeder 2012; Garcia and Taylor 2002).

The National Research Council (NRC) recommends crude protein levels in beef feedlot diets between 12.5 and 13.5 percent CP, depend-ing on the animal growth stage and desired gains. Feedlot rations containing DDGS tend to be higher in protein than NRC recommenda-tions, often reaching levels of 15 to 18 percent CP.

Researchers found increased TP in manure from cattle fed diets containing wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS), with 17 percent dietary CP but similar TN, com-pared with low dietary CP (14 per-cent). Little research has been done to address the amount of nitrogen excreted in manure from cattle fed with diets at NRC recommendations vs. higher-protein diets.

Manure management with and without bedding on the pen also could affect manure composi-tion during manure storage and treatment. Winter in the northern Great Plains can be severe; wind protection and bedding can make significant differences in cattle performance and profit, in addition to sequestering more nutrients in the manure, which would increase fertilizer value.

Similarly, under northern climatic conditions, bedding is


used on the feedlot pen surface for animal comfort to absorb and hold water (Spiehs et al. 2012). Addition-ally, bedding may reduce the “heat load” of heavy-weight cattle, and lower the volatilization of nitro-gen and odor, while sequestering more nutrients in the bedding pack. Therefore, determining the effects of dietary protein levels fed to the cattle on the nutrient composition of manure accumulated on the feedlot pen surface in a real-world situation is important.

The specific objective was to investigate the effect of two dietary protein levels (13 and 16 percent) fed to beef cattle in pens with and without bedding on the pen surface temperature and feedlot manure characteristics.

Experimental ProceduresThis study was conducted in a

feedlot with 16 pens at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center (CREC) beef research feedlot. Each pen had an area of 437 meters2 (dimension 19 by 23 meters), with an overall aggregate 3 percent slope. The trial was a 2-by-2 factorial de-sign with factors of dietary protein level and bedding.

One hundred thirty-six Angus and Angus crossbred steer calves were blocked by weight and al-located across 16 pens, with eight pens per treatment (protein level) and seven to 10 animals per pen. Average initial live weights ranged from 698 to 973 pounds. The average stocking densities per animal unit in each pen varied from 450 to 650 feet2.

Cattle with lighter initial weights (n = 8 pens) were fed a growing diet containing 0.50 mega-calorie per pound of net energy for gain (Mcal/lb NEg) and 12.36 (control: NRC recommended) or 16.58 percent CP (treatment tested) for 56 days before transitioning to the finishing diet. The eight pens

of heavier-weight cattle were fed a finishing diet containing 0.55 Mcal/lb NEg and 12 (control; NRC recom-mended) or 16 percent CP through all four feeding periods

Eight of the 16 pens were bedded with corn stover and the remaining pens were not bedded. Feed samples were taken monthly to verify CP levels and nutrient composition of diets fed during the growing and finishing periods.

The study was divided into four approximately 28-day periods from June to October. At the end of each period, pen surface temperatures were recorded and manure samples were collected randomly, and a composite sample was prepared for analysis. Following collection, samples were brought back to the lab and stored at minus 4 C until lab analysis.

Manure samples were collected monthly, and pen surface tempera-ture were measured using an in-frared thermometer (Model: MINI-TEMP-MT6, Instrumart, Carlsbad, Calif.) during each sampling period for four months. Manure samples were analyzed for ash content, total nitrogen (TN), crude protein (CP), total phosphorus (TP), total carbon (TC), potassium (K) and ammonia (NH3). A total of 64 manure samples were collected during the study period.

Results and DiscussionsEffect of Pen Bedding and Dietary Protein Levels on Pen Surface Temperature

Daily average ambient air tem-peratures and pen surface tempera-tures (bedded and nonbedded) from June through September are present-ed in Table 1. During September, the daily average air temperature and pen surface temperature were much lower than those observed in the previous sampling months (Table 1).

Interestingly, pens bedded with corn stover showed lower tempera-

tures (68.9 to 110.3 F) than those pen surfaces with no bedding (72.3 to 117.14 F) during the study period (Table 1). During the summer time, lower pen surface temperatures in the bedded pens may reduce heat stress and reduce nutrient volatiliza-tion.

Effect of Pen Bedding and Dietary Protein Levels on the Manure Composition

The concentrations of TS, VS, Ash, CP, TN, fecal NH3, TVFA, TC, TP and K measured from the different treatment combinations during four measurement periods are presented in Table 2. Manure ash concentrations from high-protein diets were generally higher than those of the low-protein diet. During July and August, ash content in ma-nure from the high-protein diet was higher but not significantly different than that of the low-protein diet (P > 0.05) (Table 2).

TN and fecal NH3 concentration in the manure from high-protein diets were significantly higher (P < 0.05) during sampling periods, when compared with those of low-protein diets, except for June (Table 2). Total fecal nitrogen concentra-tions from high-protein diets during July, August and September were 13, 23 and 17 percent higher, respec-tively, than the low-protein diets. Similarly, fecal NH3 concentrations in the manure from the high-protein diets were 72, 100 and 80 percent higher, respectively, than those mea-sured from low-protein diets during those dates.

Although nutrient concentra-tions in manure, especially NH3-N, TP and K, varied between the bed-ding and nonbedding treatments, the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Fecal nutrient concentration differences between treatments likely were due to diets. Differences in nutrient concentration among months were likely due to feed digestibility and rumen chemis-


Table 1. Average pen surface temperatures and weather data for each sampling period gathered from a nearby NDAWN weather station.

Average Air Pen Surface Temperature (F)

Sampling Date Temperature No Bedding Bedding

June 27, 2012 68.94 109.18 102.05July 18, 2012 72.43 117.21 110.28Aug. 23, 2012 69.93 116.38 111.27Sept. 20, 2012 48.92 72.28 68.94

1ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/wind-directions.html

Table 2. Effect of pen bedding with corn stover and dietary protein levels fed to feedlot steers on the nutrient composition of excreted manure (dry-matter basis).

Nutrient Pen Bedding Protein level (%)

Sampling Date Composition No Bedding Bedding High (16 %) Low (12 %)

June 27, 2012 Ash (%) 14.69 a* ± 2.8 14.38 a ± 5.1 16.71 x ± 4.3 12.37 y ± 2.2 TN (%) 2.41 a ± 0.3 2.35 a ± 0.3 2.49 x ± 0.4 2.27 x ±0.2 Fecal NH3 (mM) 20.26 a ± 9.9 14.04 a ± 8.3 20.34 x ± 11.4 13.95 x ± 5.9 TP (%) 0.93 a ± 0.52 0.82 a ± 0.16 1.04 x ± 0.4 0.70 x ± 0.25 K (%) 0.50 a ± 0.17 0.53 a ± 0.25 0.63 x ± 0.19 0.40 y ± 0.16

July 18, 2012 Ash (%) 12.38 a ± 2.1 12.16 a ± 2.7 13.00 x ± 2.4 11.54 x ± 2.2 TN (%) 2.40 a ± 0.24 2.46 a ± 0.26 2.58 x ± 0.25 2.28 y ± 0.10 Fecal NH3 (mM) 15.68 a ± 6.6 13.78 a ± 6.6 18.54 x ± 6.8 10.92 y ± 3.2 TP (%) 1.26 a ± 0.67 0.89 a ± 0.24 1.35 x ± 0.59 0.80 y ± 0.25 K (%) 0.59 a ± 0.28 0.46 a ± 0.20 0.59 x ± 0.28 0.45 x ± 0.19

Aug. 23, 2012 Ash (%) 16.04 a ± 7.0 13.07 a ± 2.1 16.62 x ± 6.6 12.50 x ± 2.5 TN (%) 2.39 a ± 0.20 2.66 b ± 0.34 2.68 x ± 0.29 2.38 y ± 0.24 Fecal NH3 (mM) 24.59 a ± 13.6 21.51 a ± 12.2 30.74 x ± 12.1 15.36 y ± 7.6 TP (%) 1.12 a ± 0.29 1.16 a ± 0.54 1.34 x ± 0.44 0.94 x ± 0.30 K (%) 0.94 a ± 1.82 1.05 a ± 1.9 1.01 x ± 1.7 0.98 x ± 1.9

Sept. 20, 2012 Ash (%) 12.65 a ± 2.2 13.76 a ± 2.7 14.63 x ± 1.9 11.78 y ± 2.2 TN (%) 2.45 a ± 0.31 2.69 a ± 0.32 2.77 x ± 0.29 2.37 y ± 0.22 Fecal NH3 (mM) 13.28 a ± 6.2 13.10 a ± 3.8 16.97 x ± 3.0 9.42 y ± 3.4 TP (%) 1.02 a ± 0.23 1.06 a ± 0.27 1.11 x ± 0.20 0.96 x ± 0.27 K (%) 0.73 a ± 0.15 0.78 a ± 0.28 0.68 x ± 0.17 0.83 x ± 0.24

*Values followed by the same letter in a row for a particular parameter are not significantly different at P > 0.05.

try as cattle are growing.The potassium concentration in

manure was similar among pens of cattle fed the high- and low-protein diets on all sampling dates except June, when it was higher for manure from cattle fed the high-protein diet. Although statistically similar, K concentrations in the manure with high-protein diets were slightly higher than low-protein diets dur-ing the warmer months (July and August). TP concentrations in the high-protein diets manure from June through September were 49, 72, 42 and 16 percent higher, respectively, than the manure from low-protein diets, but their differences were not statistically significant.

Higher total P excretion in manure from feedlot cattle fed diets with distillers coproducts, compared with cattle fed nondistillers co-product diets, has been reported by other researchers (Spiehs et al. 2012;

Spiehs and Varel 2009). No significant differences in

manure nutrient concentrations were observed between bedding and nobedding manure except in August. The fecal NH3 concentra-tions in manure samples from the bedded pen were slightly lower than manure samples collected from the nonbedded pens. However, the dif-ferences were not statistically signifi-cant. In contrast, TN concentrations from the bedded pens were slightly

higher than those from nonbedded pen for all sampling dates except June. Overall, this research showed that bedding has no significant ef-fect on the nutrient composition in the excreted manure from feedlot cattle.

In conclusion, the analyses revealed that the two crude protein levels fed to beef feedlot cattle in the bedded and nonbedded pens had no significant effects on excreted nutrient composition (Ash, CP, TN,


NH3, TC, TP and K). However, bed-ded pens had lower surface tem-peratures, compare with no-bedding pens, which could reduce heat stress and provide comfort to cattle.

AcknowledgmentsThis project was funded by the

State Board of Agricultural Research and Education (SBARE) and North Dakota Corn Council.

Literature CitedCastillo, A.R., E. Kebreab, D.E. Beever,

J.H. Barbi, J.D. Sutton, H.C. Kirby and J. France. 2001. The effect of protein supplementation on nitrogen

utilization in lactating dairy cows fed grass silage diets. Journal of Animal Science No. 79 (1):247-253.

Garcia, A., and G. Taylor. 2002. Econom-ics of feeding distillers grains to dairy cows. In Extension publication Ex 4025.: South Dakota State University.

Kebreab, E. , A. Strathe, J. Fadel, L. Moraes and J. France. 2010. Impact of dietary manipulation on nutrient flows and greenhouse gas emissions in cattle. R. Bras. Zootec No. 39:458-464.

Lee, C., A.N. Hristov, C.J. Dell, G. W. Feyereisen, J. Kaye and D. Beegle. 2012. Effect of dietary protein concentration on ammonia and greenhouse gas emitting potential of dairy manure. Journal of Dairy Science No. 95 (4):1930-1941. doi: 10.3168/

jds.2010-4141.Schroeder, J.W. 2012. Distillers grains as

a protein and energy supplement for dairy cattle. In Extension publication. AS1241, Department of Animal Sci-ences: North Dakota State University.

Spiehs, M.J., and V.H. Varel. 2009. Nutri-ent excretion and odorant production in manure from cattle fed corn wet distillers grains with solubles. Journal of Animal Science No. 87 (9):2977-2984. doi: 10.2527/jas.2008-1584.

Spiehs, M.J., D.N. Miller, B.L. Woodbury, R.A. Eigenberg, V.H. Varel and D.B. Parker. 2012. Effect of feeding wet distillers grains with solubles to beef cattle on air and manure quality. Ap-plied Engineering in Agriculture No. 28 (3):423-430.

Distillers grains support equal steer performance in finishing diets with reciprocal levels of corn and barleyV.L. Anderson1, C.L. Engel1 and B.R. Ilse2


Reciprocal levels of corn and barley (0, 33, 67 and 100 percent) were fed with 25 percent distillers grain in growing and finishing diets. Steer performance and carcass quality traits were not affected, except the 67 and 100 percent barley diets were more efficient. Eighty-one percent of carcasses with corn in the diet and 63 percent of steers fed 100 percent barley graded Choice or better. Based on equal feed cost per pound of gain, a bushel of barley is valued at 95 percent of corn.

SummaryWeaned steer calves (n = 126)

were fed one of four treatments during growing and finishing. The treatments were reciprocal levels of corn and barley (0, 33, 67 and 100 percent) of the grain component, with distillers grain included at 25 percent of the diet dry matter. The growing ration (55 megacalories

per pound of net energy for gain, or Mcal/lb NEg) was fed for two 28-day weigh periods, followed by five 28-day periods of finishing diets (62 Mcal/lb NEg). For the entire feeding period, intake tended to be lower (P = 0.15) for the higher barley diets, but gains were similar (P = 0.66), resulting in improved feed efficiency (P = 0.04). Carcass traits were similar except for fat thick-ness (P = 0.04) and yield grade (P = 0.07), which were lower for the 100 percent barley diet. The rela-

tive value of a bushel of barley is 104 percent of corn for the growing diets and 92 percent of corn for the finishing diets. Barley fed with corn when distillers grains is included at 25 percent of the ration will support excellent animal performance, not alter carcass quality traits and po-tentially increase profits for feeders, depending on the current costs of barley and corn.

IntroductionFeeding more calves to market

weight in North Dakota with the extensive feed resources available is possible. Corn acres have been in-creasing in recent years, encouraged by regional ethanol production. Bar-ley, while primarily grown for malt, consistently has been undervalued as feed. Feeding distillers grain at 24 percent or more in barley-based diets improved animal performance when compared with no distillers grain or 12 percent distillers grain in


the ration (Anderson et. al., 2011).Combining corn and barley with

distillers grain may provide an eco-nomical, flexible and safe feed base for cattle feeding in the northern Plains. This study compared recip-rocal levels of corn and barley with distillers grain in beef growing and finishing diets. Feedlot performance (feed intake, gain, feed efficiency) and carcass traits were determined with relative value of corn and bar-ley calculated.

Experimental ProceduresWeaned steer calves (n = 126)

consigned by 32 different producers in the Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club were received at the Car-rington Research Extension Center in mid-October 2011. Initial indi-vidual weights were used to block steers by weight and randomly allot steers within weight block to one of four treatments. The treatments were reciprocal combinations of corn and barley (0, 33, 67 and 100 percent) as the grain component of the totally mixed growing (~55 Mcal/lb NEg) and finishing diets (~62 Mcal/lb NEg). Four pens were assigned per treatment, with eight head per pen.

Calves were fed totally mixed rations (Table 1) to appetite with reduced fat (8 to 9 percent) modified distillers grain (52 percent dry mat-ter, or DM) included at 25 percent of the diet dry matter in all rations. Rations for respective treatments were mixed in a three-auger mixer (Little Augie, LA-9, Knight Mfg., Broadhead, Wis.) mounted on a 1¼-ton truck chassis and delivered once daily to the four pens in each treatment between 8 and 10 a.m.

Steers were weighed individu-ally every 28 days, with feed intake, gain and feed efficiency calculated for each weigh period. A grow-ing ration was fed for two weigh periods, followed by five periods of finishing diets. Steers were

slaughtered at Tyson Meats, Da-kota City, Neb., when we estimated that 60 percent would grade U.S. Department of Agriculture Choice by visual appraisal. Carcass traits were determined after a 24-hour chill by qualified graders according to USDA criteria. Data was sum-marized and statistically analyzed using SAS Mixed procedures.

Results and DiscussionDuring the growing period

(Table 2), steers tended to eat less (P = 0.09) and gained the same (P = 0.56) with increasing barley in the diets, resulting in improved feed efficiency (P = 0.04) with the 67 and 100 percent barley diets. Dry matter intake was 22.73, 21.41, 20.39 and 20.6 for 0, 33, 67 and 100 percent bar-ley diets, reciprocal to corn percent-age, respectively.

During finishing, no differ-ences were observed in feed intake (P = 0.25), gain (P = 0.74) and feed efficiency (P = 0.22). Throughout the feeding period, intake tended to be lower (P = 0.15) for the higher barley diets, but gains were similar (P = 0.66), resulting in improved feed efficiency (P = 0.04; 5.66, 5.61, 5.39 and 5.39 for 0, 33, 67 and 100 percent barley diets, respectively).

Carcass traits (Table 3) were similar, except fat thickness was lower (P = 0.04) for the 100 percent barley diet at 0.44 inch, compared with 0.57 inch as an average for the diets with corn. Also, yield grade tended to be lower (P = 0.07) for the 100 percent barley diet at 2.48, compared with a 2.98 average for the three diets with corn.

Sixty-three percent of the cattle on the 100 percent barley diet

Table 1. Rations for calves fed reciprocal levels of corn and barley with distillers grain.

Diet Treatments

0% Bar 33% Bar 67% Bar 100% Bar 100% Corn 67% Corn 33% Corn 0% Corn

Percent, DM basis

Growing diets Barley, dry rolled 0.34 12.66 24.65 36.76 Corn, dry rolled 36.18 24.01 12.20 0.35 Distillers grain, modified 25.84 25.71 25.59 25.50 Corn silage 12.94 12.86 12.79 12.73 Hay, chopped 22.52 22.45 22.35 22.23 Suppl. Ion, min, vit 2.18 2.30 2.42 2.43Nutrients Dry matter, % 64.28 64.65 65.01 65.34 NEg, Mcal/lb. 55.66 55.13 54.63 54.21 Crude protein, % 14.56 14.99 15.41 15.85

Finishing diets Barley, dry rolled 0 19.32 38.01 56.80 Corn, dry rolled 55.95 36.97 18.56 0 Distillers grain, modified 24.73 24.54 24.37 24.24 Corn silage 8.76 8.70 8.56 8.54 Hay, chopped 8.42 8.29 8.24 8.18 Ionophore, min, vit, suppl. 2.14 2.19 2.25 2.24Nutrients Dry matter, % 67.14 67.71 68.33 68.85 NEg, Mcal/lb. 63.03 62.30 61.56 60.86 Crude protein, % 13.31 14.16 14.98 15.82


Table 2. Performance of steers fed reciprocal levels of corn and barley with distillers grain.

Diet Treatments

100% Corn 67% Corn 33% Corn 0% Corn 0% Bar 33% Bar 67% Bar 100% Bar Std Err P Value

No. head 32 32 30 32No. pens 4 4 4 4Live wt., lbs. Initial wt., Oct. 25 616 614 613 615 7.86 0.98 Final wt., day 190 1436 1415 1433 1422 21.52 0.75Dry matter intake, lb./head/day Growing phase, days 1-56 22.73a 21.41ab 20.39b 20.36b 0.92 0.09 Finishing phase, days 57-190 25.24 24.75 24.62 24.16 0.54 0.25 Overall days 1-190 24.50 23.76 23.37 23.04 0.63 0.15Average daily gain, lb. Growing phase, days 1-56 4.63 4.44 4.49 4.50 0.19 0.48 Finishing phase, days 57-190 4.22 4.14 4.16 4.19 0.19 0.51 Overall days 1-190 4.39 4.26 4.51 4.09 0.26 0.42Feed efficiency, DM/gain Growing phase, days 1-56 4.91a 4.82a 4.55b 4.53b 0.12 0.04 Finishing phase, days 57-190 6.01 5.96 5.76 5.79 0.12 0.22 Overall days 1-190 5.66a 5.61a 5.39b 5.39b 0.10 0.04

a,bValues within rows with different superscripts are significantly different, P ≤ 0.10

Table 3. Carcass characteristics of steers fed reciprocal levels of corn and barley with distillers grains.

Diet Treatments

100% Corn 67% Corn 33% Corn 0% Corn 0% Bar 33% Bar 67% Bar 100% Bar Std Err P Value

Hot carcass wt., lbs. 868 855 865 864 13.95 0.81Dressing percent 62.97 62.99 62.87 63.23 0.4 0.84Rib eye area, sq. in. 14.80 14.77 14.81 15.28 0.32 0.32Fat thickness, 12th rib 0.56a 0.58a 0.58a 0.44a 0.06 0.04Kidney, pelvic heart fat, % 2.50 2.48 2.53 2.44 0.06 0.51Yield grade1 2.97a 2.97a 2.99 2.48a 0.23 0.07Marbling score2 453 457 456 422 16.93 0.13Percent USDA Choice 77 84 81 63

a,bValues within rows with different superscripts are significantly different, P ≤ 0.101Yield grade is composite calculation of fat to lean yield in a carcass based on a relationship of hot carcass weight, rib-eye area, fat thickness and KPH; low values = lean carcasses.2Scores of 300-399 = USDA Select quality grade; 400-499 = Low Choice; 500-599 = Average Choice; 600-699 = High Choice; 700+ = Prime.

graded USDA Choice, compared with an average of 81 percent for the diets with corn.

The relative value of a bushel of barley (Table 4) was calculated using equal feed cost per pound of gain as a base (Table 4). The relative value of barley was calculated to be 104 percent of corn for the growing

diets with any level of barley and 92 percent of corn for the finishing diets with barley.

When averaging the two feeding phases together, barley had an over-all value of 95 percent of the bushel price of corn throughout the feeding period. If barley can be purchased for less than these relative prices for

respective feeding phases, feeders may increase profit by using barley in their feedlot diets with 25 percent distillers grain in the ration.

On a bushel basis (Table 4), if corn is worth $7, barley is worth $7.28 in the growing rations, $6.42 in the finishing rations and $6.68 per bushel overall. Given that bar-


ley often sells at 85 percent of the price of corn or less, feeding barley with corn appears to make sense when distillers grains is included at 25 percent of the ration because it will support excellent animal performance, not alter carcass qual-ity traits and potentially increase profits.

Table 4. Value of barley per bushel relative to corn based on equal feed cost per pound of gain.

Diet Treatments Avg of 100% Corn 67% Corn 33% Corn 0% Corn 3 dietsPercent of bushel price 0% Bar 33% Bar 67% Bar 100% Bar w/barley

Corn, Feeding Phase 56 lb. bu. Barley, 48 lb. bu.

Growing 100 99 110 103 104 Finishing 100 91 91 93 92 Overall 100 92 99 95 956

Influence of feed restriction and feeding time to growing calves on growth performance and feeding behaviorL.D. Prezotto1, T.C. Gilbery1, M.L. Bauer1, A. Islas1 and K.C. Swanson1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU

The objectives of this research were to determine the effects of limit-feeding and feeding time (daytime, nighttime, or half daytime and nighttime) on growth performance and feeding behavior of growing calves fed a corn-silage and hay-based backgrounding diet. Results suggest that growing calves that were restricted and consuming feed at different times of the day did not have altered growth performance or feeding behavior but that limit-feeding resulted in reduced average daily gain.

SummarySixty-six steers (average initial

weight of 709 pounds) and 30 heif-ers (average initial weight of 540 pounds) predominately of Angus, Simmental and Shorthorn breeding were assigned randomly to one of four dietary treatments: 1) ad libi-tum feed consumption, 2) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad libitum group on a body-weight (BW) basis in the daytime, 3) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad libitum group on a BW basis in the nighttime and 4) limit-fed to 80 percent of the average of the ad

libitum group on a BW basis, with half in the daytime and half in the nighttime. Animals were fed a corn silage and hay-based background-ing diet beginning on Nov. 13 and ending Feb. 5 (84 days). Body weights were taken on two consecu-tive days at the beginning and end of the experiment and every 28 days throughout the experiment. Final BW was greater (P = 0.009) in the ad libitum group when compared with the other three limit-fed treatment groups. Moreover, average daily gain (ADG), total dry-matter (DM) intake, total intake relative to BW, time at feeder, meal size and meal duration also were greater (P <

0.001) in the ad libitum group when compared with the other three treat-ment groups. The nighttime group spent more time at the feeder (P = 0.04) than the daytime group. Our results suggest that limit-feeding decreased average daily gain and allowing access to feed at different times of the day generally did not influence growth performance and feeding behavior in growing calves fed a corn silage and hay-based diet.

IntroductionFeeding patterns throughout the

day can influence animal perfor-mance. For example, results from past research (Montanholi et al., 2010; Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 2002) suggest that more efficient calves consumed smaller meals and had slower eating rates, compared with less efficient calves, and also spent less total time at the feeder per day.

Understanding the dynamic effects influencing feed intake will provide insight into why changes in feed intake occur in response to dietary or physiological changes.


Feed intake patterns also can be influenced by feeding management systems in which feed intake is restricted or feed is delivered at dif-ferent times during the day.

Limit-feeding, in which cattle are fed less than their maximal ap-petite, has been used to improve efficiency of growth and nutrient utilization (Galyean, 1999). This im-provement in efficiency is thought to be due, in part, to improvements in digestive efficiency and the more efficient utilization of energy for maintenance and growth. However, it can be difficult to manage be-cause more feed bunk space may be necessary; cattle can consume large amounts of feed in a short period of time, which can result in digestive disturbances. Additionally, cattle behavior can be influenced because feed is not always available, which could result in other management considerations.

Some research has suggested that feeding cattle in the evening re-sults in improved performance and/or improved efficiency in cold cli-mates (Bergen et al., 2008; Holt and Pritchard, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2004; Small et al., 2004). This potentially is due to increased heat produced by the body, which is of benefit when temperatures are low.

With this available background information, we hypothesized that cattle performance and feeding behavior may be altered when cattle are limit-fed during the evening. Moreover, limiting feed and control-ling the timing of feed consumption may help alleviate some of the inef-ficiencies due to cold weather and/or digestive problems that can occur in limit-feeding programs. Further-more, the feeding schedule and limit feeding ultimately may influence growth performance and efficiency of growing animals.

Experimental ProceduresThe experiment was conducted

at the NDSU Beef Cattle Research Complex using the Insentec feed-ing system that allows for monitor-ing and controlling individual feed intake in a group-housed environ-ment. The feeding system also allows for regulating access to feed during specific periods of the day.

Sixty-six steers (average initial weight of 709 pounds) and 30 heif-ers (average initial weight of 540 pounds) of Angus, Simmental and Shorthorn breeding were allocated to four pens based on sex (three steer pens and one heifer pen) and initial BW (for steers), and assigned to one of four treatments: 1) ad libitum feed consumption (AL), 2) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s average percentage of BW intake in the daytime, 3) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s average percentage of BW intake in the nighttime and 4) limit-fed 80 percent of the ad libitum group’s av-erage percentage of BW intake, with half in the dayttime and half in the nighttime. Animals were adapted to the feeding system for at least 30 days prior to the beginning of the experiment and were adapted to the feeding schedule in seven days at the beginning of the test period.

Cattle were fed a corn silage and hay-based backgrounding diet (Table 1). Animals were fed for 84 days. Body weights were taken on two consecutive days at the begin-ning and end of the experiment and every 28 days throughout the experiment. Feed intake and feeding behavior was summarized dur-ing the feeding period, excluding the seven-day adaptation period. Feed samples were collected twice monthly for nutrient analysis. Data were analyzed using a completely randomized block design to ac-count for sex and breed using PROC GLM of SAS; means were compared among treatment groups utilizing

Table 1. Dietary composition and analysis.

Item %

Ingredient, % (DM basis) Corn silage 68 Hay 21 DDGS 3 Corn 3 Vitamin and mineral premix 5 Analysisa

DM, % 48.5 Crude protein, % of DM 13.4 Neutral detergent fiber, % of DM 49.9 Acid detergent fiber, % of DM 46.2 Calcium, % of DM 0.46 Phosphorus, % of DM 0.24aAverage of twice-monthly diet samples.

contrast statements: 1) ad libitum vs others, 2) daytime vs. nighttime, and 3) ½ daytime ½ nighttime vs. daytime and nighttime).

Results and DiscussionInitial BW was not different

among treatments (Table 2). Final BW was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. Average daily gain was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. Furthermore, ADG tended (P = 0.09) to be greater in the nighttime group than the daytime group. Dry-matter intake (pounds/day and percent of BW) was greater (P < 0.001) in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups.

The time spent eating per meal and per day was greater (P ≤ 0.002) for the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. The time spent eating per day for the night-time group was greater (P < 0.04), when compared with the daytime group. Finally, the eating rate per meal (pounds/meal) was greater (P = 0.005) for the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups.


The present study demonstrates that growth performance (final BW and ADG) and the majority of the feeding behavior traits (intake, time eating per meal and per day, and eating rate per meal) were greater in the AL group, compared with the other treatment groups. However, controlling the time of feed con-sumption had no effect on final BW, intake, most feeding behavior traits or feed efficiency. However, ADG tended (P = 0.09) to be greater in calves consuming feed in the night-time. Perhaps this was related to the nighttime group spending a longer time at the feeder than the daytime group.

In conclusion, the time of feed-ing generally did not affect growth performance and feeding behavior (except for a tendency for improved ADG in nightime calves and time spent eating per meal greater for nighttime calves) of growing cattle fed a corn silage and hay-based diet. These results fail to support our hy-pothesis that feeding in the evening would improve feed efficiency.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the North

Dakota State Board of Agricultural Research and Education for partial funding of the project.

Literature CitedBergen, R.D., K.S. Schwartzkopf-

Genswein, T.A. McAllister and A.D. Kennedy. 2008. Effects of feeding time on behaviour, thermoregulation and growth of steers in winter. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 88:369-379.

Galyean, M.L. 1999. Review: Restricted and programmed feeding of beef cattle — definitions, application, and research results. Prof. Anim. Sci. 15:1-6.

Holt, S.M., and R.H. Pritchard. 2005. Ef-fect of feeding schedule on tympanic temperature of steer calves during winter. South Dakota State Beef Re-port 2005:87.

Kennedy, A.D., R.D. Bergen, T.J. Law-son, J.A. Small and D.M. Veira.

Table 2. Influence of feed restriction and feeding time on growth performance and feeding behavior of growing animals fed with a hay-based backgrounding diet for 84 days.

Treatment Contrast

½ Daytime ½ Nighttime vs. Ad Daytime Daytime Ad ½ Daytime libitum vs. vs. andItem libitum Daytime Nighttime ½ Nighttime SEM others Nighttime Nighttime

Initial BW, lb. 607 614 614 614 19 0.77 0.98 0.99Final BW, lb. 821 746 768 768 22 0.009 0.43 0.66ADG, lb./day 2.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 0.13 <0.001 0.09 0.34DM intake, lb./day 18 13 14 13 0.44 <0.001 0.28 0.75Daily DM intake, % of BW 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.05 <0.001 0.26 0.47Feed:Gain, lb. DM/lb. gain 7.0 7.6 7.6 7.9 0.99 0.51 0.99 0.84Meals, no./day 8.8 7.4 8.2 7.6 0.53 0.06 0.22 0.77Time eating, min Per meal 26 23 24 23 0.93 0.002 0.48 0.76 Per day 210 163 185 170 7.9 <0.001 0.04 0.62Eating rate, lb. Per meal 2.3 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.15 0.005 0.68 0.81 Per min 0.086 0.084 0.077 0.084 0.004 0.29 0.21 0.38

2004. Effects of evening feeding and extended photoperiod on growth, feed efficiency, live animal carcass traits and plasma prolactin of beef heifers housed outdoors during two Manitoba winters. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:491-500.

Montanholi, Y.R., K.C. Swanson, R. Palme, F.S. Schenkel, B.W. McBride, D. Lu and S.P. Miller. 2010. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior, infrared thermog-raphy and glucocorticoids. Animal 4:692-701.

Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., S. At-wood and T.A. McAllister. 2002. Rela-tionships between bunk attendance, intake and performance of steers and heifers on varying feeding regimes. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 76:179-188.

Small, J.A., A.D. Kennedy, D.M. Veira, W.R. McCaughey and D.R. Ward. 2004. Time of feeding and growth promotant effects on the winter growth performance and carcass traits of steers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84:133-144.


Pancreatic enzyme activity in high- vs. low-efficiency steersF.E. Doscher1, L.D. Prezotto1, S.I. Paisley2, A.M. Meyer2 and K.C. Swanson2

1Department of Animal Science, University of Wyoming 2Department of Animal Science, NDSU

The objective of this study was to determine if pancreatic mass or pancreatic digestive enzyme activity differs between steers of high and low efficiency. We found a trend toward a larger pancreas mass in high-efficiency steers. However, pancreatic digestive enzymes were not impacted by feed efficiency classification.

SummaryHereford-Angus crossbred

steers (n = 59) were fed a common finishing diet (11.4 percent crude protein [CP], 4.41 megacalories of net energy for maintenance per pound [Mcal NEm/lb], 2.98 Mcal of net energy for gain per pound [NEg/lb]) for 57 days using the GrowSafe feed intake system. Re-sidual feed intake (RFI), a measure of feed efficiency, was determined for all steers with at least 0.4 inch of 12th rib fat thickness at the end of the feed intake test (n = 40). The 20 percent most efficient (n = 8) and 20 percent least efficient (n = 8) steers then were selected and randomly allocated to two slaughter dates five and seven days after the conclusion of the feeding trial. At slaughter, the pancreas was removed, trimmed of fat and weighed. Samples of each pancreas were flash-frozen immedi-ately and stored at minus 112 F for further analysis of protein content and "-amylase and trypsin activity. We found a trend (P < 0.10) toward high-efficiency (low-RFI) steers having greater pancreatic weight (ounces) per pound of body weight. No significant differences were observed (P > 0.2) between high- and low-efficiency steers for protein concentration or pancreatic "-amy-lase and trypsin activity. These data

indicate that more efficient steers may have a trend for increased pan-creatic mass without an alteration in pancreatic digestive enzyme activity.

IntroductionFeed efficiency holds great value

in livestock production. Cattle that are more efficient require less feed for productive purposes such as growth. Residual feed intake (RFI) is calculated as the difference between the actual feed intake of an animal and its expected feed intake based on the animal’s size, maintenance requirements and growth during a specified period of time (Richardson et. al., 2001).

Herd and Arthur (2008) outlined five areas influencing RFI. These ar-eas are as follows: processes related to the ingestion of feed, digestion and absorption of nutrients, mainte-nance requirements, physical activ-ity and thermoregulation. Cattle with a lower RFI are able to grow as rapidly as animals with greater intakes while consuming less feed, thus reducing total feed costs.

Research has suggested that us-ing selective breeding to obtain cat-tle with lower RFIs in future genera-tions (Herd et. al., 1998) is possible. More information is needed to better understand the underlying mecha-nisms controlling feed efficiency to understand the impacts that this selection has on livestock and to al-low for the creation of management

strategies to improve efficiency.The pancreas is responsible for

the secretion of digestive enzymes such as "-amylase and trypsin. These enzymes assist in the break-down of nutrients in the small intestine. In the small intestine, "-amylase initiates the digestion of starch to simple sugars, which are absorbed by the small intestine, whereas trypsin initiates the diges-tion of proteins into peptides and amino acids, which are absorbed in the small intestine. The ability of cattle to grow and develop with lower input may be associated with improved function of the animal’s organs (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1985) such as the pancreas.

The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between improved efficiency and pancreatic function as related to feed digestion. We hoped to estab-lish whether a correlation existed between greater efficiency and the mass of the pancreas or the secretion of its enzymes. We hypothesize that as an animal becomes more efficient, the amount of pancreatic digestive enzymes will increase to support metabolic demands.

Experimental ProceduresIn March 2012 at approximately

12 months of age and weighing roughly 1,016 ± 10 pounds, 59 Hereford-Angus crossbred steers were trained to use the GrowSafe feed intake system at the University of Wyoming Sustainable Agricul-ture Research and Extension Center (SAREC) in Lingle, Wyo. They were fed a common corn-based finish-ing diet (11.4 percent CP, 4.41 Mcal NEm/lb, 2.98 Mcal NE/lb; dry-mat-ter [DM] basis) for 57 days.

At the end of the feed intake


period, RFI was calculated for all steers with at least 0.4 inch of fat thickness (n = 40) by subtracting the expected feed intake from the actual feed intake. Expected feed intake was determined by regress-ing average daily gain (ADG) and metabolic midweight on actual feed intake. The 20 percent most efficient (n = 8) and 20 percent least efficient (n = 8) steers then were selected and randomly allocated to two slaughter dates five and seven days after the end of the feed intake test.

At slaughter, the pancreas was removed, trimmed of fat and weighed. Samples from each animal were frozen immediately on dry ice and stored at minus 112 F until fur-ther analysis. Trypsin and "-amylase activity were measured kinetically on a microplate reader. Data were analyzed using the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS with RFI class (high vs. low efficiency) as a fixed effect in the model. Enzyme activity is reported as units of activity per

ounce of pancreatic tissue (U/oz), total units of pancreatic activity (U/pancreas) and total units of activity relative to maternal body weight (U/lb BW).

Results and DiscussionIn this study, no differences (P

= 0.84) in the final body weights of steers were observed (Table 1). We found a trend (P < 0.10) for pancreatic mass, relative to body weight, to be greater in the low-RFI (high-efficiency) steers. We found no differences in protein concentration or activity of pancreatic enzymes ("-amylase and trypsin) among steers differing in feed efficiency (Table 1).

Our results agree with those of Mader et al. (2009), who found no significant correlations among performance measures and pancre-atic mass or enzyme activity. Taken together, these results suggest that differences in feed efficiency be-tween animals may not be related

to digestive enzyme concentrations in the pancreas. Further work is necessary to determine how, if at all, improved efficiency could be related to digestive function.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the employ-

ees of the University of Wyoming Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Center and Meat Laboratory and also several Univer-sity of Wyoming Animal Sciences faculty, staff, and graduate and undergraduate students for their as-sistance with animal husbandry and data collection.

Literature CitedFerrell, C.L., and T.G. Jenkins. 1985. Cow

type and the nutritional environment: Nutritional aspects. J. Anim. Sci. 61:725−741.

Herd, M., and P.F. Arthur. 2009. Physi-ological basis for residual feed intake. J. Anim. Sci. 87(E.Suppl.):E64-E71.

Herd, R.M., E.C. Richardson, R.S. Hegar-ty, R.T. Woodgate, J.A. Archer and P.F. Arthur. 1998. Pasture intake by high versus low net feed efficient Angus cows. Anim. Prod. Aust. 22:137–140.

Mader C.J, Y.R. Montanholi, Y.T. Wang, S.P. Miller, I.B. Mandell, B.W. Mc-Bride, K.C. Swanson. 2009. Relation-ships among measures of growth performance and efficiency with carcass traits, visceral organ mass, and pancreatic digestive enzymes in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1548-57.

Richardson, E.C., R.M. Herd, V.H. Oddy, J.M. Thomspon, J.A. Archer and P.F. Arthur. 2001. Body composition and implications for heat production of Angus steer progeny of parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 41:1065–1072.

Table 1. Influence of RFI classification on pancreatic mass and digestive enzyme activities.

Treatment

Item aHRFI bLRFI SEM P-Value

Final BW, lb. 1,215 1,226 39.9 0.84Pancreas wt., oz. 18.2 21.2 1.55 0.21Pancreas/BW, oz./lb. 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.10Pancreatic protein oz./lb. 1.99 2.24 0.18 0.31 oz./pancreas 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.17 oz./lb. of BW 0.002 0.01 0.0002 0.11Pancreatic "-amylase U/oz. 2.47 4.09 0.85 0.22 KU/pancreas 37.7 70.4 14.80 0.15 U/lb. of BW 148 273 55.3 0.15 U/oz. protein 9.42 17.1 3.34 0.14Pancreatic trypsin U/oz. 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.54 U/pancreas 487 448 98.3 0.79 U/lb. of BW 3.37 2.76 0.6 0.48 U/oz. protein 0.25 0.18 0.04 0.24

aHigh Residual Feed Intake = Low Efficiency Steers bLow Residual Feed Intake = High Efficiency Steers


Management strategies for summer-finished feeder cattle: Effects of dietary protein levels and use of bedding to alleviate heat stress on animal performance and carcass traitsC.L. Engel1, V.L. Anderson1 and B.R. Ilse2

1Carrington Research Extension Center NDSU 2Big Horn County Extension office, Montana State University

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of higher protein diets and the use of corn stover as bedding to alleviate heat stress on the performance and carcass traits of summer-finished beef steers. Weaned Angus steer calves (n= 136) were fed diets similar in energy and containing either 12 or 16 percent crude protein (CP). Cattle were distributed among 16 feedlot pens. Pens were r bare dirt or bedded in the center of the pen with baled corn stover. Animal performance was not affected by bedding or protein level treatments. Carcass traits were similar among protein level and bedding treatments, except the bedded treatment tended to increase carcasses grading choice or better by 10 percent, compared with the nonbedding treatment. Feeding modified distillers grains to replace 30 percent of the corn in beef-finishing diets did not improve but also did not negatively affect animal performance or carcass traits. Bedding pens with corn stover did lower pen surface temperatures and tended to increase the percentage of carcasses grading choice or better but did not influence growth performance.

SummaryIn a 2-by-2 factorial design,

two levels of dietary protein and two levels of pen surface bedding were evaluated for effects on animal performance and carcass traits in summer-finished feedlot cattle (n = 136). The dietary protein treatments were formulated to be similar in energy (0.55 megacalorie per pound of net energy for gain [Mcals/lb NEg]) and were control (Con; 12.23 percent CP) and high protein (HP; 15.84 percent CP). Bedding treat-ments were pens bedded with corn stover (BD) or a no bedding control (NB), or bare-pen surface. Average air temperatures and pen surface temperatures were recorded three

times daily from the bedding pack and the bare-dirt surface. Neither bedding pens nor feeding a higher-protein ration had any effects on (P ≥ 0.22) average daily gain (ADG), dry-matter intake (DMI), feed ef-ficiency (DM/gain) or final body weight during the trial period (4.48 pounds, 28.5 pounds, 6.3 and 1,427 pounds, respectively). Carcass traits were similar among protein level and bedding treatments, except for quality grade. The BD treatment tended to have more carcasses grade Choice or better (88.1 percent) than the NB treatment (77.9 percent). Average air temperature and pen surface temperature readings nu-merically increased from morning to evening. At the morning reading, the pen surface temperature spread between the NB surface and the BD surface was minimal (< 1 F). At the

midday and evening readings, the temperature spread between BD and NB surfaces had increased, with the NB about 4 F higher than the BD surface.

IntroductionCorn distillers grain supplies

protein and energy and often is included in feedlot diets because of feeding value and ingredient cost. Typical protein requirement recom-mendations for feedlot finishing diets are between 12 and 13 percent CP. Diets replacing corn with distill-ers grains can be in excess of 16 percent CP. The NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center feedlot has observed cattle fed diets with CP higher than National Research Council (NRC) recommendations will gain slightly more than models predict. We hypothesized feeding higher protein levels in diets replac-ing corn with modified distillers grains would improve finishing feedlot cattle performance and car-cass characteristics.

Additionally, feeding cattle in North Dakota in the winter and summer pose environmental tem-perature extremes that can affect animal performance negatively. Annually, economic losses to the livestock industry resulting from environmental heat stress are $1.69 billion to 2.36 billion (Holt and Pritchard, year). Winter bedding of feedlot cattle has been shown to help alleviate cold stress and im-prove performance of feedlot cattle (Anderson et. al., 2004; Birkelo and Loundsbery, 1992).

However, summer bedding of feedlot cattle is not practiced com-


monly and no comparative data is available to support its use for alle-viating heat stress. We hypothesized that using crop residue, which is lighter in color and has greater light reflectance potential, for bedding may provide a cooler surface for cattle, compared with dirt surfaces of feedlot pen, and improve animal performance and carcass traits in the heat of the summer. Additionally, more carbon added to the pen sur-face as bedding may sequester more nutrients in manure. A separate ar-ticle will address this environmental comparison.

Experimental ProceduresBlack Angus and Angus-cross

fall-born and yearling steer calves (n = 136; 965 pounds average body weight) consigned to the NDSU Car-rington Research Extension Center by multiple North Dakota beef producers in the first annual North Dakota Angus University feed-out program were used in this summer feedlot finishing study. The fall-born calves were part of a similarly designed growing study for 56 days and then transitioned to the finish-ing trial. The results for the growing study are published separately.

All steers were blocked (four weight blocks) by incoming weight and allotted to one of 16 pens (seven to nine animals per pen). Treatments were randomly assigned to pen within block. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design with 2-by-2 factorial arrangements of treatments, with factors of dietary protein and bedding treatment. The MIXED procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C.) was used to analyze all performance and carcass variables, with pen as the experimental unit. The model included the fixed effect of treatment, with block a random effect.

No treatment interactions were detected; therefore, only main effects are reported. The dietary treatments

were formulated for similar energy values (0.55 Mcal/lb NEg) and protein values were 12.23 percent CP for control diets (Con) and 15.84 percent for high-protein diets (HP). Bedding treatments were pens bedded with corn stover (BD) or a no-bedding control (NB). The base diets were similar for each treatment and included corn silage, chopped forage, barley grain, and a vitamin and mineral supplement. Protein level differences were achieved by increasing modified distillers grain in the diet (Table 1) substituting for corn.

Body weights were collected approximately every 28 days. All calves were implanted with Revalor (24 milligram (mg) estradiol 17-$ and 120 mg trenbolone acetate) at the start (day 0) of the finishing trial. Diets were formulated to meet or exceed NRC nutrient requirements and included Rumensin, vitamins and minerals.

Cattle were fed to appetite. Feed for each ration was mixed in a truck-mounted Knight “Little Augie” three-auger mixer wagon and deliv-ered to fence-line bunks once each day. Ration adjustments were made daily according to morning bunk

readings, performed by experienced personnel. A corn stover bedding pack was established in the center of each BD treatment pen. Additional corn stover was added as needed to maintain a fresh, dry bedding pack.

Pen surface temperatures on the bedding pack and the bare-dirt sur-face were recorded three times daily (morning, noon and evening) using an infrared digital temperature gun (Fluke model 568IR). Average air temperatures were collected from North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network (NDAWN) data at the NDSU Carrington Research Exten-sion Center at similar time points as the pen surface temperatures were recorded

All cattle were fed until we determined 60 percent would grade choice or better. The cattle were mar-keted in two drafts at a commercial abattoir (Tyson Fresh Meats, Dakota City, Neb.). The yearling steers were marketed after 110 days on the fin-ishing ration and the fall-born steer calves were marketed after 96 days on the finishing ration, following a 56-day growing period. Carcass data was collected by a trained grader. No mortalities occurred among the cattle on this trial.

Table 1. Diet composition for steers fed finishing diets with higher protein levels or a control diet in pens with or without corn stover bedding.

Control High Protein

Item (Percent of the diet, dry-matter basis)

Corn, dry rolled 50.76 32.52Barley, dry rolled 10.07 10.27Wheat midds 0.54 0.30Modified distillers grain 14.33 32.70Corn silage 8.14 8.11Grass hay, chopped 14.25 14.18Ionophore supplement with vitamins and minerals 1.90 1.93

Dry matter, % 71.82 65.27Crude protien, % 12.23 15.84NEg, Mcal/lb. 0.55 0.55


Results and DiscussionWhile Initial weights were

similar (P ≥ 0.06) for dietary and bedding treatments (965 pounds; Table 2), the cattle in the NB treat-ment tended (P = 0.06) to be heavier by 15 pounds than those on the BD treatment at the start of the finishing period. This may have been due to a carryover effect from the similarly designed 56-day growing trial the eight lighter-weight pens of cattle participated in prior to transitioning to the finishing diet.

All pens remained on the same

bedding and protein level treat-ments from the growing period through the finishing period. We found no effect due to treatment on ADG (P ≥ 0.74) for dietary and bed-ding treatments. The overall average daily gain for the trial period was 4.48 pounds/head/day. Neither bedding pens nor feeding a higher protein level ration had any effects on (P ≥ 0.22) DMI, feed efficiency (DM/gain) or final body weight during the trial period (28.5 pounds, 6.3 and 1,427 pounds; respectively).

The two dietary treatments had similar (P = 0.26) hot carcass

weights (848.3 and 857.7 pounds, for Con and HP, respectively). The NB treatment tended (P = 0.08) to have a greater hot carcass weight, com-pared with the BD treatment (860.9 and 845.13 pounds, respectively; Table 3). Dressing percent averaged 62.8 percent and was similar (P ≥ 0.18) between dietary and bedding treatments. Rib-eye area, backfat thickness and yield grade also were similar (P ≥ 0.13) between protein and bedding treatments (13.9 inch-es2, 0.65 inch and 3.3, respectively; Table 3).

The percent of kidney, pelvic

Table 2. Summer feedlot performance for steers fed finishing diets with higher protein levels or a control diet in pens with or without corn stover bedding.

Diet Treatments Bedding Treatments Dietary Bedding High Treatment Treatment Item Control Protein Bedding None Std Err P Value P Value

No. head, total 69 67 68 68 --- --- ---No. pens 8 8 8 8 --- --- ---Live wt., lbs. Initial wt. 960 970 958 973 40.02 0.19 0.06 Final wt. 1,425 1,430 1,419 1,435 44.71 0.68 0.22Avg. daily gain, lb. 4.50 4.46 4.49 4.48 0.11 0.74 0.98Dry matter intake, lb. 28.50 28.49 28.39 28.59 0.72 0.95 0.24Feed efficiency, DM/gain 6.36 6.39 6.37 6.38 0.26 0.81 0.94

Table 3. Carcass traits for steers fed finishing diets with higher protein levels or a control diet in pens with or without corn stover bedding.

Diet Treatments Bedding Treatments Dietary Bedding High Treatment Treatment Item Control Protein Bedding None Std Err P Value P Value

Hot carcass wt. lb. 848 858 845 861 31.7 0.26 0.08Dressing percent 62.60 63.10 62.80 63.00 0.004 0.18 0.49Rib-eye area, sq. in. 13.91 13.79 13.70 14.00 0.13 0.53 0.13Fat thickness, in. 0.63 0.66 0.64 0.65 0.05 0.41 0.64KPH, % 2.36 2.46 2.40 2.43 0.04 0.08 0.32Marbling score1 514 482 511 485 23.3 0.06 0.10Yield grade2 3.19 3.34 3.27 3.26 0.19 0.21 0.90Quality grade USDA Select, % 14.7 19.4 11.9 22.1 --- --- --- USDA Choice, % 77.9 77.6 80.6 75.0 --- --- --- USDA Prime, % 7.4 2.9 7.5 2.9 --- --- ---

1Scores of 300 -399 = USDA Select, 400-499 = USDA low choice, 500-599 = USDA avg choice, 600-699 = USDA high choice and 700+ = USDA prime 2Yield grade is a calculation of fat to lean yield in a carcass


and heart fat (KPH) was 2.4 percent and similar (P = 0.32) for bedding treatments. However the KPH percent tended to be greater (P = 0.06) for the HP dietary treatment, compared with the Con treatment (2.5 vs. 2.4 percent, respectively). The Con and HP diets had 77 percent of carcasses grade Choice or better; however, the Con diet tended (P = 0.06) to have a higher percentage of animals grade Prime and a lower percentage of carcasses grade Select than those on the HP diet. The BD treatment tended (P = 0.10) to have a higher quality grade than the NB treatment, with 88 vs. 78 percent grading choice or better, respectively.

Average air temperature read-ings numerically increased from morning to evening and were 62.6, 74.8 and 78.6 F for morning, midday and evening, respectively. The pen surface temperatures for both bed-ding treatments were numerically

Figure 1. Average air temperature, pen surface temperature and difference (no bedding minus bedded surface) for feedlot pens with bedding or bare-dirt surfaces.

greater than the air temperature and numerically increased from morning to evening. At the morning reading, the pen surface temperature spread between the NB surface and the BD surface was minimal (less than 1 F, Figure 1). At the midday and evening readings, the temperature spread between BD and NB surfaces had increased, with the NB between 4.1 and 3.2 F higher than the BD surface for midday and evening, respectively.

Feeding higher levels of CP in finishing beef steer diets when corn is replaced with modified distill-ers grains did not improve animal feedlot performance or carcass characteristics; however, it did not cause any negative effects to animal feedlot performance or carcass traits. Bedding pens with corn stover also tended to produce mixed results among measured carcass character-istics. While bedding did lower pen surface temperatures, it does not

appear to be significant enough to result in improved feedlot perfor-mance.

Literature CitedAnderson, V.L., E. Aberle and L. Swen-

son. 2004. Effects of bedding on win-ter performance of feedlot cattle and nutrient conservation in composted manure. NDSU Beef Feedlot Research Report. Vol. 27:30-37.

Birkelo, C.P., and J. Loundsbery. 1992. Effect of straw and newspaper bed-ding on cold season feedlot perfor-mance in two housing systems. South Dakota Beef Report p42-45.

Holt, S.M., and R.H. Pritchard. Manag-ing heat and cold stress of feedlot Holstein Steers. South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D. Ac-cessed June 25, 2013. (https://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdon-lyres/E805E929-2CEC-4DA8-A98C-CE1F618022D3/87061/Managing-HeatAndCold_Holt.pdf)

National Research Council. 1996. Nutri-ent Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.

morning Midday EveningAverage of Air Temp 62.59 74.75 78.63Average of Bedding 67.16 90.34 93.19Average of no bedding 67.89 94.46 96.37Average of Diff 0.72 4.12 3.17

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.0050.0055.0060.0065.0070.0075.0080.0085.0090.0095.00

100.00105.00

Tem

pera

ture

, Deg

rees

Fer

inhe

ight

Figure 1. Average air temperature, pen surface temperature and difference (no bedding minus bedded surface) for feedlot pens with bedding or bare-dirt surfaces.

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/NR/rdonlyres/E805E929-2CEC-4DA8-A98C-CE1F618022D3/87061/ManagingHeatAndCold_Holt.pdf






Consequence of two grazing systems before feedlot entry on yearling steer grazing and feedlot performance, carcass traits, tenderness and sensory panel response, and net returnS. Senturklu1,2, D.G. Landblom1, R. Maddock3 and S. Paisley4

1Dickinson Research Extension Center, NDSU 2Canakkale Onsekiz Mart Universitesi, Canakkale, Turkey 3Animal Sciences Department, NDSU 4Department of Animal Science, University of Wyoming

The objective of this research was to examine the consequence of two extensive grazing systems for yearling steers based on perennial grasses or a combination of perennial grasses and annual forages before feedlot entry and to compare system net return to conventional feedlot finishing. Combining perennial grass and annual forage before feedlot entry reduced days on feed, improved feedlot performance, did not affect tenderness or sensory panel response, and resulted in improved system profitability without risk management intervention.

SummaryOne hundred forty-one yearling

steers, previously wintered for mod-est gain of less than 1 pound/day, were randomly assigned in early May based on birth date and weight to one of three production systems: 1) control (feedlot direct) (FLT), 2) perennial grass pasture (crested wheatgrass (CWG) > native range (NAT) (PST) or 3) perennial grass pasture followed by annual forage (CWG > NAT > field pea-barley (PBLY) > unharvested corn (CN)) (ANN). During the grazing period, gains were slower for the PST than the ANN system. At feedlot entry, ANN system steers were heavier and needed less days on feed (DOF) to reach final harvest weight. Graz-ing annual forages after perennial grasses promoted increased growth, rib-eye area (REA), fat depth (FD) and percent of intramuscular fat (%

IMF). Compared with the conven-tional feedlot control days on feed (DOF) of 142 days, grazing system DOF to final harvest were 66 and 91 days for the ANN and PST systems, respectively. In the feedlot, grazing system steers grew faster and were more efficient, and feed cost per unit of gain was lower than for the FLT control steers. Hot carcass weight was heavier for grazing steers than the FLT control; however, no differ-ence was found among systems for marbling score or percent Choice quality grade. Strip loin steaks (approximately 1 inch thick) were harvested from each carcass half for tenderness and sensory panel evaluation. For meat samples, no difference was measured for shear force (tenderness) or cooking yield, and no systems sensory panel dif-ferences were identified for tender-ness, juiciness or flavor. Systems net return was determined without accounting for risk management procedures. The ANN system net re-turn was the most profitable system, returning $9.09 per steer; however, a small loss was recorded for the PST (minus $30.10 per steer), and a large

loss was recorded for the control FLT system (minus $298). These data suggest that retaining ownership through finishing preceded by a long-term sequence of perennial and annual forages improves economi-cally important muscle and fat traits, and the ANN system has the great-est potential to be profitable.

IntroductionVarious factors, but most nota-

bly extended periods of drought and high grain prices, have contributed to a shrinking national cow herd, resulting in excess feedlot capacity in the cattle feeding industry. As of July 2013, the cattle feeding industry experienced cash-to-cash losses for 16 continuous months when risk management was not measured (CattleFax, 2013).

High grain prices, supported by corn ethanol production and greater profitability in the stocker cattle business, may lead to fewer calves and a greater number of yearlings being placed on feed in the future. Yearling and long-yearling cattle make up 45 to 55 percent of total feedlot placements (Brink, 2011). Previous research at the Dickinson Research Extension Center has shown that early weaned calves backgrounded on grazing fields of unharvested corn have a competi-tive economic advantage (Landblom et al., 2010).

The primary objective of this research was to compare two long-term yearling steer grazing systems prior to final feedlot finishing with conventional feedlot growing-finishing to determine the effect of grazing on animal performance,


days on feed (DOF), carcass traits, meat tenderness and sensory panel response, and systems net return.

Experimental ProceduresThe procedures used in this in-

vestigation have been approved by the NDSU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

After weaning in November of each year (2011 and 2012), medium- to large-frame steers (5 to 7 frame score; n = 141) were wintered for modest gain of less than 1 pound per day grazing corn aftermath plus medium-quality hay. In early May, the steers were assigned randomly to one of three treatments based on birth date and weight: 1) control (feedlot direct) (FLT), 2) perennial grass pasture (crested wheatgrass (CWG) > native range (NAT) (PST) or 3) perennial grass pasture fol-lowed by annual forage (CWG > NAT > PBLY > CN) (ANN).

The FLT control steers were shipped directly to the University of Wyoming Sustainable Agriculture Research Extension Center in Lingle and fed to final harvest weight. Steers assigned to the PST and ANN forage grazing treatments also were fed to final harvest at the University of Wyoming feedlot at the end of the long-term extended grazing period.

During the grazing season, PST steers were moved from spring crested wheatgrass to native range pastures in mid-June and, for the ANN treatment, the steers were moved from crested wheatgrass to native range in mid-June and from native range to PBLY the third week of August each year. After PBLY grazing was completed, the steers were moved to standing unharvested corn. Forage crude protein change was determined with bi-monthly sampling from three locations in the PST and ANN treat-ments.

The design was to graze each forage type until forage crude

protein (CP) content declined to a range of 8 to 10 percent CP or the pasture or field was sufficiently grazed. Grazing season cost/steer for the perennial (CWG and NAT) pastures was determined using a constant cost/pound of body weight of $0.0009 multiplied by the start weigh and end weight to arrive at a daily grazing cost. Then, using one-half the total number of days grazed, the first half and second half grazing charges were summed to arrive at the total grazing charge/steer. For the ANN treatment, the grazing cost was based on the sum of the custom grazing charge for the CWG and NAT pastures, plus the actual farming input costs for crop establishment and $30/acre cash rent for western North Dakota.

The length of time on feed was determined using ultrasound measurements for rib-eye muscle area (longissimus dorsi), external fat depth and percent of intramus-cular fat. At the packing plant and after a 48-hour chill, strip loin steaks were taken from each carcass half between the 12th and 13th ribs and frozen for shear force and sensory panel evaluation at the NDSU Meats Laboratory.

The animal data was analyzed using MIXED procedures of SAS, and the GLM procedure of SAS was used for analysis of tenderness and sensory panel data. Pen (pasture) served as the experimental unit.

Results and DiscussionThe results of this yearling steer

alternative production systems evaluation have been summarized in Table 1.

Steer growth rate for the PST and ANN steers was 1.71 and 2.21 pounds/day, respectively, for the average 182-day grazing season, re-sulting in a total grazing season gain of 309 and 405 pounds per steer for the PST and ANN extended graz-ing system treatments, respectively.

The total grazing cost for the ANN treatment was higher; however, the grazing cost per pound of gain for the PST and ANN systems was similar ($0.5571 vs. $0.5924 for PST and ANN, respectively).

Grazing annual forages (PBLY > CN) after native range improved economically important muscle and fat measurements prior to feedlot entry. When measured with ultra-sound at the end of the grazing season, rib-eye area, fat depth and the percent of intramuscular fat were significantly greater for the ANN than the PST systems, which may have contributed to a numeri-cally greater number of ANN steers having carcasses grading Choice or better after the finishing period.

Feedlot performance for either of the extended grazing systems (PST and ANN) was superior to the FLT control steers. The FLT control steers averaged 3.81 pounds per day and reached slaughter weight earlier than steers in the PST and ANN for-age grazing systems; however, once the grazing system steers entered the feedlot, their average daily gains (ADGs) were significantly greater than those in the FLT control.

FLT control steers were 18.1 months of age at slaughter, com-pared with 21.4 and 22.1 months of age for the ANN and PST systems, respectively. Although grazing increased the number of days from birth to slaughter, grazing (PST and ANN) dramatically reduced the number of DOF in the feedlot. Compared with the FLT control that averaged 142 DOF, the ANN steers reached final slaughter weight after a short 66 DOF and the PST steers required 91 DOF. This difference in the number of DOF to reach final slaughter weight is a direct result of combining perennial and annual forages in a sequence in which the ANN steers grazed higher-quality forage throughout the extended grazing season.


For carcass traits, average hot carcass weight for the FLT control system was 78 pounds lighter than the average of the two pasture systems, which likely contributed to the numerically fewer number of FLT steer carcasses grading Choice or better. Although a numerically small number of carcasses graded Choice or better, no statistical difference was found among the systems’ treatments for quality grade. Steer carcasses from the PST and ANN forage systems tended to have greater rib-eye area, as well as greater fat depth. The FLT control steers were leaner, resulting in lower yield grade values, compared with the PST and ANN system carcasses; however, marbling score and quality grade did not differ.

Meat tenderness and sensory panel evaluations of strip loin steaks were not different among systems’ treatments for Warner-Bratzler shear force and cooking yield, and the sensory panel evaluation of steaks showed no difference among steaks for perceived tenderness, juiciness and flavor.

When the system’s two-year average income, expense and net re-turn were summarized, the ANN ex-tended grazing system was the only system with a positive net return of $9.09, whereas, the PST system lost $30.10 per steer, which is attributed to slower growth due to declining forage quality. The conventional feedlot control system lost $298.05.

The results of this study indicate that extended grazing systems can reduce the cost of production among steers held for retained ownership. The ANN extended grazing system that included grazing annual for-ages during the late summer and early fall seasons prior to feedlot en-try was a profitable system without using risk management tools, which was an underlying objective in the study.

Thus, compared with the ANN treatment, declining late summer and fall native range forage quality resulted in lesser rib-eye area, fat depth and percent of intramuscular fat among the PST system steers. Declining late-season forage qual-ity resulted in the PST steers to be on feed for an additional 25 days to reach the final harvest end point.

Despite reaching the slaughter end point sooner, feedlot perfor-mance for the conventional FLT con-trol system was inferior in most of the economically important criteria measured. Compared with the FLT control, extended grazing systems that delay feedlot entry resulted in better ADG, feed efficiency, feed cost per steer and feed cost per pound of gain.

Table 1. Effect of extended grazing system on yearling steer pasture performance.

PST ANN FLT SE P-Value

No. Steers 48 47 46 Grazing Performance: Days grazed 181 183 Start wt., lb. 814 826 5.59 0.058 End wt., lb. 1122a 1231b 8.39 <0.0001 Gain, lb. 309a 405b 5.54 <0.0001 ADG, lb. 1.71a 2.21b 0.03 <0.0001 Cost/head, $ 157.19a 238.36b 0.81 <0.0001 Cost/lb. gain, $ 0.5571 0.5924 0.015 0.14Ultrasound Measurements: End rib-eye area, sq. in. 8.66a 10.86b 0.11 <0.0001 End fat depth, in. 0.23a 0.33b 0.007 <0.0001 Pct. intramuscular fat, % 3.22a 4.13b 0.11 0.0003Feedlot Performance: Feedlot days on feed 91 66 142 Slaughter age (birth to harvest), mths 22.1a 21.4b 18.1c 0.043 <0.0001 Feedlot start wt., lb. 1073a 1189b 808c 15.1 <0.0001 Feedlot end wt., lb. 1488a 1479a 1350b 18.1 0.0002 Feedlot gain, lb. 416a 290b 538c 12.1 <0.0001 Feedlot ADG, lb. 4.59a 4.41a 3.81b 0.15 0.006 Feed:gain, lb. 6.23a 6.15a 6.91b 0.24 0.018 Feed cost/head, $ 381.18a 276.12b 578.30c 7.62 <0.0001 Feed cost/lb. gain, $ 0.9283a 0.9550a 1.08b 0.035 0.005Carcass: Hot carcass weight 855a 851a 775b 9.30 <0.0001 Marbling score 516.0 530.0 501.0 0.58 Yield grade 2.93a 2.82a 2.41b 0.042 Percent choice or greater, % 82.1 86.5 65.6 0.312Meat Evaluation: Shear force, lbs. 7.78 6.93 7.30 0.27 0.109 Cooking yield, % 81.0 84.2 82.5 1.04 0.062 Tenderness 5.10 5.02 5.54 0.11 0.399 Juiciness 5.63 5.53 5.78 0.10 0.26 Flavor 5.78 5.87 5.91 0.09 0.245Systems Economics: Gross income, $ 1,718.41 1,738.93 1,497.41 Expenses, $ 1,748.51 1,729.84 1,795.46 Net return, $ -30.10 9.09 -298.05

a-cMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).


The decision for cattlemen with access to pasture and cropland will be determined by several factors such as the implications of crop insurance, adequate fencing and reliable water sources. Water can be hauled to locations where perma-nent water is not developed, but the logistics may be prohibitive. A deci-sion for whether to graze cropland also will depend on crop insurance rules and estimated value of com-peting crops.

AcknowledgmentsPartial funding for this project

was provided by the North Dakota

Agricultural Experiment Station and U.S. Department of Agricul-ture/National Institute of Food and Agriculture/Sustainable Agricul-ture Research and Education grant LNC11-335. Appreciation also is extended to Cargill Meat Solutions for its gracious assistance during meat sample collections.

Literature CitedAMSA. (1995). Research guidelines for

cookery, sensory evaluation, and in-strumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. Chicago, Ill.: American Meat Science Association in coopera-tion with National Live Stock and Meat Board.

Brink, T., 2011. The changing structure of beef production: stockers, calf-feds and yearlings. In the Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII, Mitchell, Neb. Con-tact: [email protected]

CattleFax. 2013. Update, Vol. XXXXV, Issue 28.

Landblom, D.L., K.C. Olson, P.S. Johnson, R.N. Gates, M.K. Beutler, S.W. Fausti, R.R. Salverson and S. Senturklu. 2010. Can early wean-ing and alternative post-weaning management methods improve ranch profitability? NDSU DREC Report, www.ag.ndsu.edu/DickinsonREC/annual-reports-1/2010-annual-re-port/beef10b.pdf.

Finishing beef cattle on totally mixed and self-fed rationsC. L. Engel1, B.R. Ilse2 and V. L Anderson1


The objective of this study was to evaluate self-fed rations compared with a totally mixed ration fed daily for finishing beef calves. Treatments consisted of two self-fed rations and one totally mixed ration (TMR). Cattle on both self-fed diets had similar average daily gains (≥2.99 pounds/head/day), while cattle on the totally mixed ration had the greatest average daily gain at 3.20 pounds/head/day. Overall, feed efficiencies (feed/gain) were similar among treatments. Carcass traits were similar in all treatment groups. The total cost of gain was slightly higher for the self-fed groups even though the yardage cost was lower than daily bunk feeding. Self-feeding may be a viable option for smaller beef producers who want to finish their own feeder cattle.

SummaryMixed small and medium-frame

Angus steer and heifer calves (n = 207) were used in a three-year winter feeding study to evaluate

finishing beef cattle on self-fed (SF) rations as a low-overhead option, compared with totally mixed rations (TMR) bunk fed daily. Animals were blocked by sex and randomly allot-ted to three treatments each year to evaluate performance and econom-ics of self-feeding. The two SF diets were corn and wheat midds (SF-CM) or corn, wheat midds and bar-

ley (SF-CMB), with free-choice grass hay offered in large round bale feed-ers. The TMR diet included corn, wheat midds and tub-ground grass hay delivered to the fence-line bunk daily. Feed intake or disappearance during the entire finishing phase was numerically higher (P = 0.13) for the self-fed diets (25.27 and 26.26 pounds per day), compared with the TMR (23.38 pounds per day). Overall average daily gains (ADG) were similar (P = 0.64) between both SF diets (2.99 and 3.03 pounds per day for SF-CM and SF-CMB diets, respectively). The TMR diet overall ADG of 3.20 pounds per day was greater (P ≤ 0.04) than for both SF diets. All carcass traits were similar (P ≥ 0.20) among dietary treatments, with the exception of dressing percent. The SF-CM diet tended (P = 0.08) to have a lower dressing percent at 61.41 percent, compared with the SF-CMB and TMR diets at 52.15 ± 0.26 percent. Yardage costs were lower for self-fed cattle, but

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/DickinsonREC/annual-reports-1/2010-annual-report/beef10b.pdf




total costs per pound of gain were within 5 percent of TMR cattle. Total costs for SF treatments were 91 and 95 cents per pound of gain, respec-tively, for SF-CM and SF-CMB), compared with TMR cattle (90 cents per pound of gain) due to apparent feed waste and lower gains for SF diets. Hay feeders that reduce waste would improve the economics of self-feeding.

IntroductionMost cow-calf producers

background their heifers for use as replacements in their cow herd. Some cattle producers background their steer calves on a modest en-ergy diet after weaning. Fewer cattle producers feed calves to a finished market weight. Finishing enterprises usually include high-energy, totally mixed diets fed daily in traditional feedlot facilities. This type of opera-tion requires specialized equipment and daily management.

Producers with small beef herds may be interested in capturing value from their herd but are challenged by the economies of scale. A three-year study evaluating finishing calves with self-feeding as a low-overhead cattle finishing option during the winter was conducted at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center.

Experimental ProceduresAngus steer and heifer calves

raised at the NDSU Hettinger Research Extension Center were delivered to the Carrington Re-search Extension Center research feedlot in mid-December in each of three successive years (n = 207; 102 heifers and 105 steers during the three years). The small and medium-frame calves had been weaned and fed a growing ration for 60 days prior to arrival.

Calves were weighed indi-vidually on delivery and randomly allotted within sex groups to one

of three treatment groups. The feeding system treatments were 1) bunk-fed corn-based totally mixed ration (TMR) fed to appetite daily, 2) self-fed corn and midds ration with free-choice grass hay (SF-CM) and 3) self-fed corn, midds and barley (SF-CMB)-based ration with free-choice grass hay (Table 1). Corn and barley were dry rolled, and wheat midds were fed as a pellet. Supplements were included in the TMR and self-fed grain mixtures at approximately equal amounts and contained the ionophore Rumensin, calcium car-bonate and a high-calcium vitamin-mineral mix for finishing cattle.

The intent was to include higher fiber feed ingredients (wheat midds) to reduce the potential for acidosis in the self-feeder and include anoth-er grain option (barley) to explore mixing grains in the self-feeder. Cattle were adapted to the finishing ration from a lower-energy mixed diet and to the self-feeders during approximately two weeks without any morbidity or mortality.

The 200-bushel capacity com-mercial self-feeders (Werk-Weld Inc., Armour, S.D.) allowed approxi-mately 25 inches of bunk space per

head. Grass hay was fed in large, round bale feeders to the self-fed treatments, with chopped grass hay added to the TMR ration. Calves were weighed approximately every 28 days with feed intake, average daily gain (ADG) and feed effi-ciency calculated for each respective weight period (Table 2).

The finished animals were mar-keted at a commercial abattoir (Ty-son Fresh Meats, Dakota City, Neb.) when we estimated that 80 percent or more would grade U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture Choice. A certi-fied grader evaluated the carcasses for traits used to determine value (Table 3). This project was approved by the NDSU Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Results and DiscussionInitial body weights averaged

793 pounds/head (P = 0.93), with final body weights averaging 1,147 pounds/head (P = 0.88; Table 2). Dry-matter (DM) disappearance (dry-matter intake plus waste) was numerically greater for the self-fed treatments, overall, with an average of 25.27 and 26.26 pounds of daily DM disappearance for the SF-CM

Table 1. Diets for steer and heifer calves fed a totally mixed or self-fed rations.

Totally Self-fed Self-fed Mixed Ration Corn-Midds Corn-Midds-Barley (TMR) (SF-CM) (SF-CMB)

Item Percent Dry Matter (DM) Basis

Corn, dry rolled 52.33 40.51 26.81 Wheat midds, pelleted 30.14 40.05 27.32 Barley, dry rolled ---- ---- 26.03 Hay1 15.20 17.13 17.51 Supplement, w/ionophore 2.33 2.32 2.34Diet Nutrient Density Crude Protein, %1 11.38 12.27 11.91 Estimated NEg, Mcal/lb.1 0.51 0.48 0.49Dietary Component DM Disappearance Grain, lb./hd/d 19.74 20.94 19.66 Forage, lb./hd/d 3.54 4.32 6.6

1Hay for self-fed diets was offered free choice in ring feeders; values are not corrected for waste.


and the SF-CMB treatments, com-pared with 23.28 pounds for the TMR treatment (P =0.13). Overall, the pounds of grain concentrate disappearance was 19.74, 19.66 and 20.94 pounds/head/day for the TMR, SF-CMB and SF-CM diets, respectively. Hay disappearance was 3.54, 6.6 and 4.32 pounds/head/day for the TMR, SF-CMB and SF-CM diets, respectively (Table 1).

Hay waste was not quantified for the SF diets; observationally, minimal to no waste was observed with the TMR diet. Some varia-tion in DM disappearance occurred among feeding systems during specific weight periods (Table 2), but overall, no consistent differences were detected between the two SF systems and the TMR treatments (P = 0.13).

Average daily gain was not dif-ferent throughout the 123-day feed-ing period between the two self-fed diets (P = 0.65). Cattle fed the TMR diet had greater (P = 0.03) overall ADG (3.20 pounds), compared with the SF-CM diet (2.99 pounds) and the SF-CMB diet (3.03 pounds/day). The TMR diet did have a higher cal-culated energy value based on DM disappearance, which could account for some of the improved perfor-mance over the SF diets. However, hay wasted (not quantified) and not consumed may be slightly con-founding to the whole diet energy value calculations (Table 1).

Feed efficiency (pounds of DM disappearance/pounds of gain) does not appear to be different dur-ing the entire finishing phase (P = 0.28) among diets with feed-to-gain ratios of 7.37 for the TMR calves, 8.49 for the SF-CM and 8.66 for the SF-CMB.

However, treatment differences (P ≤ 0.07) for feed efficiency were observed in the first weigh period. This is consistent with greater DM disappearance and lower ADG for the SF diets during this period.

Table 2. Feedlot performance of steers and heifers fed totally mixed or self-fed rations.

Treatments Treatment

TMR SF-CM SF-CMB Std Err1 P Value

Live wt. lbs. Initial wt. 790 796 794 11.34 0.93 Period 1 884 879 887 12.32 0.91 Period 2 975 968 975 12.97 0.92 Period 3 1,069 1,045 1,059 12.79 0.43 Final wt. 1,151 1,142 1,147 12.95 0.88Avg. daily gain, lb. Period 1 3.35a 2.97b 3.29ab 0.12 0.07 Period 2 3.27 3.18 3.15 0.12 0.78 Period 3 3.36a 2.77b 3.00b 0.13 0.01 Period 4 3.00 3.37 3.02 0.18 0.26 Overall 3.20a 2.99b 3.03b 0.06 0.03Dry matter intake, lb./hd/d Period 1 20.25a 24.88b 26.48b 0.90 0.01 Period 2 22.83 24.19 24.91 0.97 0.37 Period 3 25.20 25.39 28.19 1.52 0.36 Period 4 23.92 26.03 26.44 1.47 0.48 Overall 23.28 25.27 26.26 0.89 0.13Feed Efficiency, lb. Dry Matter Disappearance/lb. gain Period 1 6.01a 8.40b 8.05b 0.63 0.07 Period 2 6.92 7.62 7.91 0.35 0.20 Period 3 7.97 9.61 9.62 1.32 0.62 Period 4 9.09 8.33 9.33 1.56 0.90 Overall 7.37 8.49 8.66 0.26 0.28

1n = 207. a,bValues within rows with different superscripts are significantly different, P ≤ 0.10.

These differences may be attributed to hay waste from the initial hay bales deposited in the ring feeders and cattle continuing to adapt to SF diets in period one of the trial.

Generally, our results are similar to a self-feeding field trial by Kreft et al. (2002), who reported 3.51 pounds ADG for TMR-fed steers, compared with 3.22 pounds for a self-fed ra-tion. Cattle in our study were small-framed and carried some condition at the start of the study each year. Offering high-energy diets in self-feeders to grazing yearling cattle may be another method of finishing cattle during the summer. Morrical et al. (2008) fed a diet containing 50 percent distillers grains, 25 percent soy hulls and 21 percent wheat

midds with molasses and calcium carbonate to continuous or rotation-ally grazing cattle. Calves gained 3.16 pounds per day on both grazing programs.

Hot carcass weights were simi-lar (P = 0.20; Table 3) for TMR, SF-CM and SF-CMB diets (707, 686 and 695 pounds, respectively). Carcass traits showed little variation among treatments (P ≥ 0.20; Table 3), with the exception of dressing percent (P ≤ 0.08). Dressing percent tended to be lower (P ≤ 0.08) for the SF-CM diet at 61.41 percent, compared with 62.23 and 62.07 percent for TMR and SF-CMB diets, respectively.

Rib-eye area and fat thickness were similar for all treatments, averaging 12.26 inches2 (P = 0.59)


Table 3. Carcass traits of steers and heifers fed totally mixed or self-fed rations.

Treatments

TMR SF-CM SF-CMB Std Err1 P Value

Hot carcass wt. lb. 707 686 695 8.01 0.20Dressing percent 62.23a 61.41b 62.07a 0.27 0.08Rib-eye area, sq. in. 12.32 12.15 12.32 0.14 0.59Fat thickness, in. 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.02 0.92KPH fat, % 2.39 2.43 2.42 0.03 0.51Marbling score2 544 539 544 14.51 0.97Yield grade, USDA3 2.94 2.92 2.89 0.09 0.94USDA quality grade, % of carcass grading: Select, % 5.1 6.3 9.5 Choice, % 84.7 84.1 79.3 Prime, % 10.2 9.5 11.1

1n = 207. a,bValues within rows with different superscripts are significantly different, P ≤ 0.10 2Based on scores of 300-399 = USDA Select quality grade, 400-499 = Low Choice; 500-599 = Average Choice; 600-699 = High Choice; 700+ = Prime. 3Yield grade is composite calculation of fat to lean yield in a carcass based on a relationship of hot carcass wt., rib-eye area, fat thickness and KPH; low values = lean carcasses.

and 0.62 inch (P = 0.92), respectively. Yield grade was not different due to treatment, averaging 2.91 (P = 0.94). No differences (P = 0.94) were detected in marbling due to treat-ment, with 93.0 percent of carcasses grading choice or better (Table 3). In summer finishing studies compar-ing self-feeding with TMR, Kreft et al. (2002) and Morrical et al. (2008) reported no difference due to the feeding system for carcass traits.

Economic results were calcu-lated based on data reported by the North Dakota Farm Management program (Metzger and Hanson, 2013). A yardage cost of 35 cents per head per day was assessed for the TMR treatment and 15 cents per head per day for self-fed cattle (S. Metzger, personal communication). The higher yardage cost of feeding a TMR translates to an increased production cost of $24 per head (120 days x 20 cents difference) versus SF diets.

Yardage charges can vary

greatly depending on the economies of scale, equipment costs and other overhead expenses. Each producer is encouraged to determine his or her own real costs of equipment, pen depreciation, labor and feed. Given the yardage costs stated previously and current grain prices ($6.50 corn), the total cost of gain was 90 cents per pound for the TMR cattle, 91 cents per pound for the SF-CM cattle and 95 cents per pound for the SF-CMB cattle. Utilizing home-grown or locally available feeds may lower costs further.

All cattle were of equal value in the market based on similar carcass traits. While finishing cattle using TMR diets offers advantages with precision and efficiency that slightly enhance animal performance, self-feeding appears to have some potential for smaller producers with limited equipment. Self-feeding of-fers an opportunity for modest num-bers of animals to be fed for local or community markets.

AcknowledgmentsThis research was partially

funded by the North Dakota State Board of Agricultural Research and Education grant program. The authors express their appreciation for the technical and administra-tive support of Carrington Research Extension Center staff.

Literature CitedKreft, B., R. Cargo, J. Kreft and D

Schmidt. 2002. Low input cattle finishing. Beef Production Field Day Report. Carrington Research Exten-sion Center, NDSU. Vol. 25:16-17.

Morrical, D., M. Honeyman, J. Russell, D. Strohbehn, D. Maxwell, D. Busby and J. Sellers. 2008. Finishing beef cat-tle on grass with self-fed by-products, 2006 Results. Iowa State University Animal Industry Report. A.S. Leaflet R2277. 3pgs.

Metzger, S., and J. Hanson. 2012. North Dakota Farm Business Management Report. Carrington, N.D.


Effects of artificial insemination and natural service breeding systems on steer progeny backgrounding performanceP.L. Steichen1, M.R. Schook1, C.S. Schauer2, B.W. Neville3 and C.R. Dahlen1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU 2Hettinger Research Extension Center, NDSU 3Central Grasslands Research Extension Center, NDSU

The objective of this study was to determine the backgrounding performance of calves born early or late in the calving season and from breeding systems that incorporated artificial insemination (AI) or relied solely on natural service. Although distinct performance advantages of AI calves were not observed, calves born early in the calving season had greater feed intake and gain, compared with calves born later in the calving season.

SummaryOne hundred eighty-four steers

were born from dams exposed to one of two treatments: natural ser-vice (NS, cows were only exposed to herd bulls for the duration of the breeding season) and fixed-timed artificial insemination (TAI, cows exposed to estrous synchroniza-tion and fixed-time AI followed by natural-service bulls). Within the dams’ treatment, steers were divided into two blocks: calves born from day 0 to 26 of the calving sea-son (Early, n = 119) and calves born after day 26 of the calving season (Late, n = 65) and were placed in one of 24 pens for a 65-day back-grounding period. Diets consisted of 61.7 percent ground grass hay, 25.8 percent barley and 12.5 percent liquid supplement on a dry-matter (DM) basis and were delivered once daily. At the initiation of the study, early born calves in the TAI treat-ment (549 pounds) were heavier (P < 0.05), compared with early born calves from the NS treatment (514 pounds), which were heavier that late-born calves of either treatment

(468 and 464 pounds for TAI and NS, respectively; treatment × block; P = 0.001). Steers in the NS treat-ment had greater (P < 0.05) average daily gain (ADG) than TAI steers, 2.9 and 2.6 pounds/day, respective-ly. Steers in the TAI treatment (0.16 gain:feed [G:F]) had lower (P < 0.05) G:F than NS steers (0.18 G:F). Early born steers had greater (P < 0.05) final body weight (BW), dry-matter intake (DMI) and ADG (727 pounds, 16.4 pounds/day and 2.87 pounds/day, respectively), compared with Late-born steers (648 pounds, 15 pounds/day and 2.62 pounds/day, respectively). In summary, calves in the AI treatment did not outper-form their NS counterparts, and Early born steers had greater final BW, DMI and ADG than Late-born calves.

IntroductionLocally available forage and

grain supplies give cattlemen in the upper Great Plains a competitive ad-vantage in placing gain on calves af-ter weaning, compared with regions that require feed to be purchased and hauled long distances. A recent survey revealed that in 2009 to 2011, approximately 42.9 percent of the North Dakota calf crop was retained by their respective owner through a

backgrounding phase (Dahlen et al., 2013).

Artificial insemination (AI) can improve the genetic base of a herd rapidly, compared with most nat-ural-service sires by utilizing bulls with superior genetics at costs well below the cost of using a herd bull with equivalent genetic potential. Sires with superior growth and feed efficiency genetics may produce off-spring with improved performance in the post-weaning phase (Welch et al., 2012; Johnson and Jones, 2008). Selecting for optimal growth traits with high-accuracy expected progeny differences (EPDs) may op-timize backgrounding performance after weaning. However, only 7.6 percent of all beef operations use AI (NAHMS 2009).

Calf age at weaning also can influence herd performance by shifting the calving or weaning date (Lusby et al., 1981). Our research leading up to the current study has highlighted the fact that incorporat-ing AI into a management scheme can result in older calves and early born calves that are heavier at wean-ing, compared with a breeding system that relies solely on natural service (Steichen et al., 2013).

However, the post-weaning performance impacts of each respec-tive breeding system are unknown. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of incorporating AI or natural-service breeding systems and the impact of calf age on steer performance during a 65-day backgrounding period.

Experimental ProceduresAll procedures were approved

by the Institutional Animal Care and


Use Committee at NDSU.One hundred eighty-four Angus

crossbred steer calves were used to evaluate the effects of dam breeding systems on backgrounding perfor-mance. Calves originating from the Central Grasslands Research Exten-sion Center near Streeter, N.D., (n = 159; born in March-April) were shipped (235 miles) and joined steers originating from the Hettinger Research Extension Center (n = 25; born in April) at the Southwest Feeders feedlot in Hettinger, N.D., for a 65-day backgrounding trial. The trial began in early October and ran through mid-December.

Calves originated from dams that were assigned to one of two breeding systems (Steichen et al., 2012):

1) Natural-service bulls for the duration of the breeding season (NS)

2) Estrus synchronization and artificial insemination fol-lowed by exposure to natu-ral-service bulls (AI).

Within the dams’ treatment, steers were divided into two blocks: 1) calves born from day 0 to 26 of the calving season (Early n = 119)

and 2) calves born after day 26 of the calving season (Late, n = 65). In the AI treatment, all calves that were born from AI sires (as opposed to cleanup bulls) were included in the Early block, whereas an equivalent number of natural-service calves were included in the Early block for the NS treatment, resulting in the day 26 cutoff. Steers were assigned randomly to one of 24 pens (six to nine head/pen; Early, n = 16; Late, n = 8).

At the initiation and end of the study, all steers received a Ralgro implant (36 milligrams of zeranol; Merck Animal Health, Summit, N.J.). Steer weights were determined on two consecutive days at the beginning and the end of the project prior to each morning’s ration de-livery.

All steers were fed a common total mixed ration once daily at 8 a.m. targeting ad libitum intake. The diet consisted of 61.7 percent ground grass hay, 25.8 percent barley and 12.5 percent liquid supplement (Quality Liquid Feeds, Dodgeville, Wis.) on a DM basis. The diet had added water (2 pounds per head/day) to minimize dust from hay.

All steers had access to fresh water in their pens. The amount of feed delivered was monitored daily, and feed refusals were collected, weighed and sampled once weekly.

Results and DiscussionA treatment × block interaction

(P = 0.001) occurred for initial BW (Table 1). Early born calves in the TAI treatment were heaviest (P = 0.05), followed by early born calves in the NS treatment, followed (P = 0.05) by late-born calves in the TAI and NS treatments, respectively. Fi-nal body weight also was influenced by a treatment × block interaction (P = 0.052).

At the end of the study, early born calves from the TAI treatment tended to be heavier (P = 0.09) than early born steers in the NS treat-ment, which were heavier (P < 0.05) than late-born calves in the TAI or NS treatments. Maintaining a weight advantage through the back-grounding phase may allow early born AI calves to be sold at a greater price per calf, compared with NS calves. However, we did not evalu-ate sales prices at the end of the backgrounding phase.

Table 1. Effects of treatment and calving season on steer backgrounding performance.

Treatment1

TAI NS P - value

Item Early2 Late2 Early Late SE Trt Block Interaction

Age, day 180 153 173 153 -- -- -- -- Initial BW, lb. 549.2x 467.7z 514.0y 463.9z 4.54 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Final BW, lb. 735.9xa 640.3y 721.6xb 655.0y 8.13 0.975 <0.001 0.052 DMI, lb./head/day 16.7 14.9 16.7 15.0 0.37 0.541 <0.001 0.389 ADG, lb./head/day 2.71 2.49 2.99 2.76 0.09 <0.001 0.007 0.828 G:F 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.01 <0.001 0.655 0.377 Cost of gain, $/lb3 0.73 0.71 0.64 0.64 0.02 <0.001 0.554 0.330

1Treatments were dams exposed to fixed-time AI (TAI) 7-day CO-Synch + CIDR with cleanup bull, or natural service (NS) bulls for the duration of the breeding season. 2Calves were blocked by calving date into Early (born in first 26 days) and late (born after day 26) blocks, respectively. 3Feed cost of gain with hay priced at $145/ton, barley at $5.75/bushel and supplement at $350/ton. x,y,zMeans within row lacking common superscript differ (P < 0.01). a,bMeans within row lacking common superscript tend to differ (P < 0.10)


Natural-service steers had greater (P < 0.05) ADG and gain:feed ratios, as well as a lower feed cost of gain, compared with TAI steers. One rationale for the performance difference among treatments would be that the genetic potential of the herd bulls for gain was greater than that of the AI sires. Bulls in both treatments, however, were in the top 25 percent of the Angus breed for weaning weight and yearling weight EPDs.

Most likely, the lower start weight of calves in the NS treatment allowed for compensatory gain of NS during the feeding period (Lofgreen and Kiesling, 1985), which manifested itself in the form of greater gain and feed efficiency, compared with AI calves. Slight differences in age among early born calves in the AI and NS treatment also may have contributed to slight performance differences.

Early born steers had greater (P < 0.05) final BW, intake and average daily gain than Late-born steers. Be-cause early born calves were heavi-er, the pattern of greater intake and gain was expected. Similarly, steers born early gained an additional 0.22 pound/day, compared with later-born calves (Smith et al., 2003). An additional report, however, showed no difference in gain among calves born during different calving peri-ods (Funston et al., 2012).

No differences (P > 0.10) in feed efficiency were present among calv-ing groups in the current study. This is in contrast to other reports of cat-tle during the finishing period (Fike et al., 2010). Perhaps the moderate-

energy diets in the current study (as opposed to high-energy diets of previous finishing work) did not allow for differentiation of potential feed efficiency measures among early and late-calving groups.

The utilization of a breeding system that incorporates fixed-time artificial insemination yielded an ad-vantage of having greater pre-back-grounding and post-backgrounding body weight. However, calves born in the AI treatment did not have advantages over NS calves in other performance measures (ADG and G:F). Overall, calves born early in the calving season grew faster, com-pared with those born later in the calving season.

Literature CitedDahlen, C.R. 2013. North Dakota beef

industry survey: today, tomorrow, and in the future. In: Proceedings of the Northern States Beef Conference. Watertown, S.D.

Fike, G.D., M.E. King, L.R. Corah and W.D. Busby. 2010. Effect of time of birth within the spring calving season on performance and carcass traits of beef calves fed in the Iowa Tri-Coun-ty Steer Carcass Futurity. J. Anim. Sci. 88:E-Supp. 2. 823.

Funston, R.N., J.A. Musgrave, T.L. Meyer and D.M. Larson. 2012. Effect of calving distribution of beef cattle progeny performance. J. Anim. Sci. 90:5118-5121.

Johnson, S.K., and R.D. Jones. 2008. A stochastic model to compare breed-ing system costs for synchronization of estrus and artificial insemination to natural service. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24:588-595.

Lofgreen, G.P., and H.E. Kiesling. 1985. Effects of receiving and growing diets on compensatory gains of stressed calves. J. Anim. Sci. 61:320-328.

Lusby, K.S., R P. Wettemann and E.J. Tur-man. 1981. Effects of early weaning calves from first-calf heifers on calf and heifer performance. J. Anim. Sci. 53:1193-1197.

Myers, S.E., D.B. Faulkner, F.A. Ireland, L.L. Berger and D.F. Parrert. 1999. Production systems comparing early weaning to normal weaning with or without creep feeding for beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:300.

NAHMS. National Animal Health Moni-toring System. 2009. Part II. Reference of beef cow-calf management prac-tices in the United States, 2007-08. Fort Collins, Colo. Pp. 1-48.

Smith , D.L., D.L. Wiggers , L.L. Wilson , J.W. Comerford, H.W. Harpster and E.H. Cash. 2003. Postweaning behav-ior and growth performance of early and conventionally weaned beef calves. Prof. Anim. Sci. 19:23-29.

Steichen, P.L., S.I. Klein, Q.P. Larson, K.M. Bischoff, V.G.R. Mercadante, G.C. Lamb, C.S. Schauer, B.W. Neville and C.R. Dahlen. 2012. Effects of natural service and artificial insemi-nation breeding systems on preg-nancy rates and days to conception. The 2012 North Dakota Beef Report. Pp 12-15.

Steichen, P.L., S.I. Klein, Q.P. Larson, K.M. Bischoff, V.G.R. Mercadante, G.C. Lamb, C.S. Schauer, B.W. Neville and C.R. Dahlen. 2013. Effects of natural service and artificial insemi-nation breeding systems on calving characteristics and weaning weights. The 2013 North Dakota Beef Report. Pp XXX-XXX- This year’s report.

Welch, C.M., J.K. Ahola, J.B. Hall, G.K. Murdoch, D.H. Crews Jr., L.C. Davis, M.E. Doumit, W.J. Price, L.D. Keenan and R.A. Hill. 2012. Relationships among performance, residual feed in-take, and product quality of progeny from Red Angus sires divergent from maintenance energy EPD. J. Anim. Sci. 90:5107-5117.


Discovering value in North Dakota calves: Dakota Feeder Calf Show feedout project XII, 2012-13Karl Hoppe1 and Dakota Feeder Calf Show Livestock Committee2

1Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU 2Turtle Lake, N.D.

The Dakota Feeder Calf Show feedout project assists cattle producers in identifying cattle with superior growth and carcass characteristics. The spread in average profitability between the top and bottom five herds was $91.95 per head.

SummaryThe Dakota Feeder Calf Show

Feedout project was developed to discover the actual value of spring-born beef steer calves, provide comparisons between herds, and benchmark feeding and carcass performance. Cattle consigned to the feedout project were delivered to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on Oct. 20, 2012. After a 212-day feeding period with 2.29 percent death loss, cattle averaged 1,224.2 pounds (shrunk harvest weight). Feed required per pound of gain was 7.59 (dry-matter basis). Overall pen average daily gain was 2.77 pounds. Feed cost per pound of gain was $0.865 and total cost per pound of gain was $1.077. Profit ranged from $102.49 per head for pen-of-three cattle with superior growth and carcass traits to a loss of $105.36 per head. Substantial variability in the feeding and carcass value of spring-born calves contin-ues to be discovered through partici-pation in the feedout project.

IntroductionDetermining calf value is a

learning experience for cow-calf producers. To remain competitive with other livestock and poultry in

the meat industry, cow-calf produc-ers need to identify superior genet-ics and management. Marketplace premiums are provided for calves that have exceptional feedlot perfor-mance and produce a high-quality carcass.

In addition, cost-effective feed-ing performance is needed to justify the expense of feeding cattle past weaning. Because North Dakota has low-cost feeds and a favorable climate, low cost per pound of gain can be accomplished (Hoppe et al. 1997). Combining low cost of gains with the identification of superior cattle, this ongoing feedlot project provides cattle producers with an understanding of cattle feeding and cattle selection in North Dakota.

Experimental ProceduresThe Dakota Feeder Calf Show

was developed for cattle produc-ers willing to consign steer calves to a show and feedout project. The calves were received in groups of three or four on Oct. 20, 2012, at the Turtle Lake Weighing Station, Turtle Lake, N.D., for weighing, tagging, processing and showing. The calves were evaluated for conformation and uniformity, with the judges providing a discussion to the own-ers at the beginning of the feedout. The number of cattle consigned was 175, of which 145 competed in the pen-of-three contest.

The calves then were shipped to the Carrington Research Extension Center, Carrington, N.D., for feed-ing. The calves were vaccinated, de-wormed and injected with prophy-lactic long-acting antibiotic. The cttle also were implanted with Synovex S upon arrival. One calf was returned to its owner due to hoof and leg distress.

Calves then were sorted and placed on corn-based receiving diets. After a two-week adaptation period, the calves gradually were transitioned to a 0.62 megacalorie of net energy for gain (Mcal NEg) per pound finishing diet. Cattle were weighed every 28 days, and updated performance reports were provided to the owners.

An open house was held on Feb. 1, 2013, at the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit, where the owners reviewed the calves and discussed marketing conditions.

The cattle (170 head) were harvested on May 22, 2013. Cattle were sold to Tyson Fresh Meats, Dakota City, Neb., on a grid basis, with premiums and discounts based on carcass quality. Carcass data was collected after the harvest.

Ranking in the pen-of-three competition was based on the best overall score. The overall score was determined by adding the index value for feedlot average daily gain (25 percent of score), marbling score (25 percent of score) and profit (25 percent of score) and subtracting in-dex value for calculated yield grade (25 percent of score). The Dakota Feeder Calf Show provided awards and recognition for the top-ranking pen of steers.


Table 1. Feeding performance - 2012-2013 Dakota Feeder Calf Show Feedout

Best Average Average Average Calculated Ave. Feeding Pen Three Score Average Weight Per Harvest Daily Marbling Yield Profit or of Three Total Birth Date Day of Age Weight Gain Score Grade Loss/Head

1 2.056 27-Mar-12 3.03 1,273 2.95 487 1.42 $47.14 2 1.890 26-Mar-12 2.85 1,204 2.75 457 1.57 $35.14 3 1.883 18-Apr-12 2.96 1,179 2.90 483 1.94 $39.39 4 1.862 14-Apr-12 3.13 1,260 3.29 510 3.12 $102.49 5 1.804 24-Mar-12 3.03 1,284 2.80 503 2.36 $50.34

Average Top 5 herds 1.899 3-Apr-12 3.000 1,239.98 2.937 488.00 2.08 $54.90

6 1.800 25-Apr-12 3.19 1,244 3.33 563 2.99 $21.54 7 1.788 2-Apr-12 3.19 1,320 3.07 527 2.71 $37.26 8 1.773 27-Mar-12 3.11 1,310 2.78 490 2.13 $23.20 9 1.771 14-Apr-12 3.01 1,208 3.28 540 2.81 $10.26 10 1.760 4-Apr-12 2.90 1,195 2.68 530 2.51 $43.02 11 1.731 17-Apr-12 3.29 1,316 3.21 500 2.78 $24.41 12 1.698 26-Mar-12 2.86 1,207 2.62 487 2.34 $34.36 13 1.693 23-Apr-12 3.19 1,255 3.06 497 2.50 $(5.01) 14 1.665 9-May-12 3.04 1,149 3.19 450 2.29 $(23.60) 15 1.649 4-May-12 3.10 1,184 3.22 413 2.02 $(39.17) 16 1.626 16-Apr-12 2.90 1,160 2.77 467 2.05 $(33.68) 17 1.618 11-Apr-12 3.23 1,310 3.09 457 2.72 $10.94 18 1.585 26-Mar-12 3.18 1,337 3.09 487 3.14 $25.07 19 1.574 28-Mar-12 3.19 1,336 3.22 480 3.20 $17.25 20 1.566 11-Apr-12 2.94 1,194 2.86 400 1.79 $(52.35) 21 1.543 16-Apr-12 2.90 1,162 2.85 513 2.80 $(22.72) 22 1.538 23-Mar-12 3.06 1,300 2.83 450 2.43 $(22.29) 23 1.526 28-Mar-12 2.90 1,216 2.95 417 1.92 $(76.87) 24 1.440 15-Apr-12 2.84 1,141 2.79 503 3.32 $3.73 25 1.426 14-Apr-12 3.03 1,218 3.02 477 3.34 $(6.24) 26 1.416 3-May-12 2.69 1,030 2.80 370 1.77 $(92.22) 27 1.362 22-Apr-12 2.84 1,120 2.94 433 2.69 $(68.83) 28 1.351 28-Apr-12 3.04 1,183 2.92 517 3.31 $(58.01) 29 1.340 16-Mar-12 2.80 1,208 2.87 450 2.99 $(48.64) 30 1.327 17-Apr-12 3.27 1,308 2.96 537 3.89 $(21.14) 31 1.317 4-Apr-12 2.85 1,174 2.71 420 2.43 $(83.57) 32 1.317 8-Apr-12 2.87 1,171 2.73 510 3.14 $(65.68) 33 1.314 9-Apr-12 3.11 1,270 2.88 557 3.93 $(26.27) 34 1.276 24-Mar-12 2.92 1,233 2.98 567 4.27 $(22.48) 35 1.218 9-Apr-12 2.92 1,189 2.86 533 3.69 $(77.86) 36 1.163 15-Apr-12 3.08 1,239 3.17 483 4.04 $(61.17)

37 1.009 15-Mar-12 2.73 1,181 2.55 420 3.25 $(105.36) 38 0.970 3-May-12 3.21 1,237 3.25 505 3.85 $18.26 39 0.947 27-Mar-12 3.12 1,309 2.74 455 2.86 $(18.69) 40 0.917 27-Mar-12 3.22 1,362 2.74 410 2.48 $(49.38) 41 0.899 14-Mar-12 3.13 1,350 3.23 410 3.23 $(30.08)

Average bottom 5 herds 0.949 29-Mar-12 3.081 1287.9 2.903 440.0 3.133 $(37.05)

Average 1.498 8-Apr-12 3.020 1,232.4 2.949 479.6 2.782 $(13.84) Standard Deviation 0.293 14.613 0.155 72.022 0.205 48.036 0.702 46.68 Number 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41


Results and DiscussionCattle consigned to the Dakota

Feeder Calf Show feedout proj-ect averaged 608.9 pounds upon delivery to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on Oct. 20, 2012. After an aver-age 212-day feeding period, cattle averaged 1,224.2 pounds (at plant, shrunk weight). Death loss was 2.29 percent (four head) during the feeding period. Average daily feed intake per head was 33.9 pounds on an as-fed basis, and 21 pounds on a dry-matter basis. Pounds of feed re-quired per pound of gain were 12.2 on an as-fed basis and 7.6 pounds on a dry-matter basis.

The overall feed cost per pound of gain was $0.865. The overall yardage cost per pound of gain was $0.099. The combined cost per pound of gain, including feed, yard-age, veterinary, trucking and other expenses except interest, was $1.077.

Calves were priced by weight upon delivery to the feedlot. The pricing equation ($ per 100 pounds = (-0.070349187* initial calf weight, pounds) + 200.7721583) was deter-mined by regression analysis on local livestock auction prices for the week before and after delivery.

Overall, the carcasses contained U.S. Department of Agriculture quality grades at 1.2 percent Prime, 83.5 percent Choice or better (in-cluding 28.3 percent Certified Angus Beef, or CAB), 15.3 percent Select and 0 percent Standard, and USDA

yield grades (YG) at 5.3 percent YG1, 32.6 percent YG2, 45.8 percent YG3, 15.8 percent YG4 and 0.5 per-cent YG5.

Carcass value per 100 pounds was calculated using the actual base carcass price plus premiums and discounts for each carcass. The grid price received was $204.78 Choice YG3 base with premiums: Prime $28, CAB $6, YG1 $6.50, YG2 $3 and discounts: Select minus $14, Stan-dard (no roll) minus $15, YG4 minus $8, YG5 minus $20, and carcasses lighter than 625 pounds or greater than 1,050 pounds minus $20.

Profit or loss accounted for ini-tial calf price, feed, yardage, veteri-nary, freight, brand inspection, beef checkoff, ultrasound and carcass data collection costs, and death loss. Interest costs on cattle or feeding expenses were not included in cal-culating profit or loss. Final carcass value was assessed using the actual grid pricing for the harvest group.

For all cattle placed on feed, the feedout calculated a $50.15 loss per head with death loss included.

Results from the calves selected for the pen-of-three competition are listed in Table 1.

Overall, the pen-of-three calves averaged 402 days of age and 1,325.2 pounds per head at harvest. The overall pen-of-three average daily gain was 2.95 pounds, while weight per day of age was 3.02 pounds. The overall pen-of-three marbling score was 443.6 (low choice, small mar-bling).

Correlations between profit and average birth date, harvest weight, average daily gain, weight per day of age or marbling score are shown in Table 2. No individual trait had a high correlation to profit, indicating profit relates to multiple production and performance measurements.

The top-profit pen-of-three calves with superior genetics returned $102.49 per head, while bottom pen-of-three calves returned a loss of $105.36 per head. The aver-age of the five top-scoring pens of steers averaged $54.90 per head, while the average of the five bottom-scoring pens of steer averaged a loss of $37.05 per head.

For the pen-of-three competi-tion, average profit/loss was minus $13.45 per head. The spread in prof-itability between the top and bottom five herds was $91.95 per head.

ImplicationsCalf value is improved with

superior carcass and feedlot perfor-mance. Exceptional average daily gains, weight per day of age, harvest weight and marbling score can be found in North Dakota beef herds. Feedout projects provide a source of information for cattle producers to learn about feedlot performance and individual animal differences, and discover cattle value.

Literature CitedHoppe, K.F., V.L. Anderson, H. Hughes

and K. Alderin. 1997. Finishing North Dakota Calves in North Dakota or Kansas — Final Report. A Report on Agricultural Research and Extension in Central North Dakota. 38:7.

Table 2. Correlation between profit and various production measures (pen of three).

Correlation coefficient

Profit and average birth date - 0.0558Profit and average harvest weight 0.4257Profit and average daily gain 0.3202Profit and weight per day of age 0.4477Profit and marbling score 0.4748Profit and yield grade - 0.1217


Effects of dietary forage concentration in finishing diets on growth and carcass characteristics of steersK.S. Sorensen¹, V.L. Anderson², K.R. Maddock-Carlin¹, C.L. Engel², C.S. Schauer³, K. Olsen4 and R.J. Maddock¹

¹Animal Sciences Department, NDSU ²Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU ³Hettinger Research Extension Center, NDSU 4Department of Animal Science, South Dakota State University

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of feeding different levels of forage during the finishing phase of beef production. Three different finishing diets of 20, 30 and 40 percent forage were fed to feedlot yearling steers to assess effects on growth and meat quality traits. Feed intake, rate of gain, gain efficiency, carcass traits and cost of gain were not different among treatments. The retail shelf-life display study determined that the high (40 percent) forage diet maintained baseline beef color longer than the low (20 percent) forage diet.

SummaryThe objective of this study was

to evaluate the effect of feeding different levels of forage during the finishing phase of beef production. Steer performance and meat quality traits were evaluated.

One hundred twenty steers were fed a finishing diet that consisted of a corn and barley combination, with treatments being different for-age content of 20 percent (20FOR), 30 percent (30FOR) or 40 percent (40FOR) of the total ration. Body weight gains, average daily gains, dry matter intake and gain:feed were not different among treat-ments. Hot carcass weight, rib-eye area, 12th rib fat thickness, marbling and final yield grades were not dif-ferent among treatments. Shelf-life evaluations showed that loin steak redness (a*) was greater from day six to day 10 of the shelf-life display study for the 40 percent forage diet when compared with other treat-

ments. Steak yellowness (b*) had a tendency to be greater for the 40 percent forage diet as well. These results indicate that when compared with 20 and 30 percent forage diets, the 40 percent forage treatment resulted in meat that maintained a fresher appearance longer. The cost of producing a pound of gain was only slightly different among treat-ments and would have very little impact on overall profits.

IntroductionBecause of the increased cost of

grain, beef producers are looking for alternative feedstuffs as a way to reduce costs. One way may be to increase forage in a high-concentrate finishing diet. Adding a low per-centage of forage to finishing diets helps prevent digestive upsets and, therefore, maximizes energy intake (Gaylean and Defoor, 2003).

Bartle and Preston (1991) found that reducing roughage content dur-ing the midfinishing period may im-prove carcass quality. Willms et al. (1991) fed cattle a finishing diet of 10 or 20 percent forage and determined that 12th rib fat thickness; kidney, pelvic and heart fat; and yield grade were not different between treat-

ments. They did report that rib-eye area tended to be larger in steers fed 10 percent forage than those fed 20 percent forage. They had no expla-nation for the difference in rib-eye area.

For the present study, we also conducted a shelf-life display study to compare color stability among treatments. Visual appearance is the most important sensory property by which consumers judge meat qual-ity (Kropf et al., 1986). The objective of this study was to evaluate three different diets that contained 20, 30 or 40 percent forage and to assess effects on growth performance and meat quality traits.

Experimental ProceduresThis study was conducted at

the Carrington Research Extension Center in outside feedlot research pens. The protocol for this study was approved by the NDSU Animal Care and Use Committee.

One hundred twenty steers were stratified by body weight (BW) and then allotted randomly to one of 12 pens (n = 10 head/pen). Dietary treatments were forage level in finishing rations (Table 1). All steers were fed a 40 percent forage diet for the first 28-day period and then assigned to one of three treatments: 1) 40 percent forage (40FOR), 2) 30 percent forage (30FOR) or 3) 30 percent forage for 28 days and then 20 percent forage throughout the remainder of the feeding periods (20FOR). Diets contained 8 percent hay with increasing corn silage (as-suming 100 percent forage) in the higher percentage forage treatments.

Steers were weighed approxi-mately every 28 days for a total of


119 days. Performance data col-lected included average daily gains, dry-matter intake and gain:feed. Steers were slaughtered on one day at Tyson Fresh Meats in Dakota City, Neb. Hot carcass weights were ob-tained on slaughter day. The follow-ing carcass attributes were measured after a 24-hour chill: 12th rib fat depth; rib-eye area; kidney, pelvic and heart fat (KPH); marbling; and U.S. Department of Agriculture yield grades.

Beef strip loins were obtained from the carcasses, vacuum-pack-aged and transported to the NDSU Meats Laboratory and aged for 10 days at a temperature of 39 F. At day 10, three steaks (about 1 inch) were cut from the strip loins. Steaks were vacuum-packaged individually and frozen until further evaluation of tenderness or prepared immediately for retail display.

Retail display shelf-life steaks were placed on metal trays, covered with polyvinyl chloride film and placed under continuous fluorescent lighting at 39 F. Steaks were evalu-ated for color scores with a Minolta chromometer (model CR-410, Kon-ica Minolta, Osaka, Japan) every 24 hours and rotated randomly. Muscle lightness (L*), muscle redness (a*) and muscle yellowness (b*) color scores were recorded for 10 days.

Strip loin steaks used for the tenderness evaluation were thawed

Table 1. Finishing rations for steers fed different levels of forages.

Diet Treatments

Feeds 40FOR 30FOR 20FOR

Percent, Dry-matter basis

Prairie hay 8.0 8.0 8.0Corn silage 32.0 22.0 12.0Corn #2 18.5 23.5 28.5Barley 18.5 23.5 28.5Modified distillers grains 20.0 20.0 20.0Calcium carbonate 1.0 1.0 1.0Supplement Rumatec Sup – 1/3 lb. 2.0 2.0 2.0Nutrients Dry matter, % 53.7 59.1 65.7Net energy gain, Mcal/lb. 56.9 59.0 61.1Crude protein, % 13.2 13.4 13.2Calcium, % 0.71 0.69 0.67Phosphorous, % 0.31 0.32 0.34Potassium, % 0.72 0.67 0.61

for 24 hours at 39 F. Warner-Bratzler shear force analysis was conducted according to American Meat Sci-ence Association guidelines (AMSA, 1995). The steaks were weighed and cooked on clamshell-style grills to an internal temperature of 160 F. Steaks were cooled to room tem-perature and weighed to determine cooking loss.

Six 0.5-inch cores from each steak were removed parallel to the muscle fibers and were sheared using a Warner-Bratzler shear force

machine. The mean of the six cores per steak was used for analysis. Data were analyzed statistically us-ing SAS GLM procedures (SAS Inc., Crary, N.C.). Pen was the experi-mental unit.

Results and DiscussionFeedlot Performance and Carcass Traits

Measures of growth perfor-mance (Table 2) were not different among treatments (P ≥ 0.14). The feed cost per pound of gain was

Table 2. Performance of yearling steers fed different levels of forages as part of finishing rations.

Treatments

Item 40FOR 30FOR 20FOR StErr P-Value

Number of pens 4 4 4 Number of animals 40 40 40 Body weight, lbs. Initial wt., Oct. 8 861 865 862 21 0.98 Final wt., Feb. 22 1383 1399 1393 28 0.92 Avg. daily gain, lbs. 4.08 4.25 4.26 0.10 0.39 Dry-matter intake, lbs./head/day 27.5 27.7 28.1 0.57 0.71 Gain:feed, (DM) 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.003 0.14 Feed costs/lb. gain $0.70 $0.69 $0.71


Table 3. Carcass traits of steers fed different levels of forages as part of finishing rations.

Treatments

40FOR 30FOR 20FOR St Err P-Value

Hot carcass wt., lb. 817.41 831.75 825.20 37.8 0.87Rib-eye area, sq. in. 13.44 13.69 13.71 0.67 0.82Backfat thickness, in. 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.05 0.90KPH, % 2.42 2.44 2.52 0.20 0.74Marbling scorea 350 340 354 20 0.61Yield gradeb 2.91 2.89 2.84 0.18 0.86WBSF, lbs. 6.50 5.82 6.48 0.29 0.26Cook loss, % 19.47 18.30 17.94 3.43 0.89

aBased on scores 300-399 = small and USDA low Choice quality grade bYield grade is composite calculation of fat to lean yield in a carcass based on a relationship of hot carcass wt., rib-eye area, fat thickness and KPH, low values = lean carcasses

very similar across all treatments. This indicated the cost among the diets would have very little impact on overall profit. These results agree with Bartle et al. (1994), who found average daily gains were not af-fected as forage level increased from 10 to 20 percent.

Hot carcass weights, rib-eye area, 12th rib fat thickness, kidney-pelvic-heart fat, marbling score and USDA yield grade were all similar

among treatments (P ≥ 0.61). Previ-ous studies have shown similar results (Arnett et al., 2012; Willms et al., 1991). Warner-Bratzler shear force and cook loss also were not different (P ≥ 0.26) among treat-ments (Table 3).

Shelf-life DisplayDuring shelf-life display, steak

lightness (L*) was similar among treatments for the 10-day study (Fig-

ure 1). Steak redness (a*) was sig-nificantly higher for the 40 percent forage diet after day six (Figure 2). This indicates the higher forage diet resulted in meat that stayed redder longer. Steak yellowness (b*) had a tendency to be higher for the 40 percent forage diet when compared with the other treatments (Figure 3).

A study done by Arnett et al. (2012) found similar results when feeding steers a finishing diet of 12 or 24 percent forage. Their results showed that during retail shelf display, steaks from steers fed 12 percent forage were less red and yellow than steaks from steers fed a 24 percent forage diet. These results could be due to forages being rich in antioxidants, which can contribute to the delay of oxymyoglobin and lipid oxidation in meat, resulting in extended color stability for beef (Liu et al., 1995). We did not measure dietary antioxidant concentrations.

This study indicates that fin-ishing diets with greater amounts of forage do not influence body weights, carcass composition, meat quality or tenderness, and did not decrease cost of gains. How-ever, meat color attributes were improved.

Phosphorous, % 0.31 0.32 0.34 Potassium, % 0.72 0.67 0.61

Table 2. Performance of yearling steers fed different levels of forages as part of finishing rations. Treatments

Item 40FOR 30FOR 20FOR StErr P-Value Number of pens 4 4 4 Number of animals 40 40 40 Body weight, lbs. Initial wt., Oct. 8 861 865 862 21 0.98 Final wt., Feb. 22 1383 1399 1393 28 0.92 Avg. daily gain, lbs. 4.08 4.25 4.26 0.10 0.39 Dry-matter intake, lbs./head/day 27.5 27.7 28.1 0.57 0.71 Gain:feed, (DM) 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.003 0.14 Feed costs/lb. gain $0.70 $0.69 $0.71

Table 3. Carcass traits of steers fed different levels of forages as part of finishing rations. Treatments 40FOR 30FOR 20FOR St Err P-Value Hot carcass wt., lb. 817.41 831.75 825.20 37.8 0.87 Rib-eye area, sq. in. 13.44 13.69 13.71 0.67 0.82 Backfat thickness, in. 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.05 0.90 KPH, % 2.42 2.44 2.52 0.20 0.74 Marbling scorea 350 340 354 20 0.61 Yield gradeb 2.91 2.89 2.84 0.18 0.86 WBSF, lbs. 6.50 5.82 6.48 0.29 0.26 Cook loss, % 19.47 18.30 17.94 3.43 0.89 a Based on scores 300-399 = small and USDA low Choice quality grade b Yield grade is composite calculation of fat to lean yield in a carcass based on

a relationship of hot carcass wt., rib-eye area, fat thickness and KPH, low values = lean carcasses

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10

Figure 1. L* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations

40FOR

30FOR

20FOR

Figure 1. L* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations.

*Means between 40FOR and 30FOR or 20FOR are different (P < 0. 05)


Figure 3. b* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations.


* Means between 40FOR and 30FOR or 20FOR are different (P< 0. 05)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10

Figure 2. a* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations

40FOR

30FOR

20FOR

* * * * *

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10

Figure 3. b* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations

40FOR

30FOR

20FOR

* Means between 40FOR and 30FOR or 20FOR are different (P< 0. 05)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10

Figure 2. a* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations

40FOR

30FOR

20FOR

* * * * *

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10

Figure 3. b* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations

40FOR

30FOR

20FOR

Figure 2. a* color measurements over 10d period from strip steaks from steers fed different forage levels as part of finishing rations.


Literature CitedAMSA, 1995. Research Guidelines for

Cookery, Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Tenderness Measure-ments of Fresh Meat. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc., Chicago, Ill.

Arnett, E.J., F.L. Fluharty, S.C. Loerch, H.N. Zerby, R.A. Zinn and P.S. Kuber. 2012. Effects of forage level in feedlot finishing diets on carcass characteris-tics and palatability of Jersey beef. J. Anim. Sci. 90:960-972.

Bartle, S.J., and R. L. Preston. 1991. Dietary roughage regimen for feedlot steers: Reduced roughage level (2%) during the mid-finishing period. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3461-3466.

Galyean, M.L., and P.J. Defoor. 2003. Ef-fects of roughage source and level on intake by feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 81:E8-E16.

Willms, C.L., L.L. Berger, N.R. Merchen and G.C. Fahey Jr. 1991. Utilization of alkaline hydrogen peroxide-treated wheat straw in cattle growing and finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3917-3924.


Influence of dry-rolled corn processing and increasing dried corn distillers grains plus solubles inclusion for finishing cattle on growth performance and feeding behaviorK.C. Swanson1, A. Islas1, Z.E. Carlson1, R.S. Goulart1, T.C. Gilbery1 and M.L. Bauer1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU

The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of the degree of dry-rolled corn processing (coarse vs. fine; 2.68 vs. 1.46 centimeters [cm], or a bit smaller than 1/16 and 7/64 inch) and dried corn distillers grains plus solubles (DDGS; 20 vs. 40 percent) on feed intake, average daily gain, gain efficiency, carcass characteristics and feeding behavior in steers fed finishing diets. Feeding 40 percent DDGS improved feed efficiency, while corn processing and increasing the DDGS altered feeding and ruminating behavior.

SummarySixty-four yearling steers (758

± 9.2 pounds body weight [BW]) were used to study the effects of dry-rolled corn processing and distillers grains inclusion on feed-ing and ruminating behavior, gain efficiency and carcass quality. Steers were assigned randomly to one of four experimental treatments (n = 16 per treatment): 1) finely rolled corn and 20 percent DDGS, 2) finely rolled corn and 40 percent DDGS, 3) coarsely rolled corn and 20 percent DDGS and 4) coarsely rolled corn and 40 percent DDGS. Final BW and average daily gain (ADG) were not affected by corn processing or DDGS. Dry-matter intake (pounds/day and percentage of BW) and feed:gain were decreased (P ≤ 0.03) with increasing DDGS inclusion. The meal number was increased (P = 0.001) and meal size decreased (P < 0.001) with smaller dry-rolled corn processing, and the meal number increased (P = 0.05) and meal size decreased (P < 0.001) with more DDGS inclusion. Drinking time was

decreased (P = 0.03) with smaller dry-rolled corn processing and tended to increase (P = 0.06) with more DDGS inclusion. Rumination time while standing decreased (P = 0.03) with more DDGS inclusion. Finely or coarsely dried-rolled corn fed in combination with 40 percent DDGS decreased intake, improved efficiency and altered feeding be-haviors of finishing steers consum-ing a 90 percent concentrate diet without affecting performance and carcass quality.

IntroductionFeed costs represent a large

proportion of the total costs of beef production. Optimizing utilization of corn grain in combination with DDGS is critical for maximizing ef-ficiency. Increased grain processing generally improves the utilization of corn grain, yet the inclusion of DDGS may influence the optimal processing method (Corrigan et al., 2009).

Less information is available regarding different particle size reduction for dry-rolled corn. Feed-ing more finely rolled corn increased

intake and gain when wet corn glu-ten feed was included in a finishing diet but did not alter gain efficiency (Loe et al., 2006). Interactions among feeding behavior, rumen function and digestibility likely are influ-enced largely by dietary composi-tion and feed processing.

We hypothesize that the degree of dry-rolled corn processing and DDGS inclusion will influence feed-ing and ruminating behavior as well as cattle performance. The objectives are to determine the effect of the degree of dry-rolled corn grain pro-cessing and DDGS inclusion level on feeding and ruminating behavior, feed efficiency and carcass quality.

Experimental ProceduresSixty-four steers (758 ± 9.2

pounds BW) predominately of Angus, Simmental and Shorthorn breeding were used in a 2-by-2 factorial arrangement of treatments and blocked by BW into three pens at the NDSU Beef Cattle Research Complex. Steers were assigned randomly to one of four experimen-tal treatment diets (Table 1; n = 16 per treatment) within pen: 1) finely rolled (1.46 cm) corn and 20 percent DDGS, 2) finely rolled corn and 40 percent DDGS, 3) coarsely rolled (2.68 cm) corn and 20 percent DDGS and 4) coarsely rolled corn and 40 percent DDGS.

Diets were offered for ad libitum intake in Insentec feeders (two feed-ers per pen per treatment), which allow for offering specific diets to individual animals out of common feeding stations and recording the amounts and times of all feed-


ing events. Steers were adapted to experimental diets during 21 days, fed for 112 days (n = 39) or 145 days (n = 24), and trucked to a processing facility, where carcass traits were recorded.

Steers were weighed prior to feed delivery for two consecutive days at the beginning and ending of the feeding period and every 28 days throughout the feeding period. Average daily gain was calculated by regressing BW on day of the experiment. Steers were implanted with Synovex Plus. Feed samples were collected weekly for analy-sis. Total feed intake and feeding behavior traits were summarized (Montanholi et al., 2010). A meal was defined as eating periods that might include short breaks separated by intervals not longer than seven minutes.

Cattle also were monitored for activity (lying, ruminating, drinking, resting while standing and resting while lying) using visual observa-tion measurements (Maekawa et al., 2002) on a subset of six cattle from each treatment during a three-day period to encompass 24 hours start-ing on day 98. Data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS.

Results and DiscussionInitial BW, final BW and ADG

were not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclu-sion (Table 2). Dry-matter intake (pounds/day and percentage of BW) was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing and was decreased (P < 0.001) with increasing DDGS in-

clusion. Feed:gain (pounds/pounds) was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing and was decreased (P = 0.03) with increasing DDGS inclusion. Hot carcass weight, 12th rib fat thickness, rib-eye area and marbling score were not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion.

Table 1. Dietary composition and analyzed nutrient concentration of diets (DM basis).

Coarse Fine

Item 20 40 20 40

Diet Composition, %Coarsely rolled corn 62.8 42.8 - -Finely rolled corn - - 62.8 42.8Dried corn distillers grains with solubles 20.0 40.0 20.0 40.0Grass-legume hay 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Corn silage 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Corn distillers solubles 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0Limestone 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.9Urea 0.27 - 0.27 -Salt 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20Vitamin premix 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Trace mineral premix 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05Rumensin/Tylan premix 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03Concentrated separator byproduct 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Nutrient Analysis, % of DMOM 93.8 93.1 94.1 93.6CP 14.6 17.4 15.0 17.8NDF 27.6 29.6 27.5 29.4ADF 10.6 10.6 10.0 10.4Ether extract 10.6 13.7 10.9 12.9Starch 41.2 29.4 39.3 30.1

Table 2. Influence of dry-rolled corn processing and distiller grains on performance and carcass traits in finishing cattle.

Treatment P-value

Coarse Fine ProcessItems 20 40 20 40 SEM Processing DDGS × DDGS

Initial BW, lb. 760 767 763 760 18 0.91 0.92 0.75Final BW, lb. 1333 1341 1324 1327 20 0.57 0.78 0.91ADG, lb./day 4.54 4.48 4.39 4.31 0.11 0.13 0.51 0.92Dry matter intake, lb./day 26.7 24.2 25.8 24.1 0.52 0.32 <0.001 0.43DMI, % of BW 2.55 2.31 2.47 2.31 0.58 0.82 <0.001 0.50Feed:gain, lb./lb. 6.04 5.57 6.02 5.80 0.16 0.53 0.03 0.41Hot carcass weight, lb. 796 813 795 793 14 0.46 0.57 0.49Fat thickness, in. 0.42 0.54 0.50 0.50 0.04 0.47 0.09 0.11Ribeye area, in.2 12.7 12.7 12.6 12.9 0.37 0.92 0.69 0.62Marbling score 422 414 455 407 22.1 0.56 0.17 0.34


Table 3. Influence of dry-rolled corn processing and distillers grains on feeding behavior in finishing cattle.

Treatment

Course Fine P-value

Item 20 40 20 40 SEM Processing DDGS Interaction

Events, no./day Visits 34.0 29.5 32.3 33.2 2.2 0.65 0.42 0.21 Meals 8.5 9.3 9.7 9.9 0.26 0.001 0.05 0.20Time eating, min. Per visit 2.78 3.31 2.92 3.06 0.25 0.85 0.18 0.41 Per meal 10.2 9.5 9.4 9.9 0.51 0.73 0.87 0.21 Per day 84.2 86.5 90.9 97.0 3.8 0.02 0.25 0.60Eating rate, lb. Per visit 0.88 0.91 0.84 0.76 0.064 0.13 0.69 0.36 Per meal 3.19 2.63 2.68 2.46 0.09 <0.001 <0.001 0.06 Per min. 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.012 0.006 0.002 0.91

The number of visits per day was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion (Table 3). The number of meals per day increased (P = 0.001) with finer dry-rolled corn processing, and the meal number increased (P = 0.05) and meal size decreased (P < 0.001) with increased DDGS inclusion.

The time eating per visit and per meal was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing and DDGS inclusion. The time eating per day

was greater (P = 0.02) with finer dry-rolled corn processing but was not influenced by DDGS inclusion. The eating rate per visit was not influ-enced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion. The eating rate per meal and per minute was less (P ≤ 0.006) with finer dry-rolled corn and increased DDGS inclusion.

For observational measure-ments, the time eating per day was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion (Table

4). The time spent drinking per day decreased (P = 0.03) with finer dry-rolled corn processing and tended to increase (P = 0.06) with increased DDGS inclusion.

Total intake time (at feed and water troughs) was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing and tended to increase (P = 0.06) with increased DDGS inclusion. Rumi-nation time while standing was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing and decreased (P = 0.03)

Table 4. Influence of dry-rolled corn processing and distillers grains on observational behavior parameters in finishing cattle.

Treatment

Course Fine P-value

Item 20 40 20 40 SEM Processing DDGS Interaction

Intake time, min./day Eating 76 102 93 105 12 0.39 0.13 0.56 Drinking 28 43 21 27 5.0 0.03 0.06 0.41 Total 104 144 114 132 14 0.93 0.06 0.43Rumination time, min./day Standing 116 45 88 64 20 0.82 0.03 0.24 Lying 227 192 215 224 34 0.76 0.71 0.53 Total 343 237 303 288 35 0.87 0.11 0.21Resting time, min./day Standing 444 463 441 457 26 0.86 0.52 0.96 Lying 548 604 583 564 39 0.95 0.65 0.35 Total 993 1067 1024 1021 39 0.86 0.38 0.34


with increased DDGS inclusion. Rumination time while lying and total rumination time (standing and lying) was not influenced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion. Resting time while stand-ing and lying, and total resting time (standing and lying) was not influ-enced by dry-rolled corn processing or DDGS inclusion.

Increasing inclusion of DDGS up to 40 percent of diet DM im-proved feed efficiency. This is in agreement with past research on distillers grains in finishing diets (Klopfenstein et al., 2008). Decreas-ing corn particle size and increasing dietary DDGS also increased the number of meals and decreased the eating rate per meal, suggesting that cattle are adapting to diets by alter-ing feeding behavior.

Adaptations in feeding behavior may influence feed efficiency. Fur-ther research is needed to study the interactions of diet, feeding behavior and feed efficiency.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the North

Dakota Corn Council for partial funding of the project and POET for donation of the DDGS.

Literature CitedCorrigan, M.E., G.E. Erickson, T.J. Klop-

fenstein, M.K. Luebbe, K.J. Vander Pol, N.F. Meyer, C.D. Buckner, S.J. Vanness and K.J. Hanford. 2009. Effect of corn processing method and corn wet distillers grains plus solubles inclusion level in finishing steers. J. Anim Sci. 87:3351-3362.

Klopfenstein, T.J., G.E. Erickson and V.R. Bremer. 2008. Board-invited Review: Use of distillers by-products in the beef cattle feeding industry. J. Anim Sci. 86:1223-1231.

Loe, E.R., M.L. Bauer and G.P. Lardy. 2006. Grain source and processing in diets containing varying concentra-tions of wet corn gluten feed for fin-ishing cattle. J. Anim Sci. 84:986-996.

Maekawa, M., K.A. Beauchemin and D.A. Christensen. 2002. Effect of concentrate level and feeding management on chewing activities, saliva production, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 85:1165-1175.

Montanholi, Y.R., K.C. Swanson, R. Palme, F.S. Schenkel, B.W. McBride, D. Lu and S.P. Miller. 2010. Assessing feed efficiency in beef steers through feeding behavior, infrared thermog-raphy and glucocorticoids. Animal. 4:692-701.


The 2012 North Dakota Beef Industry Survey: Yesterday, Today and Into the FutureC.R. Dahlen1, J.C. Hadrich2 and G.P. Lardy1

1Department of Animal Sciences, NDSU 2Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics, Colorado State University

A survey was conducted during the spring of 2012 to determine how current beef producers perceive the future direction of the industry, determine attitudes regarding methods of enhancing farm/ranch profitability, and determine how our educational programs can evolve to meet the future needs of North Dakota beef producers. Responses from 527 surveys returned will be the basis for discussion during meetings of the large stakeholder groups and will be relied upon heavily to focus educational, programmatic and legislative priorities within and among the respective participating organizations.

Introduction Decreasing cow numbers, in-

creasing input costs, unprecedented commodity market volatility and competition for labor resources: Beef producers face these issues and many more as they strive to main-tain their livelihood and plan for the future of their operations. For these reasons, a group of industry stake-holders has engaged in an ongoing dialogue to develop more profitable beef systems to meet the needs of a changing beef industry structure in North Dakota.

To ensure programmatic efforts are meeting the needs of the beef in-dustry, gathering input from current and future producers is imperative. One of the action items the indus-try stakeholder group highlighted was the development of survey

The survey goals included de-termining:

•Howcurrentandfutureproduc-ers perceive the future direction of the North Dakota beef indus-try

•Attitudesregardingmethodsofenhancing farm/ranch profit-ability

•Howagenciesandgroupsin-volved in the beef industry can meet the future needs of North Dakota beef producers

Experimental ProceduresSurvey questions were finalized

and approved by the NDSU Institu-tional Review Board in the spring of 2012. A total of 2,500 surveys were printed and sealed, then delivered to the National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) North Dakota field office. Personnel at NASS randomly selected the names of 2,500 North Dakota beef producers (greater than 25 percent of current beef producers) to receive the prepackaged, return-postage-paid surveys. Response to the survey was voluntary, and re-searchers had no knowledge of who received the survey mailings or who returned completed surveys.

An additional survey packet was sent to all recipients two weeks after the initial mailing as a remind-er with instructions to disregard the survey if recipients already had completed the initial survey.

Results and DiscussionResults are reported as a sum-

mary of responses to individual questions as those questions ap-peared in the survey. Future reports will differentiate responses among different producer demographics.

instruments for current beef produc-ers. Faculty in the Departments of Animal Sciences and Agribusiness and Applied Economics at NDSU collaborated to develop the survey. Considerable input was gathered from beef producers and members of the industry stakeholder groups.

The survey was vetted by a stakeholder group that included members of the NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota Beef Com-mission, North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, North Dakota Corn Council, North Dakota Soybean Council, North Dakota Bankers As-sociation, North Dakota Department of Agriculture and independent beef producers prior to final approval and survey administration to ensure input from all stakeholders was considered.


The 2012 North Dakota Beef Industry Survey: Yesterday, Today and Into the Future

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. If you choose to participate in this survey, your individual responses will be kept anonymous and confidential. Please answer all questions to the best of your knowledge. This survey was developed as part of an effort to determine how current producers perceive the future direction of the industry, determine attitudes regarding methods of enhancing farm/ranch profitability, and determine how our educational programs can evolve to meet the future needs of North Dakota beef producers.

Farm/Ranch Location: County__________________________

RED = total answers on that question.

Are you currently a beef producer in North Dakota? Total: 527 (82.7%) Yes (17.3%) No. If no, please check the reason below.

Total Responses: 91 (53.9%) Sold beef herd, still raising commodities (8.9%) Sold beef herd and ranch (31.9%) Other

If you answered NO, please go to Question C8 on page 7.

A. General Beef Cattle Operation Information

437 A1 What classes of beef cattle are raised on your operation? Please check all that apply.

(94.5%) Commercial cow/calf (8.9%) Stocker (14.2%) Purebred/seedstock (6.4%) Feedlot (37.8%) Backgrounding 434 A2 Which forages were utilized on your operation for 2011? (78.3%) Annual grasses (54.4%) Grazed crop residue (85.7%) Perennial hay (17.7%) Cover crops (84.3%) Perennial pasture (7.8%) Other

435 A3 Do you graze your herd on federally owned grasslands (U.S. Forest Service, etc.)? (13.1%) Yes (86.9%) No

410 A4 Which of the following feedstuffs have you used to supplement your beef rations in the past year? Please check all that apply.

(45.9%) None (4.9%) Soybean meal (11.2%) WDGS (2.5%) Soybean hulls (19.5%) DDGS (35.4%) Other

B. Past, Current and Future Management Practices

419 B1 In the last 3 years, what is the approximate percent of your calf crop that you have retained ownership through the backgrounding/stocker phase? . . . . . . . . . . 42.9%

418 B2 In the last 3 years, what is the approximate percent of your calf crop that you have retained ownership through the feedlot phase? . . . . . . . . . . 7.7%


406 B3 If a meat packing plant opened in North Dakota, would you increase the number of calves finished on your operation and sell directly to the packing plant?

(33.3%) Yes (66.7%) No

B4 In the table below, please indicate how likely you are to use or continue to use each management practice in the next 1-5 years.

Production PracticesNo.

Responses Unlikely Likely

Age and source verification 297 42.4% 57.6%

DNA profiling/Genetic testing 332 82.5% 17.5%

Electronic ID 330 70.0% 30.0%

Embryo transfer 332 90.4% 9.6%

Implant calves 295 68.5% 31.5%

Individually ID cattle 240 24.2% 75.8%

Obtain carcass data from calves born on your ranch 310 60.3% 39.7%

Routinely weigh calves or cows at your ranch 300 55.7% 44.3%

Test feedstuffs for nutrient content 263 39.5% 60.5%

Use artificial insemination in your herd 291 60.5% 39.5%

Use scales to monitor amount of feed delivery 291 60.8% 39.2%

Use a TMR mixer to deliver feed 294 60.5% 39.5%

Utilize practices to extend grazing season 260 18.1% 81.9%

Vaccinate cattle 216 4.2% 95.8%

Technology Use

Cell phone 212 9.4% 90.6%

Electronic mail for routine communication 259 36.7% 63.3%

Use cell phone to access Internet and/or email 321 56.4% 43.6%

Use social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) 311 74.9% 25.1%

398 B5 Which of the following production tasks would you be willing to hire other qualified people from outside your operation to perform for your cattle? Please check all that apply.

(31.2%) Administering vaccinations (15.3%) Gathering cattle (35.9%) Artificial insemination (83.7%) Pregnancy testing (11.1%) Branding cattle (56.5%) Ration formulation (11.6%) Deworming cattle (65.6%) Feed testing (5.0%) Others

B6 Please identify the degree to which you feel the following factors could negatively impact profitability on your farm/ranch. Please check the box that reflects your opinion for each factor.

Scores: 1= Small, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Large

FactorNo.

Responses Avg. Score

Animal health issues 416 4.1

Animal rights concerns 421 3.9

Changes in government farm programs 416 3.4

Changes in environmental regulations 421 4.0


Food safety concerns 92 3.7

Labor availability 418 3.0

Oil exploration and associated business activity 421 3.0

Poor nutrition 419 3.7

Reproductive failure 419 3.9

Severe weather 423 4.1

Variability in the following areas:

Cattle price 426 4.3

Cattle weight gains 420 3.9

Input costs (fertilizer, fuel, etc.) 422 4.3

Labor cost 420 3.3

Pasture yield 417 4.0

Rented pasture availability 423 3.7

Alternative feedstuffs price 420 3.5

Corn price 423 3.6

Hay price 423 3.7

Soybean price 415 2.8

B7 Please indicate how effective you feel each of the following management strategies could be in reducing potential losses (risk) for your ranch.

1 = Not Effective; 3 = Neutral, 5 = Very Effective

Management StrategyNo.

Responses Score

Production Strategies

Enrolling herd in CHAPS or other herd management program 407 2.8

Enterprise diversification 403 3.1

Individually ID cattle 412 3.5

Maintaining good animal health 419 4.6

Niche marketing 406 3.2

Value-added production 410 3.5

Services/Consultants

Using an agronomy consultant 414 3.0

Using a feed consultant 415 3.3

Using a financial consultant 414 3.1

Using a legal consultant 412 2.8

Using a ranch management consultant 414 2.8

Financial Strategies

Forward contracting cattle 411 3.2

Having off-farm income 415 3.7

Maintaining financial reserves 415 4.0

Using futures and options 411 3.0

Using Livestock Revenue Protection insurance (LRP) 412 3.0


B8 Please indicate the type(s) of marketing method(s) used for each phase of production on your farm/ranch.

Marketing Method Calves

Stockers/Back-

grounding Fed CattleBreeding Livestock Cull Cows

No. of Responses 380 206 103 246 388

Forward contracting 19.5% 14.6% 13.6% 1.6% 1.3%

Internet sales 8.2% 8.7 % 4.9% 7.7% 0%

Private treaty 28.2% 21.4% 21.4% 48.4% 3.9%

Retain ownership 11.6% 13.6% 21.4% 8.5% 1.6%

Sale at auction/auction barn 83.7% 77.7% 48.5% 65.5% 97.4%

Sold directly to packer 1.2% 0% 30.1% 0% 5.4%

Video auctions 10.8% 6.3% 3.9% 5.3% 0.2%

B9 Which of the following items do you consider to be barriers to expansion of your herd and/or reasons that may cause you to exit the beef industry? If you do not feel these items will affect your herd, please check “Not applicable.”

FactorsNo.

ResponsesBarrier to Expansion

May Cause Exit from Industry

Not Applicable

Changing consumer preferences

Animal welfare/Animal rights/Humane handling

413 18.9% 28.1% 53.0%

Choosing other protein sources over beef 388 22.7% 17.3% 60.0%

Antibiotics, growth promotants, ionophores 372 14.0% 13.7% 72.3%

Food safety 375 21.3% 14.7% 64.0%

Changing regulations

Environmental (manure management & water quality)

403 27.8% 35.2% 37.0%

Zoning ordinances 395 21.3% 22.3% 56.4%

Current Infrastructure

Cattle handling facilities 401 18.0% 6.2% 75.8%

Cattle watering system 403 18.6% 8.4% 73.0%

Feed availability 400 32.0% 12.8% 55.2%

Labor availability 410 34.6% 12.9% 52.5%

Land availability 409 49.4% 16.4% 34.2%

Pasture availability 405 50.1% 17.8% 32.1%

Wind protection 399 18.3% 7.8% 73.9%

Financial issues

Borrowing capacity 396 22.7% 12.9% 64.4%

Input costs 399 38.4% 27.8% 33.8%

Limited number of buyers for fed cattle 387 19.9% 17.6% 62.5%

Other

Increased oilfield activity 381 14.2% 19.1% 66.7%


C. Farm Succession

427 C1 What is the primary ownership structure of your operation? 79.9% Sole proprietorship 16.6% Partnership 1.6% Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) 0.7% Limited Liability Company (LLC) 1.2% Other, please list__________________________

379 C2 If you have an heir (son, daughter, grandchild, in-law, other relative) to take over the beef operation, are you encouraging them to do so?

64.6% Yes 35.4% No

406 C3 Would you be willing to work with a non-family member if an heir is not present or interested in entering the beef industry?

61.6% Yes 38.4% No

429 C4 Does the principal operator plan on exiting the beef industry? 4.4% Yes, in less than 2 years 17.0% Yes, within 2-5 years 26.8% Yes, within 6-10 years 51.8% No, I do not plan to exit the beef industry for at least 10 years

425 C5 Is there a succession plan for transferring your cattle operation upon exiting the industry? 32.9% Yes, next generation or secondary operator will take over cattle operation 2.1% Yes, another established producer will take over cattle operation 3.3% Yes, another beginning producer will take over cattle operation 5.9% Yes, cattle will be sold, land will be used for raising commodities 1.9% Yes, cattle will be sold, land will be used for non-ag purposes (e.g. hunting) 53.9% No, have not discussed farm/ranch transfer

379 C6a Please indicate your willingness to consider selling to each of the following potential successors. 86.5% Family member 46.2% Beginning producer, non-family member 47.8% Existing producer, non-family

C6b Please indicate your willingness to consider each of the following methods of sale to each of the potential successors.

Method of saleFamily

member

Beginning producer,

non-family

Existing producer,

non-family

No. willing to sell 328 175 181

Outright sale at full market price 14.5% 17.2% 42.5%

Outright sale at discounted price 46.2% 16.9% 3.4%

Gradual transfer of assets at full market value 29.6% 30.9% 14.8%

Gradual transfer of assets at discounted value 75.4% 13.2% 1.3%


402 C7 If your operation had to expand to accommodate more operators or to remain financially viable, in which area of beef production would you focus? Check all that apply

82.8% Commercial cow/calf 19.4% Stocker cattle 15.4% Purebred/seedstock 21.9% Feedlot 36.6% Backgrounding C8 Please indicate how you perceive the following factors as obstacles or attractions for future

generations entering the beef industry.

1= Obstacle; 3 = Neutral; 5 = Attraction

Factor No. Responses Score

Cost share programs (EQIP, LP3, SSP, etc.) 476 3.6

Environmental regulations 482 1.8

Expansion of corn acres 466 3.0

Expansion of soybean acres 460 2.9

Input costs 484 1.8

Labor availability 474 2.1

Rural lifestyle 478 4.0

Salary 472 2.6

Self-employment (being your own boss) 481 4.3

Work hours 481 2.7

Work with family 479 4.0

Working with livestock 484 4.0

***If you are not a current producer, no additional information is needed. Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope and thank you for your participation.***

D. Producer Characteristics

Many ranches have more than one operator, but the following questions apply to the principal operator of the ranch. The principal operator is defined as the individual making the majority of the management decisions for the operation.

432 D1 What is the age of the principal operator? 0.9% Less than 30 years 40.7% 51-60 years 8.6% 31-40 years 22.0% 61-70 years 18.5% 41-50 years 9.3% 71+ years

432 D2 How many years has the principal operator been a beef producer? 1.2% Less than 5 years 9.5% 15-19 years 2.3% 5-9 years 18.1% 20-29 years 6.5% 10-14 years 62.3% 30+ years

432 D3 What is the gender of the principal operator? 97.9% Male 2.1 % Female

412 D4 What is the highest level of education attained by the principal operator? 44.4% High school diploma 17.0% Associates degree 30.3% Bachelor degree 3.9% Graduate degree 4.1% Other


411 D5 What level of participation in beef industry groups does the principal operator have at each of the following levels?

Not Involved

Attend Meetings

Actively Involved

Avg. Score

Level 1 2 3 4 5 --

Local 34.6% 7.3% 39.7% 7.5% 11.0% 2.5

State 53.6% 14.2% 18.8% 4.8% 8.6% 2.0

Regional 76.1% 7.1% 9.2% 3.2% 4.5% 1.5

National 83.8% 5.3% 5.3% 1.9% 3.7% 1.4

428 D6 Were you involved in 4-H, FFA, other agriculture-related groups as a youth member? 63.3% Yes, please proceed to D7 36.7% No, please proceed to D8

294 D7 Did your participation in these organizations influence your interest in pursuing a career as a beef producer? 65.6% Yes 34.4% No

422 D8 How many educational meetings does the principal operator attend annually? 16.8% 1 26.3% 2 39.3% 3+ 17.5% None

297 D9 If you do not attend NDSU Extension meetings, what are your reasons for not attending? Please check all that apply.

21.9% Meetings are not offered in area 12.5% Not interested in meeting topics 69.7% Lack of time 10.1% Prefer other sources of information 10.8% Quality of information received 5.2% Other

407 D10 Which of the following methods of educational programming would you be most likely to get information from?

64.9% Extension bulletins 15.7% Recorded programs on Internet 59.0% Face-to-face meetings 4.7% Teleconferences 65.6% Newsletters 3.0% Social media: Facebook, Twitter 12.0% Interactive video meetings 1.2% Other held in county offices

321 D11 In what areas are you in need of further educational material? Please check all that apply. 35.2% Financial planning 43.6% Production cost analysis 16.8% Labor management 25.2% Reproduction 58.8% Nutrition 37.7% Succession planning 1.9% Other

410 D12 Are you a member of one or more beef cattle trade organizations? 40.5% Yes, please proceed to question D13 59.5% No, please proceed to question D14


137 D13 If yes, please rank the organizational services/features that are most important to you as a member, where 1 is most important and 7 is the least important. Average ranking is listed.

1= Most Important; 7 = Least Important

Factor Avg. Rank Absolute Rank

Discounts/incentives due to membership 5.1 7

Educational workshops & materials 3.0 2

Insurance 4.9 6

Member magazines and publications 2.9 1

Networking 3.8 4

Policy-setting opportunities 3.1 3

Social activities 4.7 5

290 D14 What are your reasons for not becoming a member of a beef cattle trade organization? Please check all that apply.

Reason for not becoming trade organization memberProportion of

Responses

Membership costs too much 10.3%

Policies do not reflect my philosophy 24.8%

Time constraints prevent my participation 59.0%

I do not know how to become a member 9.3%

I do not think trade organizations are effective 12.8%

I get too many industry magazines/literature already 25.9%

I do not want my name on a database that could be available to telemarketers 43.1%

Other 2.4%

366 D15 How would you rank the following groups’ ability to promote the long-term growth and profitability of the beef industry, where 1 is the most important and 7 is the least important? For this table, the lower numbers represent higher perceived value.

1= Most Important; 7 = Least Important

Group Avg. RankAbsolute

Rank

Beef promotion, research & education programs funded by beef checkoff dollars

2.4 1

Corn research and promotion programs funded by corn checkoff dollars 4.4 tie-5

Soybean research and education programs funded by soybean checkoff dollars

5.1 7

State and county Extension service programs 3.2 2

Beef industry membership organizations/associations 3.4 3

Feed company representatives and technical service experts 3.9 4

Pharmaceutical company representatives and technical service experts 4.4 tie-5


E. Production/Financial Information

E1a What was the average number of cattle maintained on your operation in 2011 for each of the following classes?

AnimalsCommercial

Cow-calfPurebred/Seedstock

Back- grounding Stocker Feedlot

No. of Responses 403 81 203 57 61

1-49 15.4% 53.1% 21.2% 35.1% 37.7%

50-99 21.6% 16.1% 17.7% 14.0% 14.8%

100-249 41.9% 22.2% 32.5% 19.3% 18.0%

250-500 15.6% 2.5% 17.2% 17.5% 14.8%

501-750 3.7% 3.7% 5.4% 7.0% 0%

750+ 2.7% 2.5% 5.9% 7.0% 14.8%

E2 What was the average number of crop and pasture acres used in 2011?

Acres 423 Pasture 371Crop

1-99 5.0% 8.9%

100-299 9.2% 18.1%

300-499 14.7% 14.8%

500-749 11.8% 11.3%

750-999 6.4% 7.6%

1,000-1,499 16.1% 12.7%

1,500+ 36.9% 26.7%

E3 Approximately what proportion of your total (gross) revenue is generated from the following enterprises?

Beef production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1% Cash grain farming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3% Custom harvesting/planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7% Secondary businesses (fence building, trucking, construction, etc.). . . . . 2.9% Other off-farm work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0% Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%

398 E4 If you are married, does your spouse provide off-farm income? 59.8% Yes 40.2% No

419 E5 Do you have off-farm revenue from mineral leases, oil/natural gas production, coal or other mineral sales or royalties?

20.7% Yes 79.3% No

417 E6 How are production records kept on your operation? 36.0% Computer spreadsheet 9.6% Management software (e.g. Cow Sense, Cow Pro, CattleMax, CHAPS) 60.4% Paper record book 2.9% No formal recordkeeping method used 7.9% Other


333 E7 How do you determine the per-cow cost of production on your operation? 23.9% Balance checkbook 5.1% Consultant 22.7% Management software (e.g. Easy-Farm, FarmLogic, Quicken, Quickbooks) 22.1% Tax returns 15.5% Do not calculate cost of production 29.3% Other

The Beef Industry Survey was well-received, with a response rate that is very typical of this type of survey. The results of this survey will be the basis for discussion during meetings of the stakeholder groups and relied upon heavily to focus educational, programmatic and legislative priorities within and among the respective participating organizations.

The ultimate goal of this col-laborative group of stakeholders is to develop strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of the North Dakota beef industry.

AcknowledgmentsWe express our sincere thanks

to the producers who took the time to complete the survey. The final survey was 12 pages in length and it was not an insignificant task to complete. In addition, we thank the North Dakota Corn Utiliza-tion Council, the North Dakota Beef Commission and the North Dakota Soybean Council for provid-ing funding for this effort. We also thank all of the members of the beef industry stakeholder group for their part in the effort to invest in the future of the industry.

North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender expres-sion/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or status as a U.S. veteran. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701) 231-7708.


2013 north dakota beef report - north dakota state university

Documents