By Dr. Theresa CraigMay 2011

Feedlot Management

Dr. Theresa M Craig Ph.D

Born in Canada on a Feedlot Ranching operation Attended Texas A & M University and University of

Missouri General Manager of Dairy Beef Feedlot Mexico Ruminant Nutrition Consulting in Portugal, Spain

Mexico, and Guatemala Ruminant Specialist Rhone Poulenc Australia Established “TARA” a Research and Consulting

Business, Australia (1997) working in feedlot, dairies, abattoirs, governments in

Australia and Internationally

Feedlot Management

Animal Supply Feed Supply and Inventory Feeding Bunk Management Integration with Health and Livestock Management End game: Profitable

Animal Supply

Genetics Age Weight

TYPE ------- Market

Condition ScoreFrame ScorePrior Nutritional History

Animal Supply – Phenotype & Genotype

Nutritional Windowing

.

Phenotype:Weight AgeCondition ScoreFrame Score

Genotype:Bos Indicus or Bos TaurusBeef/ DairyBreed

Genetic lineGender

Animal Supply – Frame Score

Predict performance, slaughter date, & carcass composition at slaughter

.

Information required at entry:

Date measurement takenAnimal identification numberAnimal estimate ageHip height in mm across hips

Adjustable parallel bar with level

Ruler with mm measurement scale

WeightBreedGenderCondition score

Feed Inventory Moisture Colour Odour Foreign Material Uniformity and Texture Evidence of heating Biotoxins

Feed Supply and Inventory“Dynamic”

Feed Supply Feed Type Quality Nutrient Specifications Cost/tonne Consistency of Supply and

Nutrient levels Associative Effects

Feed Supply and Inventory - Storage

Storage Principles Moisture Temperature Air movement Contaminants

Feed Type Forages Grains Protein Meal By-products Liquids Pre-mixes Special Products

Climatic Factors Relative Humidity Temperature Season

Expansion Capacity Logistics Labour

Feed Quality Changing

Nutrient Variability Oxidative loss AA to NPN

Pest Management Rodents Insects

Fire Management Plan

Feed Supply: By-Products

Type Energy Protein Roughage

Nutrients Dry Matter Consistency of Nutrient

specifications Creation of Imbalances

Correction with knowledge Interactions

Binding Non – Nutrients Factors

Toxins Phytochemicals

Palatability Limits intake

Supply Consistency Logistics

Storage Moisture/ Climate Flow

Silos Bunkers

Performance Feed Intake ADG, F/G Associative effects Carcass Composition

Cost Effective Cost per nutrient Effect on performance

Feed Supply and Inventory – Storage Guidelines

Ensure facility cleanliness Moisture levels of most dry commodities need to stay

below 13 % Moisture level of high moisture feed to be used

immediately or stored anaerobically Monitor Feed Temperature and Moisture constantly Monitor Feed for Insects and Rodents and have

program to eliminate these pests If unsure test for Micotoxins Aeration / Turning helpful in long-term storage of large

quantities of grain

Feeding

Ration Consistency Formulation

Nutrients Moisture

Processing Mixing Delivery

Ration Mixing - Consistency

Factors Affecting Particle Size Particle Shape Particle Density Adhesion Electrostatic Hygroscopic

Segregation Liquid Addition

Process Time Monitor Test Communication

Ration Mixing

Bunk Management

Amount to Feed Percentage body weight Challenge Weather

Ration Changes Limited Commodity changes

Bunk Cleanliness Consistent

Communication Accurate Constant

Delivery Assured Consistency

Ration Amount

Location Entire bunk

Timeliness 10 – 20 minutes

Bunk Management

Calls / Monitoring Consistency

Example

1. Initial A.M. call

2. Monitor during delivery

3. P.M. verification call

4. Monitor P.M. call

5. Late call

Bunk Management and Feed Intake

Feed Intake per DayProblem Bunk Management

0

10

20

30

40

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Days on feed

kilo/day

Feed Intake per DayImproved Bunk Management

0

5

10

151 3 5 7 9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

27

29

31

Days on feed

kilo/day Performance improved by approximately 30 %

Erratic feed intake

Feed intake stabilized

Bunk Management Codes

Identical for Everyone Timely Utilization

Example:

Bunk Animals

S = Slick A = Aggressive

E = Excellent N = Normal

F = Full L = Lazy

Bunk Management - Feed IntakeFeed Intake and Temperature

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031

Fee

d I

nta

ke &

Lo

w T

emp

erat

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

Hig

h T

emp

erat

ure

Feed Intake

Low Temp

High Temp

Erratic Feed Intake and Temperature

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031Fee

d I

nta

ke &

Lo

w T

emp

erat

ure

0

5

10

15

20

25

Hig

h T

emp

erat

ure

Feed Intake

High Temp

Low Temp

Bunk Management - General Rules

Increase feed given at P.M. feeding when required Do not increase feeding amount per day above 10 % Feed decreases done in A.M. feeding to allow close

monitoring Decrease feed allowance by greater than 10 % only

when needed to clean bunk Do not skip feeding Proportion of feed given needs to equate to time

between feeding therefore is not an equal amount

Bunk Management - Communication

Key to successful Bunk Management Timely Involves

Feed Manager Cattle Manager Truck Drivers Cattle Handlers Nutritionist

Bunk Management Focus Areas

Starting Cattle Ration Transition Sick Animals Storm Front Extreme Weather Long / Short Term Cattle

Heat Stress

Warnings Temperature Humidity Index Panting Score Feed Intake

Panting scores for feedlot cattle (Mader et al., 2006) Score Description

0 Normal respiration (about 60-90 breaths per minute[bpm) 1 Elevated respiration (about 80-110 bpm) 2 Moderate panting and/or presence of drool or small amount of saliva

(about100-130 bpm) 3 Heavy open-mouthed panting; saliva usually present (about 120-140 bpm) 4 Severe open-mouthed panting accompanied by protruding tongue and

excessive salivation, usually with neck extended forward

Note: A score of 2 is a very good indicator of potential heat stress; implementation of planned heat stress mitigation strategies should be considered.

RestlessnessCrowding water troughGrouping of cattle

Heat Stress

Nutrition Decreasing the fermentative heat load by:

Ionophores Minimum roughage rations (use high digestive fibre) Inclusion of fat with low fibre diets Mineral intake

(DO include electrolyte mix) Increase K, Na, Cl, Mg

Increase maintenance requirement (7 to 25%)

Water consumption Increase 76 to 132 litres per day

Feed Management Altered to match the animals eating pattern. Do - Morning feed delivered predawn Do - Last feed of the day later in the day Do - Feed more than twice/dayManagement Lesson pen density Use a sprinkler system Providing shade

Without shade: feed intake decreased by 8 to 20% decrease weight gain by 12 to 25%

Shade 4 – 4.2 m high and provide 2 – 4 m2 space/animal

Heat Stress - cont’d

Water Trough Management

Nutrient Water restriction reduces feed intake

Quantity Back–up system

Quality Influences consumption Components / Contaminants Cleanliness

Monitor Space

30 mm/head

Integrations with Health and Livestock Management

Enhance immune system through nutrition Feed management and rations effect nutritional

disorders Acidosis Bloat Urinary Calculi (Urolithiasis) Toxins Nutritional imbalances

Sick rations

Integrations with Health and Livestock Management

Acidosis Acute: possible dead animal Chronic loss in performance

Faeces of animal with acidosis Faeces of animal that is normal

Performance Enhancement

Increase Dry Matter Intake Consistent ration

Nutrient levels Moisture levels Texture Energy

Improving Efficiency Management Animal

Physiology Nutrient requirements Behaviour

Feed Efficiency

Younger animals Large mature size Genetics Body Composition - leaner

Older animals Heavier animals Genetics with dairy influence

More Efficient Less Efficient

Average Daily Intake as a Percentage of Body Weight

22.12.22.32.42.52.62.7

7 14 28 56 112 140 166

Days on Feed

% B

od

y W

eig

ht

Accumulative Feed to Gain

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7 14 28 56 112 140 166Days on Feed

Fe

ed

to

Gai

n

Performance Criteria

Performance Checklist

Weather Temperature Humidity Erratic

Cattle Genetics Health Gender Age Prior nutritional history

Feed Erratic rations changes Insufficient or poor quality

water Poor mixing

Management Bunk management Excessive handling of

cattle

Critical Control Points Critical Limits Monitor Action

Feed

Mixing test c.v. 5 – 10 % Weekly

Animal Treatment

Implant accuracy 90 – 95 % 10 % of feedlot

Facilities

Check for sharp objects None During monthlymaintenance

Record System

Feed intake monitor All pens Monitor by FeedManager weekly

Feed inventory 2 % Visual vs. predictedMonitor monthly

Critical Control Points

Relative Effect on Performance

Beef Bulls Beef Steers Beef Heifers

ADG 1.33 1.16 0.94

F/G 5.96 6.35 6.42

Fat levels % 30.8 40.1

Considered to put on more fat than steers or bulls

Lean levels % 52 44

Performance and Profit$220/tonne $230.00/tonne

ADG F/G $/gain F/G $/gain F/G $/gain F/G $/gain

1.2 9.41 2.07

1.5 7.53 1.65 6.64 1.45 6.64 1.53 4.78 1.10

1.8 6.28 1.38 5.53 1.21 5.53 1.27 5.32 1.22

2.0 5.65 1.24

ADG improves$/gain improves

ADG stable, F/G improves$/gain improves

Ration cost increase, no change in ADG or F/G $/gain decreases

Ration cost increase, no change in ADG, F/G improves $/gain improves

Performance Benchmarking- Example Feedlot Data Australia

Dairy Bulls

Beef Bulls

Beef Steers

(implant)

Beef Steers

(non implant)

Beef Steers Short fed

Beef Steers Mid fed

Beef Steers Mid fed

Entry weight (kg)

387 363 340 - 360 349 422 447 430

Exit weight (kg)

533 499 467 447 641 651 705

Days on feed

70 65 54 59 132 161 213

ADG 2.1 2.11.87 - 2.06

1.67 1.94 1.45 1.31

F/G 7.7 7.45.63 -6.06

6.39 7.9 9.4 10.9

Performance – SeasonalityADG

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

AV

ER

AG

E D

AIL

Y G

AIN

(kg

/day

)

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Performance – SeasonalityF/G

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

10.0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

FE

ED

GA

IN (

kg

/KG

)

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Factors Affecting Carcass Outcomes

Input Factors Age Initial weight Sex Genetic potential Health Pre nutrition & management

Management Ration / Feed intake Implants

End Point Selection Days on feed Weight Fat thickness Carcass composition

Marketing Seasonality Sorting Market place conditions

Branded Value for standards

Marbling

Prolong high energy feeding Physiological stage of growth

Traditional feeding

Genetic capacity of animal Jersey, Murray Gray, Shorthorn,

Wagyu, Belmont Red

Prior nutritional history Weaning > Yearlings

Ref. MSA Australia 2011

Monitor – Protocols and SystemsAnimal incoming specificationsFeed Commodities consistencyWeight gainDaily feed intake

KnowHow specific rations affect performance (ration codes)How specific animal specification affect performance

ResultIncrease or Decrease Cost of Gain = Profitability

Performance for Profit - Bottom Line

Consistent End Product to Suit Market

Control Inputs

“Success Is Timely Attention to Detail”