vern anderson, ph.d. carrington research extension center north dakota state university natural vs....

Vern Anderson, Ph.D.Carrington Research Extension Center

North Dakota State University

Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs

NDSU Beef CollegeFebruary 11, 2010

Beef feedlot research at NDSU

– High level of collaboration• Carrington RE Center

– Growing and finishing studies– Focus on feeding in ND

• Hettinger RE Center• Dept. of Animal Sciences

– Metabolism trials– Meats research

• Central Grasslands RE Center

Natural beef markets

• ND Natural Beef LLC – (Dakota Farms)– Cattle harvested at New Rockford, ND– Demand for finished beef

• Organic Beef Market - potential• Best management practices required

– Thorough vaccination program– Evaluate competitive production practices

Concentrate levels for natural feedingAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006

85 %Conc.

70%Conc.

55%Conc.

P Value

DMI, lb/hd/d 21.4 21.7 22.0 ns

ADG, lb/hd/d 2.93 2.51 2.26 P < .01

Feed Efficiency 7.3 8.6 9.7 P < .01

Days on Feed 154 180 210 P < .01

Yield Grade 2.77 2.58 2.70 ns

Marbling Score 481 421 421 P = .16

Percent Choice 70 59 63 ns

Evaluation of natural

feeding supplements for growing and finishing calves

Yeast enzyme “cocktail” in barley based dietsAnderson and Bock, 2000

• Grow-finishing study– Yea-Sacc 8417 ® and Fibrozyme ® – Alltech, Inc.

• Barley based finishing ration• Steers fed yeast/enzyme “cocktail”

– Cattle stayed on feed and gained more consistently than controls during severe weather changes during spring thaw

Natural vs. conventional finishing trailAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006

• 85% concentrate corn/barley finishing diets• Treatments

– Two supplements (no implants): – Natural supplement (Bovi-Sacc®, Alltech Inc.)

• Proprietary yeast and fiber digesting enzyme

– Conventional (ionophore-monensin sodium)

Forage levels and supplementsAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006

Conventional Control

Monensin sodium

NaturalAlltech

Fibrozyme

P value

DMI, lb/hd/d 21.7 21.4 ns

ADG, lb/hd/d 3.15 2.93 P<.10

Feed Eff 7.0 7.3 ns

Yield Grade 2.97 2.77 ns

Marbling score 455 481 ns

Percent Choice 75 70 ns

Natural supplement evaluationsAnderson et al., 2008

– Three different research components• Replicated growing experiment – fall 2006• Replicated finishing experiment – winter 2006-7• Large pen field trial –winter 2007-8

– Treatments• Ionophore (monensin sodium)• Natural supplement = Rumatec®

(Ralco Nutrition, Marshal, MN)

Why Rumatec® β Starter and Finisher?

• Newer natural supplement with multiple components and potential positive effects

• Rumatec® β Starter – Diatomaceous earth– Alpha-hydroxy proprionic acid– Cobalt carbonate– Fenugreek– Brewers yeast– Carriers – grain by-products and mineral oil

• Rumatec® Finisher add yucca extract (saponin)

Growing trial protocol

• 162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club – (Turtle Lake show - 26 ranches_– Mixed breeds, colors, sizes– Blocked by weight into four groups– One pen per block to each treatment– Twelve pens, 13-14 head per pen

• 2 - 28 day weigh periods = 56 day trial• TMR fed once daily to appetite

Growing Ration14.2% CP, 60 Mcal NEg

Dry matter basis• 49.1% dry rolled corn• 20.6% field peas• 11.4% corn silage• 9.2% wet dist grains• 7.6% chopped straw• 2.1% supplement with:

– ½ oz Rumatec® β Starter or– 300 mg monensin sodium or

Finishing trial protocol

– Same 162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club• Started at end of growing trial

– TMR fed once daily to appetite– All steers harvested on April 28– Carcass data collected

Performance of growing steers fed a natural supplement

IonophoreMonensin

sodium

Nat supplRumatec®β

Starter

StdErr

P Value

Initial wt. lb 739 740 8.76 0.37DMI, lb/hd/d 19.79 20.68 0.37 0.13ADG, lb/hd/d 3.61 3.74 0.12 0.23Feed Eff. 5.48 5.55 0.27 0.76No. hd treated 3/54 2/54 - -

Finishing Ration13.8% CP, 62 Mcal NEg

Dry matter basis• 55.4% dry rolled corn• 15.6% wet dist grains• 13.8% field peas• 8.1% corn silage• 5.4% chopped straw• 1.7% supplement with:

– ½ oz Rumatec® Finisher or– 300 mg monensin sodium or

Performance of finishing steers fed a natural supplement

IonophoreMonensin

sodium

Nat supplRumatec®Finisher

StdErr

P Value

Initial wt. lb 944 953 11.34 0.69Final wt. lb 1249 1239 14.56 0.38DMI, lb/hd/d 22.17 23.29 0.79 0.13ADG, lb 3.46a 3.25b 0.09 0.02Feed Eff. 6.42 7.21 0.14 0.04

Carcass traits of steers fed a natural supplement

IonophoreMonensin sodium

Natural suppl

Rumatecβ®

StdErr

P Value

Dressing % 944 953 11.34 0.69Marbl Score 469 449 16.64 0.09Fat Thick, in 0.50 0.51 0.03 0.69REA,sq in 12.79 12.76 0.19 0.96Yield Grade 3.00 3.04 0.11 0.86

Field trial for finishing calves with natural supplement

• Previous finishing study left questions– Steers available from CREC herd

• 70 head backgrounded steers

– Not replicated• Two pens, 35 head per pen

– Ration similar to replicated finishing experiment

– No carcass data collected

Field trial – finishing performance steers fed a natural supplement

IonophoreMonensin

sodium

Natural suppl

Rumatecβ®

Initial wt. lb 937 934Final wt. lb 1344 1338DMI, lb/hd/d 21.85 22.09ADG, lb 3.59 3.60Feed Eff. 6.25 6.34

Summary

– New natural supplements show promise for both growing and finishing feedlot cattle in ND

– Newer generation of multi-ingredient supplements compete well with ionophores

– Need to develop complete “best management practices” for natural beef feeding

Natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains

Thompson et al., 2010

– Growing phase – Hettinger REC– Finishing phase - Carrington REC

• SBARE supported

– 72 head 6 head per pen, 6 pens/treatment– Two treatments

• Conventional – ionophore and implant• Natural – yeast product from Ivy Solutions

Rations for natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains


Percent, DM Basis Growing Finishing• Corn, dry rolled 32 58• Distillers 13 22• Mixed hay 40 -• Oat silage 9 -• Canola meal - 3• Corn silage - 7• Straw, chopped - 8• Supplement 7 2• Crude Protein, % 14.8 12.9• NE gain, Mcal/lb .53 .65

Performance of growing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains


IonophoreMonensin

sodium

Nat supplYeast

Ivy Solutions

SdErr

P Value

Days on feed 85 85 - -

Initial wt. lb 551 545 3.31 0.31

DMI, lb/hd/d 22.2 20.5 0.37 0.02

ADG, lb 2.65 2.87 0.04 0.02

Feed Eff. 8.33 7.14 0.003 <0.01

Performance of finishing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains


Nat supplYeast

Ivy Solutions

IonophoreMonensin sodium

StdErr

P Value

Days on feed 125 138 - -

Final wt. lb 1387 1299 9.92 <0.001

DMI, lb/hd/d 24.70 21.61 0.46 <0.001

ADG, lb 3.99 3.26 0.04 <0.001

Feed Eff. 6.25 6.66 0.003 0.02

Feed cost/lb, $ .59 .65 0.02 0.005

Carcass traits of steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains


IonophoreMonensin

sodium

Nat supplYeast

Ivy Solutions

StdErr

P Value

Dressing Percent 65.11 63.00 - -

Hot carc. Wt, lb 862 765 6.39 <0.001

Ribeye area 90.3 83.7 0.78 <0.001

KPH, % 2.42 2.63 0.07 0.04

Yield Grade 3.25 3.12 0.05 0.53

Marbling Score 487 516 7.52 0.02

Net /hd, $* (82.71) (155.36)

* Sale price of $85.65/cwt for CON and $90.09/ Natural

Summary

-Some natural supplements appear to be competitive in animal performance.

-Natural production protocols do not appear to be competitive, require significantly higher sale price.

- Producers need to keep very careful records if marketing natural cattle.

Thank youLivestock Technicians: Dale Burr, Tim Schroeder, and Tyler Ingebretson

Questions

Dr. Rob Maddock Teaching the art of grilling steaks and chops

At the NDSU BBQ Boot CampHeld at Carrington on July 17, 2008

A joint effort of Animal Science and Carrington REC

vern anderson, ph.d. carrington research extension center north dakota state university natural vs....

Documents