27.03.2013 Views

NDSU Beef Feedlot - NDSU Agriculture - North Dakota State ...

NDSU Beef Feedlot - NDSU Agriculture - North Dakota State ...

NDSU Beef Feedlot - NDSU Agriculture - North Dakota State ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2009 – Volume 32<br />

2009<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong><br />

Research Report


Introduction to Livestock Research and Education<br />

The <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center is pleased to collaborate with our Agricultural<br />

Experiment Station colleagues in presenting the 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report. This<br />

report represents the latest results and background from beef feedlot research projects from across the<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong>-AES. The research projects reported in Vol.32 build upon the wealth of knowledge that our beef<br />

research faculty have accumulated and reported on over the years.<br />

<strong>Agriculture</strong> in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> is a vibrant industry representing the primary economic sector of our state’s<br />

economy. The sustained significance of agriculture in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> is partially due to the diversity of<br />

agricultural enterprises and the synergies of crop and livestock operations. The number of producers<br />

and enterprises that background or finish beef cattle in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> have increased in recent years.<br />

This trend is welcome and encouraging as many of us see cattle feeding as a sector of our agricultural<br />

economy that has great potential for expansion. The state of <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> is blessed with a multitude<br />

of feedstuffs including the diverse grains, co-products, and forages. Expanded cattle feeding through<br />

background or finishing operations is a good opportunity to add value to these feeds. Ultimately, this<br />

abundance of product will be utilized either here in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> or shipped elsewhere for use by cattle<br />

feeding operations in other states or countries.<br />

It is our hope that the 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report will again prove useful and effective<br />

in assisting the viability of our livestock industry and the broader constituency who supply the feeds<br />

investigated. We wish to thank the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> state legislature, selected commodity groups and the<br />

various grant programs that have empowered our research faculty to address the beef feedlot issues<br />

that we now report upon.<br />

Blaine G. Schatz<br />

Director, <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

Thanks for taking the time to review what <strong>NDSU</strong> has to offer in the way of feedlot research. This report<br />

details the collective efforts of scientists from across the state of <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> and represents the latest<br />

in feedlot research. Our scientists collaborate on projects ranging from nutrition to nutrient<br />

management and do their best to bring you meaningful research which you can use to make profitable,<br />

sustainable decisions in your operation.<br />

Please feel free to provide us with feedback related to ways we can improve the research which we<br />

deliver to you each year. We’d love to hear how we can better serve the beef industry in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

and the region.<br />

Greg Lardy, Ph.D.<br />

Department Head, Animal Sciences<br />

A very special thank you to Myrna Friedt and Stacey Rzaszutak at the Carrington Research Extension<br />

Center for proofreading, organizing, and formatting this publication. The authors appreciate the<br />

excellent animal care, data collection and other support of the many technicians who worked in support<br />

of research presented in this publication.<br />

Page 1 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Contact Information<br />

If you have questions or comments, please e-mail individuals (see addresses below) or call the<br />

Carrington Center at (701) 652-2951. These proceedings are also published at the Carrington<br />

Research Extension Center website at www.ag.nodak.edu/carringt/ under the livestock bullet.<br />

Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

Vern Anderson, Ph.D., P.A.S., Animal Scientist Vern.Anderson@ndsu.edu<br />

Breanne Ilse, Livestock Research Specialist Breanne.Ilse@ndsu.edu<br />

Karl Hoppe, Ph.D., Area Ext. Livestock Specialist Karl.Hoppe@ndsu.edu<br />

Steve Metzger, Farm Business Management S.Metzger@ndsu.edu<br />

Ron Wiederholt, Nutrient Management Research Ron.Wiederholt@ndsu.edu<br />

Chris Augustin, Ext. Nutrient Management Specialist Chris.Augustin@ndsu.edu<br />

Department of Animal Sciences<br />

Greg Lardy, Ph.D., Department Chair Gregory.Lardy@ndsu.edu<br />

Eric Berg, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Meat Science Eric.P.Berg@ndsu.edu<br />

Rob Maddock, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Meat Science Rob.Maddock@ndsu.edu<br />

Kasey Carlin, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Meat Science Kasey.Maddockcarlin@ndsu.edu<br />

Charlie Stoltenow, D.V.M., Ext. Veterinarian Charles.Stoltenow@ndsu.edu<br />

Kim Vonnahme, Ph.D., Assoc. Prof., Reprod. Physiology Kimberly.Vonnahme@ndsu.edu<br />

<strong>North</strong>ern Crops Institute<br />

Kim Koch, Ph.D., Manager, Feed Production Center Kim.Koch@ndsu.edu<br />

Hettinger Research Extension Center<br />

Chris Schauer, Ph.D., Director Chris.Schauer@ndsu.edu<br />

Michele Thompson, Asst. Animal Scientist Michele.Thompson@ndsu.edu<br />

Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences Department<br />

Neil Dyer, D.V.M., Director Neil.Dyer@ndsu.edu<br />

Michelle Mostrum, D.V.M, Ph.D., Toxicologist Michelle.Mostrum@ndsu.edu<br />

Cow/calf pairs grazing summer pasture, August 2009.<br />

Page 2 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Acknowledgements<br />

Research, education, and facility development activities conducted at the <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Center are<br />

supported by numerous individuals and organizations. Our heartfelt appreciation is expressed to the<br />

following for their support:<br />

AgInfoLink, Longmont, CO<br />

Ameriflax, Grace City, ND<br />

ADM-Ethanol Division, Walhalla, ND<br />

Barton Meats, Carrington, ND<br />

<strong>Beef</strong> Magazine<br />

Cargill Malt, Spiritwood, ND<br />

Carrington Area Farm Business Management Program, Carrington, ND<br />

Coteau Hills Enterprises, McClusky, ND<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> Dry Bean, Inc., Crary, ND<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Club, Turtle Lake, ND<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong>Land Feeds, Huron, SD<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> Growers Pasta Company, Carrington, ND<br />

FUMPA BioFuels Inc., Redwood Falls, MN<br />

G and R Grain and Feed, Inc., New Rockford, ND<br />

Haybuster Equipment, Inc., Jamestown, ND<br />

Igenity, Inc., Bismarck, ND<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Barley Council<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> Commission<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Corn Utilization Council<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Department of <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Department of Commerce<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Natural <strong>Beef</strong>, LLC<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Oilseed Council<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Rural Electric Cooperatives, Bismarck, ND<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> Board of Agricultural Research and Education<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> University<br />

Department of Animal Sciences<br />

Hettinger Research Extension Center<br />

Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences Department<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s Association Feeder Council, Bismarck, ND<br />

<strong>North</strong>ern Crops Institute, Fargo, ND<br />

<strong>North</strong>ern Pulse Growers Association, Bismarck, ND<br />

R & B Manufacturing, Steele, ND<br />

Ralco Nutrition, Inc., Marshal, MN<br />

Sartec, Inc., Anoka, MN<br />

Schering Plough Inc., Kenilworth, NJ<br />

Tim Olson, CATL Resource PC, Sturgis, SD<br />

Tyson Fresh Meats, <strong>Dakota</strong> Dunes, SD<br />

United <strong>State</strong>s Department of <strong>Agriculture</strong><br />

National Research Initiative – Equipment Grants Program<br />

Cool Season Food Legume Program<br />

Westway Products, Inc., Mapleton, ND<br />

Trade names and companies used are for clear communication. No endorsement is intended, nor criticism<br />

implied, of products mentioned or not mentioned.<br />

Page 3 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table of Contents<br />

<strong>Feedlot</strong> Schools Are Educational Opportunity for New or Experienced <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Cattle Feeders .... 5<br />

Observations on the Palatability of an Inorganic Salt Product for Mitigation of High Sulfur Levels in<br />

<strong>Feedlot</strong> Diets .................................................................................................................................... 7<br />

Influence of Thiamin Supplementation on Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Concentrations in Ruminants Fed<br />

High-Sulfur Diets ............................................................................................................................ 11<br />

An Evaluation of a Mixed Co-product Protein Feed in Finishing Rations .............................................. 15<br />

Effects of Dried Distillers Grains With Solubles on Growing and Finishing Steer Intake, Performance,<br />

Carcass Characteristics, Color and Sensory Attributes .................................................................. 18<br />

Effect of Glycerol Level in <strong>Feedlot</strong> Diets on Animal Performance and Carcass Traits .......................... 24<br />

Impact of Weaning Date on Calf Growth and Carcass Traits ............................................................... 30<br />

Growth and <strong>Feedlot</strong> Performance of Steer Calves Born From <strong>Beef</strong> Cows Supplemented with<br />

Linseed Meal During Late Gestation .............................................................................................. 36<br />

Effect of Distillers Grains on Natural vs. Conventional Supplements and Production Methods on<br />

<strong>Feedlot</strong> Performance, and Carcass Characteristics ....................................................................... 41<br />

Discovering Value in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Calves; The <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show Feedout Project VIII ......... 45<br />

Forage Production Costs and Yields for South-Central <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> .................................................. 49<br />

Challenges and Opportunities for <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong>s in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> ........................................................ 51<br />

Diagnostic Note – Infectious Bovine Keratoconjunctivitis (Pinkeye) ..................................................... 54<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> BBQ Boot Camps 2009<br />

Celebrating the Products of Livestock Production .......................................................................... 56<br />

Creating a silage bunker.<br />

Page 4 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


<strong>Feedlot</strong> Schools Are Educational Opportunity for New or Experienced<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Cattle Feeders<br />

W. Becker 1 and V.L. Anderson 2<br />

1 Foster County Extension Agent<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

Introduction<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> cattlemen produce exceptional quality feeder cattle that are in demand by feedlot<br />

operators in other states. However, resources are available for feeding cattle in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> to<br />

capture value from the excellent genetics and utilize some of the available feedstocks. Many producers<br />

now background their spring-born calves at least until January, and there is increasing interest in<br />

finishing cattle for terminal markets.<br />

The <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> University <strong>Feedlot</strong> School was developed to help educate and inform<br />

producers about cattle feeding. The <strong>Feedlot</strong> School is an annual program initiated in 1996. It is an<br />

intensive two-day school that offers training in all aspects of the feedlot enterprise.<br />

Background<br />

To evaluate the legitimate potential and competitiveness of feeding cattle in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> versus the<br />

large commercial feedyards in Kansas and Nebraska, a multi-year research study was conducted with<br />

producer-owned calves in the early 1990s. Calves were gathered at the Carrington Research<br />

Extension Center and one group transported to commercial yards in Nebraska or Kansas during the<br />

three-year project. The results indicated that the lower feed costs per pound of gain (~$.05 advantage)<br />

and feed availability were major advantages to cattle feeding in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> even though gains were<br />

slightly higher in southern yards. Subsequent research in successfully mitigating winter weather with<br />

bedding and wind protection further supports the potential for cattle feeding in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>. Feeds in<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> are very competitively priced compared to commercial feeding regions in the High Plains.<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> feeds include corn, barley, field peas, oats, wheat, several oilseed meals, corn distillers<br />

grains, wheat midds, barley malt sprouts, corn gluten feed, beet pulp, field pea chips, and soyhulls plus<br />

low cost forages and crop residues. New incentive programs for upgrading or building feedlots through<br />

EPA 319 and NRCS Equip program monies and new risk protection programs are available.<br />

<strong>Feedlot</strong> School Curriculum<br />

The program is an intensive two-day educational course that is offered for cattle feeders, industry<br />

personnel, educators, and anyone interested in feedlot management. The school visits commercial and<br />

research feedlots for observations in bunk reading, facilities, animal processing, and an update on<br />

current research activities. Attendees network with experienced <strong>NDSU</strong> field staff and specialists, and<br />

fellow students. The faculty includes veterinarians, nutritionists, meat scientists, marketing experts,<br />

experienced feeders, and other qualified instructors. Comprehensive printed resource materials are<br />

provided to those attending.<br />

The topics presented at the <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Schools include:<br />

1. Feeding enterprises for specific markets including backgrounding, finishing, heifer development,<br />

and cull cow feeding.<br />

2. Feed ingredients, nutritional value, and compatibility.<br />

3. Recommended usage of feeds to meet animal requirements.<br />

4. Ration formulation for optimum animal growth and profit.<br />

5. Feed supplements, additives, and implants.<br />

Page 5 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


6. Grain processing, mixing rations, and feed bunk management.<br />

7. Health management, vaccinations, detection of sick animals, and treatment.<br />

8. Facility planning and design including working facilities, pens, and containment.<br />

9. Manure management, composting, and spreading as fertilizer.<br />

10. Marketing cattle, industry grids, carcass traits and value.<br />

11. Risk management, hedges, puts and forward pricing.<br />

In the 13 years that the feedlot school has been held, there have been 20 different schools that<br />

provided information to over 500 participants, with some repeat participants. The sessions are held<br />

annually at the Carrington Research Extension Center during late January. The same basic school has<br />

been offered at other locations some years, including Fargo, Hettinger, Williston, and Sidney, Montana.<br />

A feedlot school was offered in Maine modeled after the <strong>NDSU</strong> program, and a college course and<br />

training certification program in Colby, Kansas, was spurred by the <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> School. The<br />

program has reached producers in eight states and one province including South <strong>Dakota</strong>, Montana,<br />

Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Maine, and Manitoba. An evaluation is given at the end of<br />

every school that asks participants for honest feedback. The curriculum is adapted to producer needs<br />

based on these responses and has evolved over the years of the school.<br />

According to the most recent <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>Agriculture</strong> Statistics Service <strong>Feedlot</strong> Survey (2008), from<br />

2004 through 2007 the total number of feeding operations with 500 head or more capacity, has<br />

increased 16% from 130 to 151 feedlots. Total capacity has increased 20% from 189,000 to 226,300<br />

head. The future of the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> School is to continue with the ongoing interest of the<br />

producers. Planning is underway for an ―advanced‖ feedlot school for those that want a deeper<br />

understanding of nutrition, marketing, and management. The goal is to provide the utmost quality<br />

programming that makes the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> University <strong>Feedlot</strong> School partnership successful.<br />

With the increasing interest in feeding cattle to slaughter weights in the <strong>North</strong>ern Plains, and the ample<br />

supply of cattle, feed grains, forages, and co-products for feedlot use across the area, the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

<strong>Feedlot</strong> School has helped producers increase their working knowledge of feedlot operation. In<br />

addition to the material presented, the school serves a function to network feeders and faculty for future<br />

communications. All of the principles taught in the school are relevant to other regions as well and<br />

serves any area interested in feeding cattle. This program requires extensive collaboration between<br />

cooperating agencies, industry, and private operators all with the intent to make the cattle feeding<br />

business better for all parties involved. For information on attending an <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> School, contact<br />

the Foster County Extension office at (701) 652-2581 or the Carrington Research Extension Center at<br />

(701) 652-2951 or email: <strong>NDSU</strong>.Carrington.REC@ndsu.edu.<br />

Page 6 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Observations on the Palatability of an Inorganic Salt Product for<br />

Mitigation of High Sulfur Levels in <strong>Feedlot</strong> Diets<br />

V.L. Anderson 1 , B.R. Ilse 1 , P. Gruel 2 and S. McLeish 2<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2 Sartec, Inc.<br />

Introduction<br />

Distillers grains are often the lowest cost protein feed available for cattlemen. This ingredient can be<br />

used in cow/calf production as well as feedlot diets. However, distillers grains often contain high levels<br />

of sulfur. There is significant variation in the sulfur content of distillers grains from plant to plant and<br />

even within a plant as sulfuric acid may be added to batches to improve fermentation efficiency by<br />

altering the pH. Sulfuric acid is also used to clean equipment. While sulfur level is often between 0.65<br />

and 0.85% on a dry-matter basis, levels as high as 1.25% sulfur have been analyzed.<br />

<strong>Beef</strong> cattle can tolerate a maximum of 0.40% sulfur in the diet (NRC, 1996) before polio-like symptoms<br />

of sulfur toxicity are generally observed, with the first noticeable sign often being death. Toxic<br />

symptoms and death have been reported when a diet contains as low as 0.25% sulfur in grain-based<br />

diets. Grain diets are thought to be less tolerant to high sulfur levels but with forage diets, sulfur<br />

tolerance may be greater. It is unknown how many health and reproductive problems have occurred<br />

due to sub acute sulfur toxicity from feeding distillers grains, high-sulfate content water, or sulfur in<br />

other feed sources. Survey data may be inconclusive due to the unwillingness of producers to admit to<br />

these losses, or inconclusive diagnosis by producers or their veterinarians. Any feed ingredient or<br />

management technique that would mitigate sulfur toxicity and allow increased use of distillers grains<br />

with less potential for illness or death will be well received in the livestock industry. New feed products<br />

are under development that may tie up sulfur and reduce negative effects of higher sulfur levels in the<br />

diet of cattle. The objective of this field study was to determine the effect of adding a proprietary<br />

inorganic salt product to feedlot finishing diets on feed intake, gain, and carcass traits.<br />

Experimental Procedures<br />

Forty-eight Angus feeder calves were blocked by sex (heifers and steers) and assigned within block to<br />

one of two treatments. One pen of steers and one pen of heifers were fed the proprietary inorganic salt<br />

product developed to mitigate sulfur levels in feedlot rations. The second pen of steers and heifers was<br />

fed the same diet without the inorganic salt product. The inorganic salt product was fed at 13.8 grams<br />

per head per day based on recommendations of the manufacturer. This product was mixed into the<br />

feedlot supplement (Table 1) which was added to the grain component of the ration in the daily ration<br />

preparation. The supplements were manufactured at the <strong>North</strong>ern Crops Institute (NCI) on the campus<br />

of <strong>NDSU</strong> under the direction of Dr. Kim Koch, manager of the NCI Feed Production Center.<br />

Supplements were transported to the Carrington Research Extension Center in tote bags.<br />

Supplements were formulated to be fed at 0.33 pounds per head per day, and contain minerals,<br />

vitamins, Rumensin (300 mg/hd/d), and carrier feed products (Table 1). Supplements were formulated<br />

to be identical except for the addition of the inorganic salt product.<br />

Page 7 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1. Supplements with and without organic salt to mitigate sulfur.<br />

Control Inorganic Salt<br />

Supplement Supplement<br />

% DM basis<br />

Corn, ground 25.00 25.00<br />

Distiller grains 13.75 13.75<br />

Malt sprouts 23.50 14.40<br />

Calcium carbonate 12.00 12.00<br />

Potassium chloride 11.25 11.25<br />

Zinc sulfate 0.20 0.20<br />

Dical-Phosphate (18.5%) 3.75 3.75<br />

Feed-grade salt 8.25 8.25<br />

Rumensin (80 g/lb) 1.10 1.10<br />

Vit A-D 10:1 <strong>Beef</strong> 0.30 0.30<br />

Vitamin Premix 0.90 0.90<br />

Inorganic salt 0.00 9.10<br />

Total 100.00 100.00<br />

Cattle were fed in the morning after bunk calls were made for increase, decrease or no change in the<br />

ration. Increases or decreases were done at 2.5% of the diet dry matter for each pen. Feed delivered<br />

to each pen was recorded daily. The ration was assembled, mixed and delivered using a Knight LA-9<br />

Little Augie, three-auger mixer box. The corn-based ration was formulated at 62 Mcal NEg/lb, (Table<br />

2). It included a minimum of 20% modified (50% moisture) distillers grains and solubles (dry matter<br />

basis) procured from the Blue Flint Ethanol facility in Underwood, ND. Samples of each ingredient<br />

were collected monthly and submitted to a commercial laboratory for dry matter, NEm, NEg, crude<br />

protein, fat, sulfur, calcium, and phosphorous. Water samples tested contained 74 mg/l sulfates, which<br />

is very low.<br />

Inorganic salt could become useful in high-sulfur distillers grains diets.<br />

Page 8 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. Ration for cattle fed sulfur-mitigating inorganic salt.<br />

Ingredient Percent, DM basis Percent, As Fed<br />

Corn # 2 62.00 50.83<br />

Dist grains, wet 20.00 34.84<br />

Straw 10.00 8.20<br />

Canola meal 5.00 3.87<br />

Supplement 2.00 1.55<br />

Calcium carbonate 1.00 0.71<br />

Total, Percent 100 100<br />

Nutrient content<br />

Dry Matter, %<br />

NEg, Mcal/lb<br />

Crude Protein, %<br />

Calcium, %<br />

Phosphorous, %<br />

Potassium, %<br />

Sulfur, %<br />

69.68<br />

62.71<br />

13.61<br />

0.64<br />

0.35<br />

0.59<br />

0.36<br />

All calves were weighed individually at the start of the trial on March 14, 2009, and when the trial was<br />

completed and the cattle went to market on May 4. Dry-matter intake, gain, and feed efficiency were<br />

calculated for each animal and averaged for each pen and for each treatment. Cattle were marketed<br />

as a group.<br />

Results<br />

The base diet fed in this study was 0.36% sulfur, with distillers grains as the primary source of sulfur.<br />

The primary question of the study was to determine if the inorganic salt product had any negative effect<br />

on feed intake or animal performance. There were insufficient replications to conduct confident<br />

statistical comparisons so the raw data is reported on a pen and sex-of-calf basis. The results of this<br />

field study (Table 3) suggest that feed intake was not affected. While this cannot be deduced from the<br />

limited replications, numerical values suggest some potential for positive effects on intake and gain<br />

from the addition of the inorganic salt. No health issues or illnesses were observed for the calves<br />

during the 50-day feeding period.<br />

Page 9 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Performance of feeder cattle fed<br />

inorganic salt product for sulfur mitigation.<br />

Control<br />

Inorganic<br />

Salt<br />

No. head<br />

Heifers 11 11<br />

Steers 12 12<br />

Start wt., lb.<br />

Heifers 957.4 960.7<br />

Steers 987.5 971.4<br />

AVG 972.5 966.1<br />

End wt., lb.<br />

Heifers 1125.5 1135.3<br />

Steers 1141.1 1159.7<br />

AVG 1133.3 1147.5<br />

DMI, lb/hd/day<br />

Heifers 22.73 22.52<br />

Steers 20.89 23.76<br />

AVG 22.07 23.18<br />

ADG, lb/hd/day<br />

Heifers 3.40 3.65<br />

Steers 3.49 3.50<br />

AVG 3.45 3.58<br />

Feed Efficiency (DM/gain)<br />

Heifers 6.68 6.16<br />

Steers 5.99 6.78<br />

AVG 6.41 6.48<br />

As distillers grains continue to be a significant feed source and sulfuric acid is used in the process, a<br />

product such as the inorganic salt could become useful especially in scenarios where ethanol plants<br />

produce high-sulfur distillers grains or where the price of distillers grains is low enough to use at more<br />

than nominal levels. More research is needed to prove the efficacy of this product, however, followed<br />

by commercial availability and documented economic advantages.<br />

Page 10 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Influence of Thiamin Supplementation on Hydrogen Sulfide Gas<br />

Concentrations in Ruminants Fed High-Sulfur Diets<br />

B.W. Neville 1 , C.S. Schauer 2 , and G.P. Lardy 1<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Hettinger Research Extension Center<br />

The objective of this research was to evaluate the influence of thiamin supplementation on hydrogen<br />

sulfide gas concentration and ruminal pH in lambs fed high-sulfur diets. Moderate levels of thiamin<br />

supplementation seem to decrease hydrogen sulfide concentrations. Our data suggests that changes<br />

in ruminal hydrogen sulfide concentration cannot be attributed solely to ruminal pH and are likely<br />

affected by multiple factors that interact within the ruminal environment and in the animal.<br />

Summary<br />

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of increasing levels of thiamin supplementation on<br />

ruminal gas cap hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentration and pH in lambs. Twenty crossbred lambs (84.5<br />

± 7 pounds) were adapted in 28 days to a finishing diet consisting of (dry-matter [DM] basis) 60% dried<br />

distillers grains with solubles, 21.4% corn, 15% alfalfa hay and 3.6 % supplement. Treatment diets<br />

differed in the amount of supplemental thiamin supplied; diets were formulated to provide: 1) CON (no<br />

supplemental thiamin), 2) LOW (50 milligrams per head per day [mg·hd -1 ·d -1 ] thiamin), 3) MED (100<br />

mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), 4) HIGH (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin) or 5) HIGH+S (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin with<br />

dietary sulfur [S] increased from 0.71 percent to 0.87 percent (DM basis) with the addition of dilute<br />

sulfuric acid to dried distillers grains with solubles [DDGS]). Thiamin supplementation was based on an<br />

estimated daily dry-matter intake (DMI) of 3 lb.·hd -1 ·d -1 .<br />

Hydrogen sulfide and rumen fluid pH were collected via rumen puncture on day minus 6, minus 4, 0, 3,<br />

7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28 and 31. No differences in H2S concentration (P > 0.10) among treatments<br />

were apparent until day 10, at which point lambs fed LOW had lower H2S concentrations than all other<br />

treatments. Lambs fed HIGH had the greatest concentrations of H2S on day 31 (7,700 parts per million<br />

[ppm] H2S; P < 0.009). Ruminal pH for lambs fed CON and MED were not different from day 0<br />

throughout sampling (P > 0.18). Ruminal pH of LOW, HIGH and HIGH+S groups decreased (P < 0.03)<br />

through time. Thiamin appears to influence ruminal H2S concentrations, although the mechanism by<br />

which this occurred remains unknown. Changes in H2S concentration cannot be attributed solely to<br />

ruminal pH and likely are affected by multiple factors that interact within the ruminal environment and in<br />

the animal.<br />

Introduction<br />

One of the challenges with use of ethanol coproducts is the potential for high dietary S levels. High S<br />

diets can cause polioencephalomalacia (PEM) in ruminants. Inclusion of large percentages of<br />

coproduct feeds, such as dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), in finishing rations has been<br />

avoided, in part, due to problems with PEM as well as concerns about optimal animal performance and<br />

carcass characteristics. Thiamin supplementation is one proposed method of reducing or preventing<br />

PEM in ruminant animals. The efficacy of thiamin supplementation in preventing PEM likely is<br />

impacted by the mechanisms by which PEM is caused (for example, long-term thiamin deficiency or<br />

high hydrogen sulfide gas concentration). Further, the effect and dose of thiamin necessary to prevent<br />

such cases of PEM requires more investigation. Hydrogen sulfide gas, as previously mentioned, has<br />

been implicated as a cause of PEM in ruminants. Both high-sulfur feed (Niles et al., 2002) and water<br />

(Loneragan et al., 2005) sources can cause increases in H2S production. No published literature that<br />

evaluates the effect of dietary thiamin concentrations on ruminal H2S gas concentration is available.<br />

Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the effect of increasing level of thiamin supplementation on<br />

Page 11 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


uminal gas cap H2S concentration and ruminal pH in lambs being adapted to a finishing diet containing<br />

60% DDGS.<br />

Procedures<br />

Twenty western white-face wether lambs (84.5 ± 7 pounds) were sampled during the adaptation period<br />

(receiving ration to a final finishing ration). Adaptation was accomplished by increasing the amount of<br />

concentrate on a weekly basis; adaptation diets are outlined in Table 1. The final finishing diet was<br />

balanced to contain 60% DDGS (DM basis; Table 2). Treatment diets differed in the amount of<br />

supplemental thiamin supplied; diets were formulated to provide: 1) CON (no supplemental thiamin), 2)<br />

LOW (50 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), 3) MED (100 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), 4) HIGH (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin) or 5)<br />

HIGH+S (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin with dietary S increased from 0.71 percent to 0.87 percent (DM basis)<br />

with the addition of dilute sulfuric acid to DDGS). Thiamin supplementation was based on an estimated<br />

daily DMI of 3 lb·hd -1 ·d -1 . Feed was offered daily on an ad libitum basis with refusals collected and<br />

weighed weekly.<br />

Table 1. Adaptation diets fed to lambs (% DM basis).<br />

Ingredient, %<br />

Arrival Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5<br />

day -6 day 0 day 7 day 14 day 21 day 28<br />

Alfalfa Hay 46 46 46 35 25 15<br />

Corn 50.38 35.88 21.38 21.38 21.38 21.38<br />

DDGS 0 14.5 29 40 50 60<br />

Supplement 1<br />

3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.62<br />

1 Supplement contained: (% of total diet DM) 0.5% ammonium chloride, 2.25% limestone,<br />

0.085% lasalocid, 0.78% trace mineral and 0.002% copper sulfate, and was formulated to<br />

provide one of four levels of thiamin (0, 50, 100 or 150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 ).<br />

Page 12 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. Ingredient and nutritional composition (DM basis) of final finishing rations<br />

fed to lambs.<br />

Item CON LOW MED HIGH HIGH+S<br />

Ingredient ,%<br />

Alfalfa Hay 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0<br />

Corn 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4 21.4<br />

DDGS 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0<br />

Supplement 2<br />

3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6<br />

Nutrient 3<br />

CP, % 23.3 23.6 23.4 22.7 23.5<br />

ADF, % 10.8 11.0 11.6 11.6 11.3<br />

S, % 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9<br />

Ca, % 1.6 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.8<br />

P, % 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9<br />

Thiamin 4<br />

0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 150.0<br />

1 Treatments: CON (no supplemental thiamin), LOW (50 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), MED (100 mg·hd -1 ·d -1<br />

thiamin), HIGH (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin) and HIGH+S (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin with 0.87% S).<br />

2 Supplement (% total diet): 0.5% ammonium chloride, 2.25% limestone, 0.085% lasalocid, 0.78%<br />

sheep mineral 12 (Hubbard Feeds, Mankato, Minn.), 0.002% copper sulfate and 0, 0.004, 0.007 or<br />

0.11% thiamin mononitrate.<br />

3<br />

Laboratory analysis of nutrient concentration.<br />

4<br />

Formulated level (ppm), thiamin inclusion in diet calculated based on an estimated DMI of 3.0<br />

lb·hd -1 ·d -1 .<br />

Treatments 1<br />

Sampling for ruminal H2S was conducted on 12 occasions beginning six days prior to initiation of<br />

treatment diets. Gas cap samples from these lambs were collected on day minus 6, minus 4, 0, 3, 7,<br />

10, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28 and 31 of the feeding period. Hydrogen sulfide gas was measured on H2S<br />

detector tubes (GASTEC © , Kanagawa, Japan). Ruminal fluid was collected at the same time for<br />

determination of rumen fluid pH.<br />

Results<br />

The influence of hydrogen sulfide gas on incidence of PEM in ruminants could be impacted by the way<br />

H2S concentration changes during adaptation to finishing rations. In the present study, no differences<br />

in H2S concentration among treatments (P > 0.10; Table 3) were apparent until day 10, at which point<br />

lambs fed LOW had lower H2S concentrations than all other treatments. At this point in adaptation, the<br />

amount of roughage included in the diet had not changed although the inclusion of DDGS had<br />

increased from 0% to 29% of dietary DM. Those lambs fed the HIGH treatment diet showed the most<br />

dramatic increases in ruminal H2S concentration; on day 21 of adaptation, dietary hay was decreased<br />

from 35% to 25% and DDGS increased from 40% to 50% of dietary DM. During the course of the next<br />

three days, ruminal H2S concentration increased by more than 3,000 ppm and within seven days had<br />

increased by 4,700 ppm H2S.<br />

Page 13 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Influence of thiamin and sulfur level on hydrogen sulfide production in<br />

lambs fed a 60% DDGS-based finishing diet.<br />

Day CON LOW MED HIGH<br />

-6 0 0 0 190.6<br />

-4 66.7 0 112.5 25<br />

0 71.5 0 146.9 71.9<br />

3 531.3 375 310.5 737.5<br />

7 778.1 575 759.4 1,237.5<br />

10 2,200.0 a<br />

887.5 b<br />

2,200.0 a<br />

2,453.1 a<br />

14 2,390.6 a<br />

1,087.5 b<br />

1,875.0 a<br />

1,906.3 a<br />

17 2,852.6 a<br />

1,418.8 b<br />

2,609.4 a<br />

21 3,312.5 a<br />

1,531.3 c<br />

2,328.1 abc<br />

24 2,062.5 a<br />

3,287.5 b<br />

3,275.0 b<br />

4,991.6 c<br />

28 4,687.5 a<br />

2,662.5 b<br />

2,906.3 b<br />

6,657.8 c<br />

31 5,687.5 a<br />

2,650.0 b<br />

Treatment 1,2<br />

3,843.8 c<br />

2,406.3 ab<br />

1,958.2 bc<br />

7,701.3 d<br />

abc Means with different superscripts within a row differ at P < 0.10.<br />

Page 14 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report<br />

HIGH+S<br />

75<br />

28.1<br />

93.8<br />

475<br />

1,350.0<br />

2,378.1 a<br />

2,015.6 a<br />

2,406.3 ab<br />

3,140.6 ab<br />

3,046.9 ab<br />

4,390.6 a<br />

4,859.4 ac<br />

1 Treatments: CON (no supplemental thiamin), LOW (50 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), MED (100<br />

mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin), HIGH (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin) and HIGH+S (150 mg·hd -1 ·d -1 thiamin<br />

with 0.87% S).<br />

2 When tube measurement was below 100 ppm, tube was considered to read 0.<br />

While the hydrogen sulfide concentrations in the lambs did not reach the levels in steers reported by<br />

Niles et al. (2002), the peak concentrations were above those reported by Loneragan et al. (2005); both<br />

of these studies had steers with positive cases of PEM. These results indicate that the concentration of<br />

H2S required to cause symptoms of PEM may vary depending on species.<br />

Of further interest is the way the H2S concentration in lambs fed HIGH+S changed during adaptation.<br />

Specifically, on days 7, 14 and 21, the concentration of H2S was greater in HIGH+S than HIGH;<br />

however, after three days of adaptation (days 10, 17, 24) the concentration of ruminal H2S from<br />

HIGH+S was lower or equal to that found in HIGH fed lambs.<br />

Multiple factors influence the conversion of dietary S into H2S in the rumen during adaptation. Among<br />

these are decreases in ruminal fluid pH, increases in the proportion of sulfur-reducing bacteria and<br />

increases in dietary S. In this study, ruminal pH did not differ among treatments (P = 0.13) at any time<br />

point (data not shown). Lambs fed CON and MED were not different from day 0 throughout sampling<br />

(P > 0.18). However, ruminal pH of LOW, HIGH and HIGH+S groups did decrease (P < 0.03) through<br />

time. Decreases in ruminal pH also may impact incidence of PEM by other means.<br />

Our research suggests that thiamin may influence ruminal H2S concentrations, but we did not<br />

investigate the fate of the H2S. Further, our data suggests that changes in ruminal hydrogen sulfide<br />

concentration cannot be attributed solely to ruminal pH and likely are affected by multiple factors that<br />

interact within the ruminal environment and in the animal.


Literature Cited<br />

Loneragan, G, D. Gould, J. Wagner, F. Garry and M. Thoren. 2005. The magnitude and patterns of<br />

ruminal hydrogen sulfide production, blood thiamin concentration, and mean pulmonary arterial<br />

pressure in feedlot steers consuming water of different sulfate concentrations. The Bovine<br />

Practitioner. 39:16-22.<br />

Niles, G.A., S. Morgan, W.C. Edwards and D. Lalman. 2002. Effects of dietary sulfur concentrations on<br />

the incidence and pathology of polioencephalomalacia in weaned beef calves. Vet. Human Toxicol.<br />

44(2):70-72.<br />

An Evaluation of a Mixed Co-product Protein Feed in Finishing Rations<br />

V.L. Anderson and B.R. Ilse<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

Introduction<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> produces approximately three million tons of co-product feeds in a year including<br />

significant amounts of soybean meal and soybean hulls. Historically, we have exported these feed<br />

ingredients individually to feed markets around the world. Most of the multitude of co-products have<br />

some unique properties that could be improved upon by mixing with other co-products to improve<br />

nutritional and physical properties. Mixing three or more co-product feeds together and pelleting the<br />

mixture creates a new feed commodity. The nutrient content of the new feed is obviously based on the<br />

formulation which can potentially be adapted to specific market opportunities. The new pelleted<br />

commodities have greater bulk density for shipping advantages. They also may be more flexible in end<br />

use, nutrient profile, longer shelf life, improved flow properties, simplified feeding for end users, and<br />

improved safety.<br />

Experimental Procedures<br />

Steer calves (n=176) from 43 different ranches belonging to the <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Club at Turtle<br />

Lake, ND, were consigned to the Carrington Research Extension center in the fall of 2008. Each ranch<br />

consigned three to eight steers for the feedout project to observe the feedlot performance and carcass<br />

value from their respective breeding program. After a preconditioning program, steers were individually<br />

weighed, blocked by weight and allotted within weight block to one of four treatments. Steers from<br />

each ranch were allotted to different treatments to reduce ―ranch‖ effects. The treatments were<br />

designed to provide increasing levels of a mixed co-product ―superfeed‖ formulated with 50% soybean<br />

meal, 35 percent distillers grains, and 15 percent field peas.The co-product protein supplement was<br />

manufactured by the <strong>North</strong>ern Crops Institute feed production center in Fargo, ND. This 35 percent<br />

crude protein feed was included in the treatment diets at 0, 5, 10, and 15 percent of the dry matter as a<br />

protein supplement. Canola meal was used as the control protein source. Ration formulations are<br />

provided in Table 1. A totally-mixed corn-based ration was fed to appetite daily in fenceline bunks.<br />

Steers were provided wind protection and bedded during the relatively severe winter. Steers were<br />

weighed every 28 days with feed intake summarized for each weigh period. Feed efficiency was<br />

calculated based on average dry matter intake and average daily gain for each period and overall.<br />

Steers were marketed to Tyson Meats, <strong>Dakota</strong> City, NE on May 6, after evaluation by visual appraisal<br />

that 60% or more would grade USDA Choice. Carcass traits were evaluated after a 24-hour chill by<br />

trained personnel.<br />

Page 15 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1. Rations for steers fed increasing coproduct formulation as protein supplement.<br />

Treatment<br />

Ingredient 0% 5% 10% 15%<br />

Percent, Dry matter basis<br />

Corn, dry rolled 69.2 69.3 69.4 69.5<br />

Co-product protein suppl 0.0 5.0 10.1 15.2<br />

Canola meal 15.6 10.4 5.2 0.0<br />

Straw, chopped 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9<br />

Corn silage 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6<br />

Calcium carbonate 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5<br />

Suppl (Rumensin, vit, min) 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3<br />

Nutrient Content<br />

Dry Matter, % 78.78 78.67 78.77 78.66<br />

Neg, Mcal/lb 60.33 61.51 62.72 63.91<br />

Crude Protein, % 13.94 13.64 13.39 13.11<br />

Calcium, % 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.41<br />

Phosphorous, % 0.40 0.39 0.37 0.35<br />

Potassium, % 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

Despite the severe winter weather, steer performance in all treatment groups was very satisfactory. We<br />

observed no statistical difference between the treatments in this trial for any of the feedlot performance<br />

measures (Table 2). The energy density (NEg) increased slightly as the proportion of ―superfeed‖<br />

increased in the ration, however, protein content decreased from 13.94 to 13.11 percent from 0 to 15<br />

percent superfeed. Feed intake for the steers in the respective treatments was 21.01, 22.10, 22.43,<br />

and 22.47 for 0, 5, 10, and 15 percent superfeed treatments. Gains throughout the feeding period<br />

averaged 3.65, 3.68, 3.67, and 3.85 respectively, for 0, 5, 10, and 15 percent superfeed in the diet.<br />

Feed efficiency (feed per gain) was calculated at 4.84, 5.17, 5.24, and 4.80 for increasing superfeed.<br />

Despite severe winter weather, steer performance was very satisfactory.<br />

Page 16 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. <strong>Feedlot</strong> performance of cattle fed mixed coproduct supplement (CPS) at increasing levels.<br />

Percent Co-Product supplement Contrasts<br />

Item<br />

Live Wt, lbs<br />

0% 5% 10% 15% Std. Error P-Value<br />

CPS vs.<br />

no CPS linear quadratic<br />

Initial Wt (29-Jan) 963.8 988.5 971.6 957.9 39.7 0.24 0.51 0.50 0.14<br />

Period 1 Wt. (25-Feb) 1071.4 1093.1 1082.1 1074.5 43.8 0.60 0.42 0.99 0.28<br />

Period 2 Wt. (06-Apr) 1209.6 1237.1 1215.7 1219.8 40.7 0.60 0.41 0.89 0.46<br />

Period 3 Final Wt. (06-May) 1314.4<br />

DM Intake, lb/hd/day<br />

1346.4 1321.6 1328.1 42.7 0.57 0.38 0.83 0.47<br />

Period 1 19.05 19.92 20.45 20.65 1.38 0.87 0.44 0.41 0.82<br />

Period 2 21.92 23.06 23.09 22.96 1.18 0.87 0.42 0.55 0.60<br />

Period 3 22.08 23.31 23.73 23.80 0.91 0.54 0.19 0.22 0.56<br />

Overall DMI 21.02 22.10 22.43 22.47 1.16 0.80 0.34 0.38 0.67<br />

Average Daily Gain, lb/hd/day<br />

Period 1 (27d) 3.98 3.88 4.04 4.33 0.21 0.48 0.67 0.22 0.40<br />

Period 2 (40d) 3.45 3.63 3.67 3.63 0.16 0.65 0.65 0.72 0.81<br />

Period 3 (30d) 3.48 3.65 3.60 3.60 0.29 0.98 0.69 0.81 0.78<br />

Overall ADG<br />

Feed Efficiency<br />

3.65 3.68 3.67 3.85 0.11 0.57 0.55 0.27 0.51<br />

Gain:Feed Period 1 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.93 0.86 0.85 0.76<br />

Gain:Feed Period 2 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.01 0.92 0.83 0.93 0.63<br />

Gain:Feed Period 3 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.99 0.78 0.72 0.99<br />

Overall G:F 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.01 0.99 0.75 0.90 0.75<br />

Feed:Gain Period 1 4.84 5.17 5.24 4.80 0.56 0.91 0.72 0.98 0.50<br />

Feed:Gain Period 2 6.45 6.41 6.86 6.34 0.41 0.81 0.85 0.94 0.56<br />

Feed:Gain Period 3 6.48 6.55 6.79 6.66 0.60 0.99 0.79 0.78 0.88<br />

Overall F:G 5.79 5.97 6.17 5.83 0.37 0.90 0.65 0.84 0.51<br />

Carcass traits were similar except for backfat and USDA Yield Grade (Table 3). The steers on 5<br />

percent superfeed had more backfat than 10 percent superfeed with 0, and 15 percent treatment steers<br />

intermediate. Yield Grade was lowest for the 10% treatment, and highest for the 5 percent treatment<br />

with 0 and 15 percent intermediate. Marbling scores were not statistically different, but we observed a<br />

numerical increase in the percent USDA Choice carcasses with increasing superfeeds. The number of<br />

choice or better carcasses was 61.36, 67.44, 76.74, and 77.27 percent respectively, for 0, 5, 10, and 15<br />

percent superfeed. This factor could have significant value for the feeder as the value of a lean choice<br />

carcass such as observed with 10 percent superfeed would be attractive to the industry and return<br />

greater value per pound.<br />

Page 17 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Carcass traits of cattle fed mixed coproduct protein supplement at increasing levels.<br />

Percent Co-Product supplement Contrasts<br />

Item 0% 5% 10% 15% Std. Error P-Value CPS vs. no CPS linear quadratic<br />

Hot Carcass Wt., lbs. 789.2 820.8 794.2 806.5 25.09 0.31 0.23 0.65 0.46<br />

Dressing Percent 63.25 64.18 63.26 63.95 0.38 0.39 0.11 0.32 0.26<br />

Back Fat, in 0.40 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.03 0.02 0.78 0.47 0.59<br />

Ribeye Area, sq in 13.50 13.62 13.62 13.71 0.27 0.85 0.47 0.43 0.93<br />

Kidney Pelvic Heart, % 2.43 2.43 2.44 2.42 0.02 0.94 0.94 0.75 0.66<br />

USDA Yield Grade* 2.66 2.90 2.51 2.71 0.10 0.07 0.67 0.50 0.84<br />

Marbling Score** 421.8 434.9 445.7 438.9 16.04 0.79 0.36 0.41 0.56<br />

Percent Choice*** 61.36 67.44 76.74 77.27 - - - - -<br />

* USDA Yield Grade is a calculated value that is determined by a formula comparing fat to lean muscle in the carcass.<br />

** Marbling score is based on intermuscular fat in the ribeye: 400-499 = low Choice , 500-599 = Avg Choice.<br />

*** Percent choice was not statisitically analyzed.<br />

Implications<br />

The results of this study suggest that a mixed co-product ―superfeed‖ may be successfully marketed<br />

based on animal performance and especially based on percentage of USDA Choice carcasses. The<br />

ease of use, safety, and handling properties of this pelleted commodity are superior to any single feed<br />

ingredient. Using soybean meal as a base ingredient helps increase the value of the meal and diversify<br />

the market potential to other species or production scenarios. This study gives confidence to livestock<br />

producers interested in using a combinatorial feed comprised of multiple co-products. It remains to be<br />

seen if feed manufacturing businesses are interested in developing commodities from combining coproducts<br />

into commercial pelleted feeds to produce products that can be labeled as <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

―Superfeed.‖<br />

Effects of Dried Distillers Grains With Solubles on Growing and Finishing<br />

Steer Intake, Performance, Carcass Characteristics, Color and Sensory<br />

Attributes<br />

J.L. Leupp 1 , G.P. Lardy 1 , M.L. Bauer 1 , K.K. Karges 2 , M.L. Gibson 2 , J.S. Caton 1 and R.J. Maddock 1<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

2 <strong>Dakota</strong> Gold Research Association, Sioux Falls, SD<br />

The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of dried distillers grains with solubles on<br />

growing and finishing performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality traits. These data suggest<br />

dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) can be included at 30 percent dietary dry matter (DM) in<br />

both the growing and finishing period, partially replacing dry-rolled corn, with no detrimental effects on<br />

performance, carcass characteristics or sensory attributes, although DDGS may affect color negatively.<br />

Summary<br />

Seventy-two crossbred and purebred beef steers (653 ± 20 pounds initial body weight [BW]) were used<br />

in a completely randomized design to determine effects of dried distillers grains with solubles (29.2%<br />

crude protein [CP], 9.7% fat, DM basis; DDGS) on growing and finishing steer intake, performance,<br />

carcass and meat quality traits. The study contained two feeding periods, growing and finishing, which<br />

resulted in four treatments: 0:0, 30:0, 0:30 and 30:30 (diet DDGS percentage fed during growing and<br />

Page 18 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


finishing periods, respectively). Steers were fed individually a growing diet (65% concentrate) for 57<br />

days then acclimated to and fed a finishing diet (90% concentrate) for 80 or 145 days. Dietary<br />

ingredients included dry-rolled corn, corn silage, grass hay, concentrated separator byproduct and<br />

supplement.<br />

During the growing period, dry-matter intake (DMI) was not different (P ≥ 0.63). Steer performance,<br />

including average daily gain (ADG) and gain:feed (G:F), were not affected (P ≥ 0.14) by treatment<br />

during the growing period and final BW at the end of the growing period was not different (P = 0.99).<br />

During the finishing period, DMI, ADG and G:F were not different (P ≥ 0.22). As a result, final BW was<br />

not different (P ≥ 0.28). Carcass traits (ribeye area; 12th rib fat; kidney, pelvic and heart fat (KPH);<br />

yield grade; and marbling) were not different (P ≥ 0.16).<br />

Results from the trained panel indicated no differences (P ≥ 0.16) in tenderness; however, steaks from<br />

steers fed 30% DDGS during the finishing period tended (P = 0.10) to be juicier and more flavorful than<br />

steaks from control steers. Inclusion of 30% DDGS in the growing period tended to lower L (muscle<br />

lightness) (P = 0.08) and lowered B (muscle yellowness) (P = 0.01) of steaks. Overall feeding of DDGS<br />

lowered B (P = 0.02) compared with feeding dry-rolled corn (0:0). Feeding DDGS during the finishing<br />

period lowered A (muscle redness) (P < 0.001) of steaks. Furthermore, overall feeding of DDGS<br />

lowered A (P < 0.001) compared with feeding dry-rolled corn (0:0). Feeding 30% DDGS did not impact<br />

any performance or carcass characteristics but did influence steak sensory attributes and color.<br />

Introduction<br />

Dried distillers grains with solubles can be used as a protein and energy source depending on the<br />

amount included in the diet (Ham et al., 1994). Feeding up to 40% wet or dry distillers grains in<br />

growing and finishing diets improves ADG and G:F in steers compared with feeding dry-rolled corn only<br />

(Ham et al., 1994).<br />

<strong>Beef</strong> consumers want a high-quality product that is tender, juicy and flavorful. Research is limited in<br />

evaluating effects of feeding DDGS to growing and finishing steers on meat quality. Roeber et al.<br />

(2005) fed finishing Holstein steers up to 50% dried distillers grains (DDG) and reported no differences<br />

in tenderness or sensory traits compared with corn-based diets.<br />

Little quantitative information is available on the effects of short- and long-term feeding of DDGS to<br />

steers on performance and carcass quality. Therefore, our objectives were to determine the effects of<br />

DDGS on growing and finishing steer intake, performance, carcass characteristics, color and sensory<br />

attributes.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

Seventy-two crossbred and purebred beef steers were used in a completely randomized design. The<br />

study contained two feeding periods, growing and finishing, which resulted in four treatments: 0:0, 30:0,<br />

0:30 and 30:30 (diet DDGS percentage fed during growing and finishing periods, respectively). Steers<br />

were fed individually a growing diet (65% concentrate) for 57 days then acclimated for 14 days to a<br />

finishing diet (90% concentrate) and fed for 80 or 145 days. Diets were based on dry-rolled corn, corn<br />

silage, grass hay, concentrated separator byproduct and supplement (Table 1). Diets included 27.5<br />

parts per million (ppm) of Rumensin and 11 ppm of Tylan and were formulated to contain a minimum of<br />

12.5 percent CP, 0.70 percent calcium (Ca) and 0.30 percent phosphorus (P).<br />

Page 19 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1. Formulated dietary composition of growing and finishing diets containing 0 or 30<br />

percent corn dried distillers grains with solubles offered to beef steers (% dietary DM).<br />

0% DDGS 1<br />

30% DDGS 0% DDGS 1<br />

Diet, % of dietary DM<br />

Growing Finishing<br />

Item<br />

30% DDGS<br />

Dry-rolled corn 50 20 80 50<br />

DDGS — 30 — 30<br />

Corn silage 20 20 5 5<br />

Grass hay 20 20 5 5<br />

CSB 2<br />

5 5 5 5<br />

Wheat middlings 2.18 2.53 1.00 2.18<br />

Soybean meal — — 1.00 —<br />

Limestone 1.40 2.10 1.58 2.45<br />

Urea 0.75 — 0.75 —<br />

Dicalcium phosphate 0.30 — 0.30 —<br />

Salt 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25<br />

Trace mineral premix 3<br />

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05<br />

Vitamin A, D premix 4<br />

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02<br />

Vitamin E premix 5<br />

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02<br />

Monensin premix 6<br />

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02<br />

Tylosin premix 7<br />

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01<br />

---------------Analyzed composition---------------<br />

Crude Protein 12.80 17.90 16.10 22.70<br />

Neutral Detergent Fiber 37.30 39.50 26.10 33.20<br />

Acid Detergent Fiber 20.30 18.50 9.40 10.00<br />

Calcium 1.23 1.23 1.87 2.13<br />

Phosphorus 0.32 0.44 0.54 0.71<br />

1 Dried distillers grains with solubles; nutrient content of DDGS used averaged 29.2% CP, 34.7%<br />

NDF, 9.5% ADF, 9.7% crude fat, 0.03% Ca and 0.81% P.<br />

2<br />

Concentrated separator byproduct (de-sugared molasses).<br />

3 Contained 250 ppm Co, 25.6 ppt Cu, 1.05 ppt I, 6.50 ppt Fe, 40.0 ppt Mn and 160 ppt Zn.<br />

4 Contained 22.0 kIU/pound vitamin A and 2.10 kIU/pound vitamin D.<br />

5 Contained 20 IU/kg vitamin E.<br />

6<br />

Contained 176.4 ppt monensin (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Ind.) to provide 27.5 ppm of<br />

dietary DM.<br />

7<br />

Contained 88.2 ppt tylosin (Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, Ind.) to provide 11 ppm of dietary DM.<br />

Steers were assigned to treatment and fed individually. Steers received a Ralgro implant on day 0 and<br />

Revalor IS on day 60. Final weights were calculated from hot carcass weight (HCW) using an average<br />

dressing percentage of 62.5 percent and a 4 percent shrink. Average daily gain and G:F were<br />

Page 20 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


calculated based on this data. Cattle were sent to a commercial abattoir for slaughter on either March<br />

24 or May 28. Steers marketed on March 24 were estimated to have at least 0.4 inch backfat as<br />

measured by ultrasound. The remaining steers were marketed on May 28 when the majority of the<br />

steers had an estimated 0.4 inch backfat as measured by ultrasound.<br />

One steak from each steer was used for simulated retail display shelf-life analysis. A colorimeter was<br />

used to measure longissimus lean L (muscle lightness), A (muscle redness) and B (muscle yellowness)<br />

color space values through the overwrap polyvinyl chloride (PVC) film for each postmortem display day<br />

at 9 a.m. each day.<br />

One steak from each steer was used for evaluation of tenderness using the Warner-Bratzler shear<br />

force machine (WBSF). Steaks were thawed for 24 hours at 35° Fahrenheit, weighed and then cooked<br />

in clamshell-style grills at 350° F until the steaks reached an internal temperature of 158° F. Six 0.5inch<br />

cores from each steak were removed parallel to the muscle fiber.<br />

Sensory panel analysis was conducted with a trained panel. Steaks were thawed at 35° F for 24 hours<br />

and cooked as previously described for WBSF evaluation. Steaks then were cut into pieces of<br />

approximately 0.5 by 0.5 by 1 inch and served to panelists for evaluation. Panelists scored 10 samples<br />

each day using an 8-point scale where 1 equaled extremely tough, dry and bland and 8 equaled<br />

extremely tender, juicy and intense beef flavor.<br />

Results<br />

During the growing period, two steers from the 30% DDGS treatment were removed from the study due<br />

to conditions unrelated to treatment. One steer was removed prior to initiation of treatments and the<br />

other removed due to chronic bloat; therefore, 70 steers were used during the growing period. Steers<br />

were fed growing diets for 57 days. Initial BW of steers was not different (P = 0.57) and averaged 653 ±<br />

20 pounds. Steer performance, including DMI (22.5 lbs./d), ADG (3.85 lbs./d) and G:F (0.17 lbs./lb.)<br />

were not affected (P ≥ 0.14) by treatment during the growing period. Final BW at the end of the<br />

growing period also was not different (P = 0.99) and averaged 937 ± 13 pounds.<br />

Three steers were removed from the data set due to low feed intakes during the finishing portion of the<br />

trial. Two of the steers removed were on the 30 percent DDGS treatment and one steer was from the 0<br />

percent DDGS treatment. Days fed during the finishing period were not different (P ≥ 0.27; Table 2)<br />

across treatments and averaged 102 ± 8 days. No treatment differences (P ≥ 0.22) were observed for<br />

DMI, ADG or G:F. Ham et al. (1994) fed cattle 40 percent DDGS, which partially replaced dry-rolled<br />

corn in finishing diets, and observed improved ADG and G:F when compared with cattle consuming<br />

dry-rolled corn diets. In the current study, no differences (P ≥ 0.28) in final BW were observed.<br />

Similar to final BW, no differences were found in HCW (P ≥ 0.28; 791 ± 22 lbs.; Table 2). Longissimus<br />

muscle area (12.1 ± 0.5 inch 2 ), 12th rib fat thickness (0.50 ± 0.04 inch) and KPH (2.48 ± 0.16%) were<br />

not different (P ≥ 0.16); therefore, no differences (P ≥ 0.35; 3.33 ± 0.17) were observed for yield grade.<br />

No differences (P ≥ 0.43) were observed for marbling, which averaged 431 (small 0 = 400; Table 2).<br />

Page 21 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. Performance and carcass characteristics of steers fed growing and finishing diets containing<br />

0 or 30 percent corn dried distillers grains with solubles.<br />

Item 0:00 30:00:00 0:30 30:30:00 SEM 2<br />

Growing Finishing<br />

Corn vs.<br />

DDGS 4<br />

Steers, number 18 15 16 18 — — — —<br />

Days on Feed 99 106 97 106 8 0.27 0.87 0.61<br />

Performance<br />

Final BW, lb. 1193 1226 1204 1239 33.00 0.28 0.73 0.41<br />

DMI, lb./hd/d 18.40 18.80 19.90 17.60 1.50 0.51 0.92 0.80<br />

ADG, lb./hd/d 3.46 3.22 3.51 3.40 0.15 0.22 0.48 0.58<br />

G:F, lb./lb. 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.03 0.91 0.89 0.52<br />

Carcass Characteristics<br />

HCW, lb. 798 783 807 22.00 0.28 0.73 0.41<br />

LM area, in 2<br />

12.10 12.50 11.80 11.80 0.50 0.60 0.34 0.95<br />

12th rib fat, in 0.46 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.04 0.16 0.90 0.21<br />

KPH, % 2.41 2.60 2.44 2.47 0.16 0.46 0.73 0.59<br />

Marbling 5<br />

430 448 440 407 21.00 0.71 0.43 0.96<br />

Yield grade 3.20 3.33 3.44 3.33 0.17 0.95 0.45 0.35<br />

1 Dietary dried distillers grains with solubles percentage fed during growing and finishing periods, respectively.<br />

2 n = 15.<br />

3<br />

Growing = main effect of feeding dried distillers grains with solubles during the growing period; Finishing =<br />

main effect of feeding dried distillers grains with solubles during the finishing period; Corn vs. DDGS = feeding<br />

dry-rolled corn (0:0) vs. feeding dried distillers grains with solubles during the growing and finishing periods<br />

(30:0 + 0:30 + 30:30).<br />

4<br />

Corn distillers dried grains with solubles.<br />

5 Marbling Score: Small 0 = 400.<br />

Treatment 1<br />

Page 22 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report<br />

Contrast 3<br />

Warner-Bratzler shear force and cooking loss were not different (P ≥ 0.13) across treatments (Table 3).<br />

Results from the trained panel indicated no differences (P ≥ 0.16) in tenderness, which averaged 6.03 ±<br />

0.16 (8-point hedonic scale; Table 3); however, steaks from steers fed 30% DDGS during the finishing<br />

period tended (P = 0.10) to be juicier and more flavorful than steaks from the control steers (6.01 vs.<br />

5.83 ± 0.11 and 6.02 vs. 5.89 ± 0.08, respectively).


Table 3. Shear force, color analysis and sensory characteristics of steaks from steers fed growing<br />

and finishing diets containing 0 or 30 percent corn dried distillers grains with solubles.<br />

Item 0:00 30:00:00 0:30 30:30:00 SEM 2<br />

Growing Finishing<br />

Corn vs.<br />

DDGS 4<br />

Steaks, number 17 15 16 18 — — — —<br />

Shear force, lb. 8.20 8.49 7.98 7.52 0.49 0.86 0.19 0.68<br />

Cooking loss 5 , oz. 1.77 1.51 1.64 1.62 0.11 0.17 0.92 0.13<br />

Color 6<br />

L 49.03 48.69 48.77 48.48 0.19 0.08 0.19 0.04<br />

A 21.69 22.33 20.27 19.99 0.24 0.41


Effect of Glycerol Level in <strong>Feedlot</strong> Diets on Animal Performance and<br />

Carcass Traits<br />

B.R. Ilse 1 , V.L. Anderson 1 , T.M. Jeske², R.J. Maddock 2 , and E.P. Berg 2<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

Abstract<br />

Two separate feedlot trials were conducted (receiving and finishing) to evaluate the effects of<br />

increasing levels of glycerol on animal performance. Receiving trial steers (n = 198) were allotted by<br />

BW (622.6 ± 34.32 lbs.) in a randomized complete block design and sorted into 16 identical pens (four<br />

pens per treatment). Treatments were 0, 6, 12, and 18 percent glycerol (70% DM; water was added to<br />

reach 70% DM to increase the viscosity and decrease freezing temperature) on a DM basis replacing<br />

dry-rolled corn and co-products in the diet (55 Mcal/lb NEg). Dry matter intake was quadratically<br />

affected during the 30-d feeding period (P = 0.05) with 20.38; 21.07; 21.13; 19.47 pounds consumed for<br />

0, 6, 12, and 18 percent glycerol, respectively. Gains were not affected by glycerol level (P = 0.79) and<br />

feed efficiency was similar (P > 0.92) among treatments. Finishing trial heifers (n = 132; BW = 911.5 ±<br />

33.22 lbs.) were blocked by weight and allotted to one of 16 pens, assigned to 0, 6, 12, 18 percent<br />

glycerol (85% DM) dietary treatments (60 Mcal/lb NEg). Dry matter intake linearly decreased during the<br />

102-d feeding period with increasing glycerol level (P = 0.05; 28.11; 27.97; 27.71; 26.16 lbs. for 0, 6,<br />

12, and 18% glycerol, respectively). Gains were not affected by glycerol level (P = 0.26) during any of<br />

the four individual 28-d weigh periods or overall. Feed efficiency was also similar (P > 0.22) among<br />

treatments. If the availability of feed-grade glycerol increases with the increase in biodiesel production,<br />

glycerol could be a viable alternative to corn in feedlot diets.<br />

Key words: glycerol, beef, feedlot<br />

Introduction<br />

The glycerol (or glycerine) supply may increase dramatically throughout the <strong>North</strong>ern Plains states and<br />

Canadian provinces with the development of the biodiesel industry. Glycerol is a three-carbon alcohol<br />

produced by transesterification of vegetable oil (e.g. soybean) or animal fat. Approximately 10 percent<br />

of the original weight of the vegetable oil is converted to glycerol in the process to produce biodiesel.<br />

This glycerol or glycerine product is primarily utilized in industrial products such as cosmetics, liquid<br />

soap, antifreeze, and lubricants. If glycerol can be used successfully as a feed, beef cattle are the<br />

largest potential year-around market outlet in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>. A few research trials with dairy cattle<br />

support the use of glycerol as an energy source for ruminants, but no production feedlot research has<br />

been reported in the <strong>North</strong>ern Plains (DeFrain et al., 2004; Linke et al., 2004; Bodarski et al., 2005).<br />

Glycerol is currently used in some formulations of liquid feed products. The energy value of glycerol is<br />

about equal to corn on a pound for pound basis and therefore could be of great value for a livestock<br />

feed based on competitive pricing and availability. This trial was designed to study the effects of<br />

glycerol included as an energy source in receiving and finishing rations on animal performance.<br />

Page 24 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Feed-grade glycerol added to totally-mixed ration in a<br />

truck-mounted mixer wagon.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

Animals were housed at the Carrington Research Extension Center. Individual animals were weighed,<br />

blocked by weight and randomly allotted within block to one of four ration treatments. There were four<br />

pens or replicates for each treatment utilizing 16 pens. The four treatments included glycerol in the<br />

ration at 0, 6, 12, or 18 percent of the diet DM. The diets (Table 1) were fed as a totally-mixed ration<br />

that included wheat middlings, distillers grains, field peas, and decreasing levels of corn (60, 40, 20,<br />

and 0%, respectively). Animals were fed once daily to appetite based on morning bunk readings, with<br />

feed recorded daily and summarized for each weigh period. The average daily DMI, gain, and feed<br />

efficiency were calculated for each pen for each weigh period (~ 28 d). The glycerol for this study was<br />

donated to the CREC by Westway Feeds Products, Inc. of New Orleans, LA, and FUMPA BioFuels of<br />

Redwood Falls, MN.<br />

Receiving Ration Finishing Ration<br />

Item DM% Percent of diet DM basis Percent of diet DM basis<br />

Glycerol, % 85.1 0 6 12 18 0 6 12 18<br />

Corn, % 86.6 43 37 31 25 60 40 20 10<br />

Field Peas, % 90.7 15 15 15 15 12 12 12 12<br />

Wheat Midds, % 88.9 5 5 5 5 5 13 21 29<br />

MDGS, % b<br />

Table 1. Receiving and Finishing ration formulation with increasing levels of glycerol<br />

57.5 20 20 20 20 12 18 24 30<br />

Straw, % 85.2 15 15 15 15 8 8 8 8<br />

Rumn & MGA, % 90.0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2<br />

CaCO3, % 95.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1<br />

a .<br />

a Rations formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1996) recommendations<br />

b Modified distillers grains with solubles.<br />

Page 25 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Receiving Trial<br />

Fall 2008<br />

One hundred ninety-eight mixed breed steers (BW = 622.6 ± 34.3 lbs.) from 40 different ranches that<br />

were part of the <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf feedout program were utilized in the receiving trial. Steers were<br />

weighed individually at the initiation and completion of the receiving trial (30 d). Rations were<br />

formulated (56 Mcal/lb.) to meet or exceed NRC (1996) recommendations.<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf club steers consuming a ration<br />

with increasing levels of glycerol.<br />

Finishing Trial<br />

Summer 2008<br />

One hundred thirty-two yearling Black Angus cross heifers (BW = 911.5 ± 33.2 lbs.) were purchased<br />

from a commercial source and utilized for the finishing trial. The finishing rations (65 Mcal/lb.) were<br />

formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1996) recommendations.<br />

Glycerol levels were increased in stepped increments as follows: all glycerol treatment groups were fed<br />

the 6% glycerol ration during the first seven days of the trial; the 12 and 18% treatment groups were<br />

increased to 12% during the second week; and the 18% glycerol treatment pens were increased to the<br />

final glycerol level at the start of the third week.<br />

Heifers were weighed at 28-d intervals during the 102 days on feed. All heifers were marketed at the<br />

same time when visual appraisal of the animals determined that 60 percent would grade USDA choice.<br />

Page 26 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Heifers on glycerol finishing trial replacing corn in TMR diet up to 18%.<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

Receiving Trial<br />

Dry matter intake was quadratically affected by treatment during the 30-d feeding period (P = 0.05) with<br />

28.11; 27.97; 27.71; 26.16 pounds consumed for 0, 6, 12, and 18 percent glycerol, respectively. Gains<br />

were not affected by glycerol level (P = 0.79) and feed efficiency was similar (P = 0.92) among<br />

treatments.<br />

Table 2. Growth performance and efficiency of steers in a receiving trial with glycerol replacing corn up to 18%.<br />

Treatment % Glycerol Contrasts<br />

Item<br />

Weight, lbs.<br />

0 6 12 18 St. Error P-Value<br />

Glyc vs.<br />

No Glyc Linear Quadratic<br />

Initial Wt. 624.84 625.65 625.59 623.08 34.60 0.69 0.97 0.50 0.35<br />

Period 1 (Nov. 4) 670.33 677.16 669.20 668.58 32.50 0.53 0.80 0.90 0.42<br />

Period 2 (Dec. 4)<br />

Dry Matter Intake<br />

798.07 808.78 804.92 793.16 41.75 0.58 0.67 0.78 0.21<br />

Intake, lbs./hd/d 20.38 21.07 21.13 19.47 1.04 0.17 0.78 0.27 0.05<br />

Average Daily Gain, lbs. 4.26 4.39 4.53 4.16 0.38 0.79 0.76 0.72 0.37<br />

Finishing Trial<br />

Dry matter intake linearly decreased during the 102-d feeding period due to glycerol level (P = 0.05;<br />

28.11; 27.97; 27.71; 26.16 lbs. for 0, 6, 12, and 18% glycerol, respectively). Gains were not affected by<br />

glycerol level (P = 0.26) during any of the four individual 28-d weigh periods or overall. Feed efficiency<br />

was also similar (P = 0.22) among treatments.<br />

Page 27 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Heifer body weight averages by treatment and period, glycerol replacing corn at 0, 6, 12, and 18% of the TMR.<br />

Treatment % Glycerol Contrasts<br />

Item 0 6 12 18 St. Err P-Value<br />

Glyc vs.<br />

No Glyc Linear Quadratic<br />

Initial Wt. (June 11) 909.0 920.4 917.0 906.5 33.91 0.75 0.65 0.81 0.31<br />

Period 1 Wt. (July 9) 1018.5 1027.4 1023.0 1011.1 36.36 0.56 0.83 0.49 0.23<br />

Period 2 Wt. (Aug. 6) 1131.6 1147.9 1146.2 1126.4 39.17 0.22 0.38 0.64 0.05<br />

Perod 3 Wt. (Sept. 3) 1249.3 1257.3 1257.9 1237.3 38.27 0.39 0.89 0.40 0.15<br />

Final Live Period 4 Wt. ab<br />

1312.7 1321.7 1329.8 1299.6 46.80 0.48 0.79 0.62 0.18<br />

HCW 802.9 808.4 813.4 794.9 28.63 0.48 0.79 0.62 0.18<br />

a<br />

Final Live weigh twas back calculated from HCW 63%<br />

b Includes 3% Shrink<br />

Table 4 . Daily dry matter intake and gain of heifers receiving 0, 6, 12, and 18% glycerol finishing ration.<br />

Treatment % Glycerol Contrasts<br />

Item<br />

DM Intake (lbs.)<br />

0 6 12 18 St. Err P-Value<br />

Glyc vs.<br />

No Glyc Linear Quadratic<br />

Period 1 28.70 27.95 28.52 27.13 0.71 0.12 0.13 0.06 0.49<br />

Period 2 26.82 28.16 27.20 25.59 0.79 0.10 0.84 0.13 0.04<br />

Period 3 28.65 28.17 27.59 26.04 0.80 0.17 0.16 0.04 0.52<br />

Period 4 28.35 27.38 27.43 25.70 1.36 0.50 0.30 0.17 0.76<br />

Overall DMI 28.11 27.97 27.71 26.16 0.80 0.18 0.28 0.05 0.29<br />

AD Gain (lb./hd/d)<br />

Period 1 3.91 3.83 3.79 3.73 0.29 0.98 0.71 0.67 0.96<br />

Period 2 4.04 4.30 4.40 4.12 0.27 0.67 0.40 0.75 0.26<br />

Period 3 4.20 3.90 3.99 3.96 0.20 0.74 0.30 0.49 0.51<br />

Period 4 3.53 3.58 4.00 3.46 0.59 0.81 0.77 0.91 0.51<br />

Overall 3.92 3.90 4.04 3.82 0.21 0.77 0.99 0.82 0.51<br />

Page 28 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table. 5 Carcass traits, USDA Quality Grade and USDA Yield Grade from heifers fed glycerol at<br />

differing treatment levels.<br />

St. Err a P -value<br />

Item 0% 6% 12% 18%<br />

Hot Carcass Wt., lbs. 803.5 810.6 812.3 779.8 23.37 0.76<br />

Ribeye Area, cm² 13.08 13.63 13.42 13.55 0.24 0.40<br />

Backfat, in 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.57 0.24 0.49<br />

Kidney, Pelvic and Heart Fat 2.69 2.58 2.83 2.56 0.10 0.24<br />

Marbling Score b Treatment<br />

461 461 459 450 16.90 0.96<br />

Quality grade CH- CH - CH - CH - - -<br />

Yield grade 3.49 3.27 3.45 3.15 - -<br />

a Standard error of treatment means<br />

b Marbling score: Small 0 = 400<br />

The results of this study suggest that glycerol is an excellent energy source for finishing diets up to 18<br />

percent of dry matter intake. The fact that corn decreased from 60 percent of the diet to 0 percent while<br />

glycerol increased, along with the co-products, wheat middlings and distillers grains, indicates that high<br />

percentage co-product diets can be competitive with corn-based diets. The protein content of the diet<br />

increased with co-product level, with excess protein potentially metabolized as an energy source and<br />

the nitrogen excreted.<br />

Handling glycerol<br />

Glycerol was handled as a liquid even though the lab analysis reports it at 85 percent DM. Feed grade<br />

glycerol, a three-carbon alcohol, has a high viscosity and does not flow well in colder temperatures,<br />

essentially below freezing. The viscosity decreases and the flow properties improve when water is<br />

added to the product. Adding up to 50 percent water will improve flow properties down to -29.9° F.<br />

This practice is necessary if glycerol is to be used as a single ingredient throughout the winter. Ration<br />

adjustments must be made to account for the change in dry matter content.<br />

References<br />

Bodarski, R., T. Wertelecki, F. Bommer, S. Gosiewski. 2005. The changes of metabolic status and<br />

lacation performance in dairy cows underfeeding TMR with glycerine (glycerol) supplement at<br />

periparturient period. Animal Husbandry Vol. 8. Issue 4.<br />

DeFrain, J. M., A. R. Hippen, K. F. Kalscheur, and P. W. Jardon. 2004. Feeding glycerol to transition<br />

dairycows: Effects on blood metabolites and lactation performance. J. Dairy. Sci. 87:4195-4206.<br />

Linke, P. L., and A. R. Hippen, 2005. Ruminal and plasma responses in dairy cows to drenching or<br />

feeding glycerol. J. Undergraduate Research Vol. 3, pp 49-60 SDSU.<br />

NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of beef cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National Academy of Sciences,<br />

Washington, D.C.<br />

Page 29 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Impact of Weaning Date on Calf Growth and Carcass Traits*<br />

M.M. Thompson 1 , C.S. Schauer 1 , V.L. Anderson 2 , B.R. Ilse 2 and R.J. Maddock 3<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Hettinger Research Extension Center<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

3 <strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

Introduction<br />

Traditional northern Great Plains cattle producers usually calve out their brood cows in the late winterearly<br />

spring months (February and March) to guarantee ranch resources, time and labor will be<br />

available for spring crop planting and fieldwork. Some producers, however, have chosen to push their<br />

calving cycles further into the spring months (May and June) to follow nature’s traditional growth<br />

patterns for pasture grasses. For these producers, high-quality grazing diets are readily available for<br />

their lactating brood cows and nursing calves, further maximizing milk production and calf growth.<br />

The definition of early weaning varies; generally, calves weaned before 150 days of age are considered<br />

early-weaned (Loy et al., 1999). Most research on early weaning has focused on late winter-early<br />

spring calving (Schoonmaker et al., 2001; Story et al., 2000) with little research evaluating early<br />

weaning outcomes on late spring-born (May and June) calves. Our study objective was to evaluate the<br />

impact of weaning date (early vs. normal) on calf growth and carcass traits in spring-born Angus calves<br />

during the grow-finish period.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

The <strong>NDSU</strong> Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved all protocols. The experiment was<br />

conducted at the <strong>NDSU</strong> Hettinger Research Extension Center’s feedlot in Hettinger, ND, and the <strong>NDSU</strong><br />

Carrington Research Extension Center’s feedlot in Carrington, ND. Sixty-two Angus steer and heifer<br />

calves (average birth date = April 16 ± 1.4 days) from the <strong>NDSU</strong> Hettinger Research Extension<br />

Center’s cowherd were assigned to one of two weaning dates early wean = September 15 and 16,<br />

2008, (EW), or normal wean = November 3 and 4, 2008, (NW). On their respective weaning dates, EW<br />

and NW calves were hauled (five miles) to the feedlot after morning gathering and weighing in the<br />

pasture. Normal wean calves remained on pastures with their dams until their respective weaning date.<br />

At feedlot arrival, calves were stratified by weight and sex and allotted to one of 10 pens (six or seven<br />

calves/pen; five pens/weaning date) to evaluate the effect of weaning date on calf growth and<br />

performance. At the start of their respective receiving periods, all calves were dewormed, vaccinated<br />

for respiratory, clostridial, Hemophilus somnus, and Mannheimia diseases, and tagged with a radiofrequency<br />

identification tag (RFID) for enrollment in an age and source verification program<br />

(AgInfoLink, Longmont, CO). All calves were fed the same receiving ration (total-mixed ration) for the<br />

first 21 days (EW) and 20 days (NW) after weaning. The receiving diet consisted of ground-mixed hay,<br />

cracked corn, dried distillers grains with solubles (donated by POET Nutrition Inc., Sioux Falls, SD), a<br />

medicated growing supplement (containing Rumensin ® , Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN and<br />

Melengesterol acetate [MGA], Pfizer Animal Health, New York, NY), deccox crumbles, sodium<br />

bicarbonate and limestone (dry matter basis [DM]; 14.8% crude protein; 0.52 megacalories/pound of<br />

net energy for gain; Table 1).<br />

Page 30 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1. Dietary ingredient and nutrient concentration of calf growing diets.<br />

Item<br />

Ingredient, % DM basis<br />

Receiving diet Growing diet<br />

Cracked corn 31.8 31.7<br />

Deccox crumbles 1.5 1.5<br />

Dried distillers grains w/solubles 12.6 12.6<br />

Growing supplement a<br />

3.9 4.2<br />

Limestone 0.5 0.5<br />

Mixed hay b<br />

39.8 39.6<br />

Oat silage 9.3 9.3<br />

Sodium bicarbonate 0.6 0.6<br />

Nutrient Concentration c<br />

DM, % 77.1 74.9<br />

CP, % DM basis 14.8 13<br />

NE g, Mcal/lb. 0.52 0.56<br />

Ca:P 2 2.1<br />

a Calf growing supplement contained minimum 7.2% CP, 3.375% Ca, 0.27% P, 1.0%<br />

K, no animal byproducts, 350 mg/lb. Rumensin ® and MGA (melegesterol acetate) at<br />

0.5 mg (as fed).<br />

b Mixed hay composed of equal parts of ground barley and alfalfa-grass hays.<br />

c Analytical results from growing diets are from composited samples.<br />

At the onset of the background periods, weights were measured on the calves prior to morning feeding<br />

(October 14 and 15, 2008; December 4 and 5, 2008). All calves were implanted with a Ralgro implant<br />

(36 mg zeranol; Schering-Plough Animal Health Corp., Kenilworth, NJ) post weighing. During the<br />

growing period, calves were fed a 49:51 forage:concentrate diet (13% crude protein; 0.56<br />

megacalories/lb. of net energy for gain growing diet; DM basis; Table 1). All diets were formulated for<br />

2.20 pounds of daily gain. Diets were fed once daily (8 a.m.) and slick bunk management was used to<br />

determine individual pen daily feed allotments. Calves had free access to water in ice-free automatic<br />

fence-line water fountains.<br />

Calves were checked daily for signs of bloat and respiratory illness. Calf weights were recorded on day<br />

0, 1, 20, 21, 51, 52, 71, 72, 114, and 115. Initial and final weights were unshrunk body weights<br />

measured over two consecutive weigh days before morning feeding. Diet samples were collected (day<br />

6, 35, 37, 72, 78, 91, 103 and 113), composited by diet and analyzed by a commercial laboratory<br />

(Midwest Laboratories, Omaha, Neb.) for nutrient components.<br />

After backgrounding, calves (n=58) were shipped to the <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center,<br />

Carrington, ND, for finishing on January 21, 2009. During the finish period, calves were fed a diet<br />

containing 61 megacalories/pound of net energy for gain during a 105-day feeding period. Calves were<br />

fed to a common end weight (1,100 lbs.) and backfat thickness (0.4 inch) prior to harvest. During the<br />

course of finishing, 13 calves (EW = 5 and NW = 8) were harvested at a local abattoir (Barton Meats,<br />

Carrington, ND). Consequently, no carcass characteristics were measured on those calves. The<br />

remaining calves (n = 45) were harvested at Tyson Foods, <strong>Dakota</strong> City, NE, on May 5, 2009. Following<br />

Page 31 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


a 24-hour chill, qualified university personnel, in concert with USDA graders, collected carcass data on<br />

the individual carcasses. Carcass traits measured included hot carcass weights; marbling scores; 12 th<br />

rib fat thickness; longissimus areas; kidney, pelvic and heart fat measures; and USDA yield grades.<br />

Calf growth and carcass traits were analyzed as a completely randomized design with the<br />

backgrounding phase pen serving as the experimental unit. Treatment means were separated by least<br />

square means following a protected F-test (P < 0.05).<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

This is the third year of analyzing early weaning impacts on calf growth and carcass traits in May-born<br />

Angus calves at the Hettinger Research Extension Center. This year, the calves’ average birth date<br />

was two weeks earlier (mid April) as compared to previous years (Thompson et al., 2009; Stamm et al.,<br />

2007).<br />

The effects of weaning strategies on calf performance and health are displayed in Table 2. Final<br />

veterinary medicine costs, respiratory illness treatments and calf mortality were unaffected by treatment<br />

during the growing period (P > 0.05). Two EW and one NW calves died and another EW calf had to be<br />

removed from the study because of bloat. Because the ruminal bloat occurred during the early stages<br />

of the study, sodium bicarbonate was added to the calf diets to promote saliva production through<br />

increased cud chewing, resulting in increased rumen-buffering capacity. All performance data from the<br />

removed calves was deleted from subsequent performance analyses. Two EW calves were treated for<br />

respiratory illness. Of the calves treated for respiratory symptoms, one EW calf required additional<br />

treatment with a second antibiotic during the feeding period.<br />

Hettinger Research Extension Center’s early weaned calves.<br />

Page 32 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. Weaning strategy effects on calf performance.<br />

Early<br />

Item<br />

Weaning a<br />

Normal<br />

Weaning b<br />

SEM c<br />

P- value d<br />

No. head 30 32 - -<br />

Age at weaning, days<br />

Period 1, day 0 to 50<br />

178 227 1.34 -<br />

Initial weight, lb. 590 - - -<br />

DMI, lb./d 17.7 - 0.45 -<br />

Weight gain, lb. 170 - 17.3 -<br />

ADG, lb./d 3.33 - 0.34 -<br />

Gain:feed 0.14 - 0.03 -<br />

Feed cost, $/lb. of body weight gain e<br />

Period 2, day 51 to 114<br />

0.48 - 0.03 -<br />

Initial weight, lb. - 723 - -<br />

DMI, lb./d 22.6 23.2 0.35 0.29<br />

Weight gain, lb. 149 140 12.3 0.6<br />

ADG, lb./d 2.33 2.18 0.19 0.6<br />

Gain:feed 0.1 0.26 0.11 0.36<br />

Feed cost, $/lb. of body weight gain e<br />

1.17 g<br />

0.84 f<br />

Overall, day 114<br />

0.1 0.047<br />

Final weight, lb. 838 801 18.5 0.2<br />

DMI, lb./d 21.1 f<br />

23.2 g<br />

0.36 < 0.001<br />

Weight gain, lb. 314 g<br />

138 f<br />

10.4 < 0.001<br />

ADG, lb./d 2.73 g<br />

2.17 f<br />

0.14 0.02<br />

Gain:feed 0.13 g<br />

0.09 f<br />

0.007 0.002<br />

Feed cost, $/lb. of body weight gain e<br />

Treatments<br />

0.74 0.85 0.05 0.16<br />

Veterinary medicine costs, $/hd 14.64 11.8 2.15 0.38<br />

Treatment for respiratory illness, % of calves<br />

Once 6.6 0 4.67 0.35<br />

Twice 3.34 0 2.36 0.35<br />

Mortality, % of calves 6.68 3.34 5.28 0.54<br />

a Early wean calves; wean date = Sept. 15 and 16, 2008.<br />

b Normal wean calves; wean date = Nov. 3 and 4, 2008.<br />

c Standard error of mean; n = 5 observations per treatment.<br />

d<br />

P- value for F-test of treatment.<br />

e<br />

Cracked corn = $0.09/lb.; deccox crumbles = $0.36/lb.; growing supplement = $0.23/lb.;<br />

limestone = $0.11/lb.; ground mixed hay = $0.05/lb; oat silage = $ 0.01/lb, salt block =<br />

$0.10/lb, sodium bicarbonate = $0.28/lb.<br />

f, g<br />

Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).<br />

Page 33 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


By design, weaning dates influenced weaning weights; EW calves were lighter and younger at weaning<br />

(523 lbs.; 178 days of age) compared with NW calves (660 lbs.; 227 days of age; P < 0.001). Feed<br />

intake of early weaned calves averaged 17.7 pounds/day and average daily gain (ADG) was 3.33<br />

pounds/day. As a result, feed costs averaged $0.48/lb. gained during the first 50 days of<br />

backgrounding. Normal weaned calves, placed on feed for 64 days, had similar feed intakes and daily<br />

gains as compared to EW calves (P > 0.05; Table 2). Though not statistically different, feed efficiency<br />

(gain:feed) for NW calves was numerically higher than EW calves (0.10 vs. 0.26 for EW and NW<br />

calves, respectively; P = 0.36) while feed cost/pound of gain differed across treatment ($1.17/lb. gained<br />

vs. $0.84/lb. gained for EW and NW calves, respectively; P = 0.047) for the same period. The<br />

difference in feed cost/pound of gain may be contributed to the decreased potency of the Ralgro<br />

implant in the EW calves (Ralgro implant potency period is approximately 90 days post-implanting).<br />

Although final weights were similar across treatment and averaged 820 ± 18.5 pounds (P = 0.20),<br />

background weight gain differed by treatment (314 and 139 lbs. for EW and NW, respectively; P <<br />

0.001). Calf weight gain was influenced directly by the number of days on feed. Early-weaned calves<br />

spent 51 days more on higher energy rations (based on weaning date) as compared with the NW<br />

calves (EW = 115 days vs. NW = 64 days). Overall, EW calves had nine percent lower dry matter<br />

intake as compared to NW calves (21.1 vs. 23.2 pounds for EW and NW calves, respectively; P <<br />

0.001). This may be attributed to their weaning date and weight, incidences of bloat, and respiratory<br />

illness events that affected the EW calves, resulting in lower feed intakes over the course of the study.<br />

Although feed costs/pound of gain was comparable across treatments and averaged $0.80/pound (P =<br />

0.16), EW calves had greater ADG (2.73 lbs. vs. 2.17 lbs.; P = 0.02) and feed efficiencies (0.13 vs.<br />

0.09; P = 0.002) compared to NW calves for the background period.<br />

The impact of weaning date on carcass traits is presented in Table 3. In this study, all carcass traits<br />

measured were similar at harvest (P > 0.05), regardless of treatment.<br />

Early-weaned steer at the bunk.<br />

Page 34 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Weaning strategy effects on carcass traits.<br />

Item EW a<br />

NW b<br />

SEM c<br />

P -value d<br />

No. head 22 23 - -<br />

Hot carcass weight, lb. 700 723 13.4 0.26<br />

Marbling score e<br />

Treatments<br />

496 503 11.75 0.7<br />

12 th rib fat thickness, in. 0.56 0.57 0.02 0.72<br />

Longissimus area, in. 2<br />

12.5 12.4 0.21 0.76<br />

Kidney, pelvic and heart fat, % 2.4 2.32 0.05 0.31<br />

USDA Yield Grade (adjusted) f<br />

3.04 3.16 0.06 0.15<br />

a EW: early weaned calves; wean date = Sept. 15 and 16, 2008.<br />

b NW: normal weaned calves; wean date = Nov. 3 and 4, 2008.<br />

c Standard error of mean; n = 5 observations per treatment.<br />

d P -value for F-test of treatment.<br />

e The amount and distribution of intramuscular fat; Modest = 400 to 499; Moderate = 500 to 599.<br />

f Yield grades determined by the following calculation: YG = 2.5 + (2.5x adjusted fat thickness,<br />

in.)+(0.20 x kidney, pelvic and heart fat %) - (0.32 x longissimus area, sq. in) + (0.0038) x hot<br />

carcass weight, lb.). Yield grade is defined as the comingled yield of closely trimmed,<br />

boneless retail cuts from the round, loin, rib and chuck. Yield grades are denoted by numbers<br />

1 through 5 with yield grade = 1 representing the highest cutability.<br />

Implications<br />

In the present study, calves that were weaned at 178 days of age had lower dry matter intake and<br />

greater feed efficiency than those weaned at 227 days of age. Carcass measurements were not<br />

different between early-weaned or normally-weaned calves when they were managed collectively<br />

during the finishing phase. In this trial, days on feed had a direct influence on weight gained during the<br />

feeding period. Early weaning of spring-born calves appears to be a feasible production option for<br />

cattle producers who calve between mid April and mid June. More research is warranted to determine<br />

what effects early weaning has during the finishing phase of feedlot feeding.<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Loy, D., D. Maxwell and G. Rouse. 1999. Effect of early weaning of beef calves on performance and<br />

carcass quality. Iowa <strong>State</strong> Univ. <strong>Beef</strong> Res. Rep. AS 641, Leaflet R1632, Ames. Pp. 22-24.<br />

Schoonmaker, J. P., F. L. Fluharty, S. C. Loerch, T. B. Turner, S. J. Moeller and D. M. Wulf. 2001.<br />

Effect of weaning status and implant regimen on growth, performance, and carcass characteristics of<br />

steers. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 1074-1084.<br />

Stamm, M. M., C. S. Schauer, V. L. Anderson, B. R. Ilse, D. M. Stecher, D. Drolc, and D. Pearson.<br />

2007. Influence of weaning date (early or normal) on performance, health, and carcass<br />

characteristics of May-born Angus calves. <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Res. Rep. 30: 23-28.<br />

Story, C. E., R. J. Rasby, R. T. Clzarck and C. T. Milton. 2000. Age of calf at weaning of spring-calving<br />

beef cows and the effect on cow and calf performance and production economics. J. Anim. Sci. 78:<br />

1403-1413.<br />

Page 35 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Thompson, M. M., C. S. Schauer, V. L. Anderson, B. R. Ilse, J. C. Galbreath, and R. J. Maddock.<br />

2009. Effect of weaning and production management strategies on calf growth and carcass traits.<br />

2008 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> Cattle and Range Res. Rep. Pp 28-33.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The authors would like to thank POET Nutrition Inc., Sioux Falls, SD, for their donation of the dried<br />

distillers grains with solubles used in this study and David Pearson, Don Stecher, Donald Drolc, Dale<br />

Burr, Tim Schroeder and Tyler Ingebretson for their assistance in conducting this trial.<br />

*Partial support for this research was provided by the U. S. Department of <strong>Agriculture</strong>-Agricultural<br />

Research Service <strong>North</strong>ern Great Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND. Specific Cooperative<br />

Agreement No. 58-5445-7-315. Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations<br />

expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the<br />

U.S. Department of <strong>Agriculture</strong>.<br />

Growth and <strong>Feedlot</strong> Performance of Steer Calves Born From <strong>Beef</strong> Cows<br />

Supplemented with Linseed Meal During Late Gestation<br />

B.R. Ilse 1 , V.L. Anderson 1 , J.D. Kirsch 2 , D.S. Buchanan 2 , and K.A. Vonnahme 2<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

Abstract<br />

This study examined the effects of supplementing beef cows with phytoestrogen rich linseed meal<br />

(LSM) during late gestation on steer calf growth performance and carcass characteristics. Multiparous<br />

cows (n = 72) were allotted randomly to one of 12 pens, with six pens supplemented with pelleted LSM<br />

and six pens fed a control sunflower meal (SFM) pellet. Diets were formulated to be isocaloric and<br />

isonitrogenous. Treatment supplements were included in a totally-mixed ration each day for the last 60<br />

d of gestation. Steer calves (n = 41) were followed from birth to finishing. Birth weight, actual weaning<br />

weight, and ADG and carcass characteristics were recorded. Steer birth and weaning weight were not<br />

different between treatments (P > 0.05; 96.9 vs. 95.6 ± 2.50 lb.; 561.7 vs. 574.8 ± 9.13 lb., for LSM vs.<br />

SFM, respectively). Final live weight was significantly different due to cow gestational supplementation<br />

(P = 0.04; 1206.2 vs. 1286.3 ± 21.31 lbs., for LSM vs. SFM, respectively) Steer ADG overall was not<br />

different due to treatment (P > 0.05; 2.82 vs. 2.98 ± 0.18 lbs., for LSM vs. SFM, respectively). Carcass<br />

characteristic parameters were not different due to treatment. Supplementation of LSM during late<br />

gestation does not appear to negatively impact growth rate in calves.<br />

Key words: phytoestrogen, linseed meal, cattle<br />

Introduction<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> is the national leader in flax production (USDA, NASS 2008). Linseed meal (LSM) is a<br />

byproduct of flax where the oil has been removed and is commonly used in livestock diets. Recent<br />

research has hypothesized that the maternal diet during gestation can have an effect on the lifetime<br />

productivity of the offspring. Flaxseed and LSM contain high levels of the plant phytoestrogens. Fetal<br />

exposure to phytoestrogen during gestation from that maternal diet may affect the offspring’s<br />

development and lifetime productivity.<br />

Page 36 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


We hypothesized that 10 percent LSM supplementation of the maternal diet during late gestation would<br />

influence calf weight, lifetime gain performance and carcass characteristics.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

Animals and Diets<br />

This study was approved by the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> University Institutional Animal Care and Use<br />

Committee. At approximately 215 d of gestation, the Carrington Research Extension Center’s<br />

multiparous, Red Angus x Simmental cows (n = 72) were randomly assigned to one of two treatments:<br />

1) 10 percent LSM pelleted supplement or 2) a control supplement, sunflower meal (SFM). Pelleted<br />

supplements were offered (5 lbs. per hd/d) in a totally-mixed ration (Table 1) until parturition. Cows<br />

were assigned to treatments using cow weight as a blocking criterion. Additionally calf birth weight and<br />

previous calf birth weight were equalized between treatments as much as possible. Animals were<br />

allotted to 1 of 12 pens, with six pens supplemented with LSM and six pens fed the SFM pellet.<br />

Cow-calf pair: Calf born from LSM-supplemented cow during<br />

the last 60 d of gestation.<br />

Table 1. Gestational cow diet last 60 days until parturtion a .<br />

Item<br />

Ingredient LSM SFM<br />

----------% DM----------<br />

LSM Pellet 9.7 -<br />

SFM Pellet - 9.7<br />

Light Barley 27.6 27.6<br />

Straw 32.8 32.8<br />

Corn Silage 29.9 29.9<br />

a<br />

Cow ration formulated by recommened requirements (NRC,<br />

2000).<br />

Page 37 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Diets were formulated to provide required nutrients for an approximately 1,475-pound, late-gestation,<br />

mature beef cow as suggested by the National Research Council (NRC, 2000).<br />

Upon parturition, cows were comingled and cow-calf pairs managed similarly. Calves were weaned at<br />

an average age of 170 d.<br />

Steer calves (n = 41) were followed from birth through finishing period to harvest. Birth weight, actual<br />

weaning weight, ADG, and carcass characteristics were recorded for steer calves. Steers were<br />

managed similarly and fed as suggested by the National Research Council (NRC, 2000) throughout the<br />

course of the study.<br />

Table 2. Steer receiving and finishing period diets. a<br />

Item<br />

Ingredient Receiving Finishing<br />

----------% DM -----------<br />

Rumensin 1.4 1.2<br />

CaCo 3 0.56 0.5<br />

Corn 29 34.7<br />

Peas 8.9 11.8<br />

Midds 18 -<br />

MWDGS 16.9 12<br />

Corn Silage 16.3 16.8<br />

Clean Out Barley - 14.6<br />

Hay 8.9 -<br />

Straw - 8.3<br />

a<br />

Steer rations formulated by recommened requirements<br />

(NRC, 2000).<br />

Statistical analysis<br />

Data were analyzed by least squares (Proc Mixed, V.9.1; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Pen was the<br />

experimental unit for weaning weight, period weights, ADG and carcass characteristics. The statistical<br />

model included the fixed effects of gestational diet of the cow and cow weight block.<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

Growth performance<br />

Steer birth weight and weaning weight (Table 3) were not affected by treatment (P > 0.05; 96.9 vs. 95.6<br />

± 2.5 lbs.; 561.7 vs. 574.8 ± 9.13 lbs., for LSM vs. SFM, respectively). Similarly, Stalker et al. (2006)<br />

found supplementation of 42 percent CP versus. no CP supplement prepartum in beef cows did not<br />

affect birth weight, but calves born from supplemented cows had greater weaning weights. Conversely,<br />

Larson et al. (2009) reported protein supplement offered to cows during late gestation resulted in<br />

increased birth weight compared to non-protein supplemented calves. Tou et al. (1998) reported lighter<br />

birth weights in rat offspring born from rat dams supplemented with 10 percent flaxseed.<br />

Steer ADG was not different due to treatment (Table 3). Overall ADG (P = 0.05) was 2.82 pounds for<br />

steers born from supplemented LSM cows and 2.98 ± 0.18 for the SFM treatment.<br />

Page 38 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 3. Steer perfomance born from cows supplemented with LSM or<br />

control diet during last 60 d of gestation.<br />

Item LSM SFM St. Error P- value a<br />

Birth Date, Julian 91.00 88.58 2.70 0.57<br />

Birth Wt., lb. 96.91 95.58 2.51 0.73<br />

Weaning Wt . Lb. 561.73 574.80 9.13 0.37<br />

Wt. Period 1 617.13 630.36 9.05 0.36<br />

Wt. Period 2 728.63 751.13 11.72 0.24<br />

Wt. Period 3 847.32 877.02 14.09 0.20<br />

Wt. Period 4 957.42 990.47 16.85 0.23<br />

Wt. Period 5 1046.23 1087.68 20.08 0.21<br />

Wt. Period 6 1121.53 1169.60 19.32 0.14<br />

Wt. Period 7 1149.47 1234.05 28.52 0.09<br />

Final Live Wt. 1206.17 1286.25 21.31 0.04<br />

Initial ADG 1.98 1.98 0.098 0.9696<br />

Mid ADG 2.62 2.70 0.109 0.6418<br />

Final ADG 2.38 3.48 0.458 0.1543<br />

Overall ADG 2.82 2.98 0.184 0.5438<br />

a P-values < 0.05 are considered signicantly different.<br />

Finished CREC steers born from cows supplemented during gestational period.<br />

Carcass quality performance<br />

Steers’ hot carcass weight (HCW), backfat, ribeye area (REA) and final yield grade were not affected<br />

significantly by cow supplemented treatment during gestation (Table 4). However, dressing percentage<br />

was significantly affected (P = 0.02; 63.3% and 59.7% ± 0.008, for LSM vs. SFM, respectively).<br />

Page 39 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Marbling number approached significance (P = 0.09) indicating a trend that marbling score was<br />

affected by gestational treatment. Steers born from cows supplemented with SFM had greater<br />

marbling than those supplemented with LSM (459.5 vs. 507.39 ± 16.24, LSM vs. SFM, respectively).<br />

Table 4 . Performance of steers born from cows supplemented with LSM or<br />

control diet during last 60 d of gestation.<br />

Item LSM SFM St Error P- value a<br />

Hot Carcass Wt. lb. 760.85 767.85 7.00 0.53<br />

Marbling Score 459.50 507.39 16.24 0.09<br />

Backfat, in. 0.39 0.41 0.05 0.77<br />

REA, sq. in. 13.03 12.66 0.15 0.13<br />

KPH, % 2.46 2.45 0.05 0.59<br />

Final YG 2.31 2.57 0.16 0.34<br />

a<br />

P-values < 0.05 are considered signicantly different.<br />

Summary<br />

Linseed meal can be fed to beef cattle during late gestation without any negative effects on calf birth<br />

date or birth weight, calf growth performance or carcass quality parameters. Even though final live<br />

weight was significantly different, this was contributed to the allotment of steers born from cows treated<br />

during gestation. Further beef cattle research on fetal programming during the fetal development<br />

stages and early postnatal growth should continue to determine the effects of the cow diet on calf<br />

lifetime performance.<br />

Literature Cited<br />

Larson, D. M., J. L. Martin, D. C. Adams, and R. N. Funston. Winter grazing system and<br />

supplementation during late gestation influence performance of beef cows and steer progeny. 2009.<br />

J. Anim. Sci. 87:1147-1155.<br />

NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of <strong>Beef</strong> Cattle. 7 th Revised Ed. National Academy Press,<br />

Washington, DC.<br />

Stalker, L. A., D. C. Adams, T. J. Klopfenstein, D. M. Feuz and R. N. Funston. Effects of pre- and<br />

postpartum nutrition on reproduction in spring calving cows and calf feedlot performance. 2006. J.<br />

Anim. Sci. 84:2582-2589.<br />

Tou, J. C. L., J. Chen, L. U. Thompson. 1998. Flaxseed and its lignan precursor, secoisolariciresinol<br />

diglycoside, affect pregnancy outcome and reproductive development in rats. J. Nutr. 128:1861.<br />

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Field Office. June 2008. Ag Statistics No.<br />

77.<br />

Page 40 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Effect of Distillers Grains on Natural vs. Conventional Supplements and<br />

Production Methods on <strong>Feedlot</strong> Performance, and Carcass<br />

Characteristics<br />

B.R. Ilse 1 , V.L. Anderson 1 , M.M. Thompson 2 , and C.S. Schauer 2<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2 <strong>NDSU</strong> Hettinger Research Extension Center<br />

Abstract<br />

This trial was initiated to determine the effects of natural production methods for beef cattle during the<br />

finishing period versus conventional management in diets containing 20 percent modified distillers<br />

grains with solubles (MDGS). Seventy-two backgrounded steers were assigned to one of two<br />

treatments: 1) conventionally (CON) managed calves received growth promotants (implants/<br />

ionophores) and antibiotics if required and 2) natural (NAT) calves were not given growth promotants or<br />

antibiotics. In place of the ionophore in the natural diet, a supplement comprised of a commerciallyproduced,<br />

live yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, was included in the totally-mixed ration. Overall the<br />

steers managed and fed conventionally consumed more feed, were heavier and had greater average<br />

daily gains compared to naturally-managed calves (P < 0.0001). Efficiency overall for pounds of feed/<br />

pound of gain was significantly different due to treatment (P = 0.02) and hot carcass weight, REA, and<br />

KPH were all significantly affected (P < 0.04) by treatment. Backfat was not affected by treatment (P =<br />

0.48). Yield grade was not significantly different due to treatment (P = 0.53). However, NAT steers had<br />

higher marbling score (P = 0.02).<br />

Introduction<br />

Growth in the ethanol industry has increased the amount of distillers grains available for feed. Natural<br />

beef production has become of interest and demand. Natural beef, which must meet the criteria of<br />

―never-ever‖ receiving implants, ionophore or antibiotics, and reasonably priced ethanol byproducts<br />

could allow <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>’s cattlemen to create a natural cattle feeding industry within the state.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

Seventy-two black Angus steers were backgrounded at the Hettinger Research Extension Center and<br />

shipped to the Carrington Research Extension Center for finishing. Upon arrival at Carrington, the<br />

steers were allotted in one of two production management treatments: natural (NAT) in which the steers<br />

received no implants, antibiotics or ionophores, or conventional (CON) in which the steers were<br />

managed receiving all common conventional finishing practices. Finishing diets (65 Mcal/lb.) were<br />

formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1996) nutritional beef cattle recommendations (Table 1).<br />

Page 41 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report<br />

Steers fed the finishing diet<br />

including 20% MDGS with natural<br />

or conventional supplement.


Table 1. Finishing ration with 20% MDGS in<br />

natural and conventional diets.<br />

---------------% DM-------------<br />

Item Conventional Natural<br />

Corn 58.40 58.71<br />

Canola 2.89 2.93<br />

MDGS 22.19 22.29<br />

Silage 7.21 7.56<br />

Straw 7.58 7.65<br />

CaCO 3 0.50 0.57<br />

Ionophore 1.21 -<br />

Natural Suppl - 0.28<br />

The finishing ration was formulated to contain a minimum of 20 percent modified distillers grains with<br />

solubles (MDGS) and to include a conventional supplement in the form of an ionophore at 300 mg/hd/d,<br />

or a natural yeast-based supplement Saccharomyces cerevisiae at 400 mg/hd/day. Steers were fed<br />

once daily ad libitium and had free access to fenceline waterers. Steers were weighed every 28 d and<br />

feed delivery was recorded daily until harvest. Conventional steers were re-implanted with a terminal<br />

trenbolone acetate (TBA) commercial implant. Steers were harvested when cattle were observed to<br />

have obtained 60 percent choice by trained CREC personnel. Steers in the CON treatment reached<br />

this visible appraisal 13 d earlier than the NAT steers, so steers were harvested by treatment block 13 d<br />

apart.<br />

Results<br />

Growth Performance and Efficiency<br />

Dry matter intake for all periods except period one was significantly different (Table 2). Overall the<br />

steers managed and fed conventionally consumed 24.63 pounds/hd/d where as the natural consumed<br />

only 21.50 ± 0.62 pounds/hd/d. Final body weight (P < 0.0001) was 1383.15 vs. 1296.40 ± 13.89<br />

pounds for CON versus NAT, respectively. Overall ADG (P< 0.0001) was 3.97 vs. 3.26 ± 0.07 pounds<br />

for CON versus NAT treatments. Anderson et al. (2008) did not report significant differences in DMI or<br />

ADG in cattle managed conventionally versus naturally, but did report differences in efficiency in favor<br />

of the ionophore supplement that was comprised of yucca schidigera extract and cobalt. Efficiency<br />

overall for pounds of feed/ pound of gain was significantly different due to treatment (P = 0.02; CON<br />

6.18 vs. NAT 6.60 ± 0.15). Gain pounds / feed pounds was not significantly different overall (P = 0.09;<br />

0.16 vs. 0.15 ± 0.01) for CON versus NAT, respectively.<br />

Page 42 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 2. Intake gain and efficiency of calves fed using natural or conventional<br />

production methods.<br />

Item Conventional Natural St. Error P-value a<br />

Weight, lb.<br />

Initial Wt., Feb 11 856.31 832.53 7.50 0.010<br />

Period 1, Mar. 11 974.74 927.49 12.86 0.004<br />

Period 2, Apr 8 1114.82 1033.11 12.70


Table 3. Carcass performance of calves fed MDGS using natural or conventional production<br />

methods.<br />

Item Conventional Natural St. Error P-value a<br />

HCW lb. 860.72 764.00 6.36


Discovering Value in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Calves; The <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show<br />

Feedout Project VIII<br />

Progress Report Year 2008-2009<br />

K. Hoppe 1 , and P. Carpentier 2<br />

1 <strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

2 McLean County Extension<br />

Abstract<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> cattle producers continue to explore the value of the calves they produce by measuring<br />

feedlot performance and carcass characteristics. The <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show Feedout project was<br />

developed to discover the actual value of spring-born beef steer calves, provide comparisons between<br />

herds, and benchmark feeding and carcass performance. Cattle consigned to the feedout project<br />

averaged 648.5 pounds upon delivery to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on<br />

October 18, 2008. After an average 198-day feeding period with 1.52 percent death loss, cattle<br />

averaged 1260.1 pounds (at plant, shrunk weight). Average daily feed intake per head, as fed, was<br />

29.6 pounds while pounds of feed required per pound of gain were 9.9. Diet dry matter was 78 percent.<br />

The pen-of-three calves averaged 404 days of age at harvest. Overall pen average daily gain was<br />

2.98 pounds. Feed cost was $0.553 per pound and total cost of gain without interest was $0.752. The<br />

cattle were marketed on May 5, 2009 and marbling scores averaged 437.6 (low choice). Profit before<br />

interest expense ranged from $121.68 per head for pen-of-three cattle with superior growth and<br />

carcass traits to a loss of ($63.70) per head return for a pen-of-three with poorer feedlot and carcass<br />

performance.<br />

Introduction<br />

Determining calf value is a continuing experience for cow-calf producers. To remain competitive with<br />

other livestock and poultry in the meat industry, cow-calf producers need to identify superior genetics<br />

and management. At time of bull selection, a producer must also estimate the type of animal desired<br />

by buyers 1½- 2 years before sale. Marketplace premiums are provided for calves that have<br />

exceptional feedlot performance and produce a high quality carcass. In addition, superior cost effective<br />

feeding performance is needed to justify the expense of feeding cattle past weaning. Since <strong>North</strong><br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> feeds were low cost and climate is favorable, low feeding cost per pound of gain can be<br />

accomplished. This feedlot project was developed to provide cattle producers with an understanding of<br />

cattle genetics and cattle feeding in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>.<br />

Materials and Methods<br />

The <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show was developed for cattle producers willing to consign steer calves to a<br />

show and feedout contest. The calves were received in groups of three or four on October 18, 2008 to<br />

the Turtle Lake Weighing Station, Turtle Lake, ND for weighing, tagging, processing and showing. The<br />

calves were evaluated for conformation and uniformity with the judges providing a discussion to the<br />

owners at the beginning of the feedout. The calves were then shipped to the Carrington Research<br />

Extension Center, Carrington, ND for feeding. Prior to shipment, calves were vaccinated, implanted,<br />

dewormed, and injected with prophylatic long acting oxytetracycline. Calves were then sorted and<br />

placed on corn based receiving diets. After a two week adaptation period, the calves were moved on to<br />

a corn-based 80% grain diet. Cattle were weighed every 28 days and updated performance reports<br />

provided to the owners.<br />

An open house was held on February 12, 2009, at the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock<br />

Unit, where the owners reviewed the calves and discussed marketing conditions.<br />

Page 45 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


The number of cattle consigned was 198 of which 153 competed in the pen-of-three contest. Cattle<br />

were implanted with Synovex S upon arrival and reimplanted with Synovex Choice during the feeding<br />

period The cattle (193 head) were harvested on May 5, 2009. Cattle were sold to Tyson Fresh Meats,<br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> City NE on a grid basis with premiums and discounts. Carcass data was collected after<br />

harvest. Ranking in the pen-of-three competition was based on the best score obtained. Overall score<br />

was determined by adding the index score for weight per day of age (20% of score), average daily gain<br />

on test (20% of score), marbling score (20% of score), and retail product value divided by weight per<br />

day of age (40% of score). The <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show provided cash awards for the top placing<br />

pens of steers.<br />

Results and Discussion<br />

Cattle consigned to the <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show Feedout project averaged 648.5 pounds upon<br />

delivery to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on October 18, 2008. After an<br />

average 198-day feeding period cattle averaged 1260.1 pounds (at plant, shrunk weight). Three deaths<br />

or 1.52 percent death loss occurred during the feeding period. Two steers where returned to a<br />

producer due to hoof and leg structure problems. Average daily feed intake per head was 29.6 pounds,<br />

as fed basis, and 23.1 pounds, dry matter basis. Pounds of feed required per pound of gain were 9.9,<br />

as fed basis, and 7.7 pounds, dry matter basis. Overall feed cost per pound of gain was $0.553.<br />

Overall yardage cost per pound of gain was $0.093. Combined cost per pound of gain including feed,<br />

yardage, veterinary, trucking and other expenses except interest was $0.752. The carcass<br />

characteristics were collected and used in calculating indexes for scoring. The cattle were harvested<br />

May 5, 2009, contained USDA Quality Grades at 2.1% Prime, 65.8% Choice or better (including 16.6%<br />

Certified Angus <strong>Beef</strong>), 29.5% Select and 2.6% Standard and USDA Yield Grades at 14.5% YG1, 46.6%<br />

YG2, 32.1% YG3, 5.7% YG4, and 1.1% YG5. Carcass value per cwt was calculated by using the<br />

actual base carcass price plus premiums and discounts. Grid prices were: May 9, 2009 - $137.63<br />

Choice YG3 base with premiums of Prime $8.08, CAB $2.79, YG1 $4.00, YG2 $2.00, and discounts of<br />

Select $-2.28, Standard $-10.30, YG4 $-11.40, YG5 $-19.33. Retail product value was calculated as<br />

carcass weight, pound * percent retail product *(((carcass value per cwt /100)/ retail product yield) /<br />

retail product markup) where retail product yield = 0.65, and retail product markup = 0.75. Percent<br />

retail product value was calculated as 0.825 - (calculated yield grade *0.05). Results from the calves<br />

selected for the pen-of-three competition are listed in Table 1. Overall, the pen-of-three calves<br />

averaged 404 days of age and averaged 1263.0 lbs. per head at harvest. Overall pen-of -three<br />

average daily gain was 3.36 lbs. while weight per day of age was 3.23 lbs. Overall pen-of-three<br />

marbling score was 437.6 or low choice marbling category. Retail product value averaged $1543.35<br />

per head. Retail product value divided by day of age averaged $3.82.<br />

Calves consigned to the <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show Feedout.<br />

Page 46 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1. Feeding performance - 2008-2009 <strong>Dakota</strong> Feeder Calf Show Feedout<br />

Pen Best Three Average Average Average Average Weight Marbling Ave Retail Product Ave Feeding Profit<br />

Score Total Birth Date Harvest Weight Daily Gain per Day of Age Score<br />

Value /DOA or Loss / Head<br />

1 3.485 11-Mar-08 1,346.95 3.703 3.356 663.3 4.205 $ 121.68<br />

2 3.440 2-Apr-08 1,293.63 3.533 3.399 650.0 4.188 $ 80.31<br />

3 3.306 9-Apr-08 1,345.99 3.682 3.601 400.0 4.648 $ 50.33<br />

4 3.280 28-Mar-08 1,366.52 3.739 3.545 470.0 4.260 $ 37.66<br />

5 3.265 29-Mar-08 1,424.13 3.891 3.705 383.3 4.408 $ 33.99<br />

average of top 5 3.355 28-Mar-08 1,355.444 3.710 3.521 513.333 $ 4.34 $ 64.79<br />

6 3.232 8-Apr-08 1,228.39 3.691 3.280 583.3 3.793 $ 43.16<br />

7 3.211 17-Mar-08 1,348.38 3.953 3.405 410.0 4.260 $ 61.25<br />

8 3.210 11-Mar-08 1,377.02 3.353 3.425 483.3 4.266 $ 47.62<br />

9 3.194 26-Mar-08 1,343.29 3.868 3.469 433.3 4.116 $ 26.10<br />

10 3.147 16-Apr-08 1,271.51 3.458 3.457 440.0 4.175 $ 31.30<br />

11 3.138 17-Mar-08 1,348.38 3.853 3.406 500.0 3.689 $ 34.42<br />

12 3.130 20-Mar-08 1,358.72 3.640 3.460 440.0 4.015 $ 34.13<br />

13 3.128 17-Apr-08 1,281.38 3.668 3.495 420.0 4.059 $ 12.38<br />

14 3.119 1-Feb-08 1,359.36 3.502 3.106 640.0 3.395 $ 64.13<br />

15 3.113 6-Mar-08 1,405.51 3.435 3.458 396.7 4.268 $ 44.60<br />

16 3.090 27-Mar-08 1,303.82 3.569 3.377 420.0 4.064 $ 56.97<br />

17 3.070 15-Apr-08 1,208.97 3.398 3.283 516.7 3.731 $ (9.20)<br />

18 3.064 8-Apr-08 1,269.92 3.442 3.396 433.3 3.985 $ (2.14)<br />

19 3.058 25-Mar-08 1,329.12 3.577 3.419 373.3 4.136 $ 25.46<br />

20 3.058 9-Mar-08 1,358.25 3.721 3.363 480.0 3.620 $ 19.71<br />

21 3.057 27-Mar-08 1,270.08 3.401 3.290 446.7 3.988 $ 25.85<br />

22 3.051 15-Mar-08 1,333.10 3.614 3.347 476.7 3.683 $ 47.59<br />

23 3.044 26-Mar-08 1,329.76 3.147 3.430 423.3 4.111 $ (1.49)<br />

24 2.998 2-May-08 1,211.68 3.420 3.445 370.0 4.030 $ (7.43)<br />

25 2.996 13-Apr-08 1,151.21 3.462 3.107 433.3 3.923 $ 40.05<br />

26 2.992 15-Mar-08 1,347.42 3.539 3.390 483.3 3.482 $ (63.70)<br />

27 2.992 24-Mar-08 1,278.84 3.480 3.287 370.0 4.070 $ 33.02<br />

28 2.984 28-Mar-08 1,311.62 3.802 3.400 373.3 3.782 $ (12.29)<br />

29 2.978 13-Apr-08 1,257.83 2.995 3.398 376.7 4.206 $<br />

2.03<br />

30 2.972 26-Jan-08 1,438.93 3.560 3.238 533.3 3.277 $ (34.93)<br />

31 2.966 10-Apr-08 1,170.14 3.186 3.134 483.3 3.750 $<br />

6.18<br />

32 2.963 16-Mar-08 1,206.11 3.583 3.045 443.3 3.741 $ 46.47<br />

33 2.955 1-Apr-08 1,262.13 3.226 3.308 426.7 3.837 $ 15.50<br />

34 2.955 16-Apr-08 1,166.64 3.084 3.178 430.0 3.979 $<br />

4.39<br />

35 2.953 16-Apr-08 1,102.83 3.205 3.002 500.0 3.702 $ 16.62<br />

36 2.925 18-Mar-08 1,253.53 3.306 3.175 436.7 3.730 $ 28.34<br />

37 2.924 26-Mar-08 1,237.78 3.157 3.193 396.7 3.976 $ 28.62<br />

38 2.916 30-Mar-08 1,181.92 3.339 3.078 506.7 3.434 $<br />

1.92<br />

39 2.916 25-Mar-08 1,317.66 3.400 3.392 350.0 3.898 $ (45.90)<br />

40 2.914 13-Apr-08 1,202.29 3.363 3.248 353.3 3.984 $ 12.90<br />

41 2.871 12-Apr-08 1,132.59 3.081 3.052 423.3 3.816 $ (7.99)<br />

42 2.870 4-Apr-08 1,185.26 3.073 3.127 406.7 3.846 $ 10.58<br />

43 2.869 15-Mar-08 1,293.63 3.016 3.252 386.7 3.888 $<br />

9.77<br />

44 2.866 17-Apr-08 1,164.73 3.116 3.182 363.3 3.965 $<br />

1.81<br />

45 2.848 29-Feb-08 1,218.52 3.089 2.959 473.3 3.574 $ 13.30<br />

46 2.842 30-Mar-08 1,250.83 3.342 3.265 430.0 3.420 $ (24.10)<br />

47 2.823 6-Apr-08 1,176.03 3.233 3.122 380.0 3.723 $ (22.23)<br />

48 2.797 27-Mar-08 1,201.33 3.183 3.107 436.7 3.430 $ (29.42)<br />

49 2.560 14-Feb-08 1,109.35 2.868 2.602 430.0 3.174 $ (22.17)<br />

average of bottom 5<br />

with no deads 2.774 16-Mar-08 1,191.214 3.143 3.011 430.000 3.464 (16.924)<br />

50 (1 dead) 2.149 27-Mar-08 1,247.78 2.424 2.481 300.0 2.746 $ 12.54<br />

51 (2 deads) 1.013 2-Apr-08 835.26 1.189 1.157 140.0 1.282 $ (5.82)<br />

Average 2.974 26-Mar-08 1,263.060 3.364 3.231 437.647 3.818 $ 17.53<br />

Standard Deviation 0.348 18.520 102.372 0.428 0.368 85.313 0.497 32.876<br />

Number 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51<br />

Page 47 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


The highest combined index score per pen-of-three was 3.485. While the highest overall scoring pen<br />

did place first in marbling score, it did not place first in harvest weight, weight per day of age, feedlot<br />

average daily gain and percent retail product value divided by weight per day of age. Correlation<br />

between index score total and profit was fair (r = 0.4291). Correlations between profit and average<br />

daily gain, weight per day of age, marbling score, or percent retail product value divided by weight per<br />

day of age are shown in Table 2.<br />

Table 2. Correlation between profit and various production measures.<br />

Correlation<br />

Cofefficient<br />

Profit and Index Score 0.4291<br />

Profit and Average Birth Date -0.0945<br />

Profit and Average Harvest Weight 0.2941<br />

Profit and Average Daily Gain, 0.3368<br />

Profit and Weight per Day of Age 0.2162<br />

Profit and Marbling Score 0.4173<br />

Profit and Percent Retail Product Value divided by day of age 0.3917<br />

Profit or loss was calculated using initial calf price as price per 100 lbs., $ = 123.25321 – (0.03767 *<br />

initial calf weight). Profit or loss accounted for initial calf price, feed, yardage, veterinary, freight, brand<br />

inspection, beef check off, ultrasound and carcass data collection costs. Interest costs on cattle or<br />

feeding expenses were not included in calculating profit or loss. Final carcass value was assessed<br />

using the actual grid pricing for the harvest group.<br />

Overall, cattle feeding provided a $-91.82 per head loss including death loss but not interest expense.<br />

However, the top profit pen-of-three calves with superior genetics returned $121.68 per head while<br />

bottom pen of three calves returned $-63.70 per head loss. The average of the top five scoring pensof-steers<br />

averaged $64.79 per head while the average of the bottom five scoring pens-of steer (dead<br />

loss not included) averaged $-16.92 per head. The overall pen-of-three average was $17.53 per head<br />

profit.<br />

Implications<br />

Calf value is improved with superior carcass performance. <strong>Feedlot</strong> performance is also important for<br />

increased weight gain and heavier carcass weights. Exceptional average daily gains, weight per day of<br />

age, marbling score and retail product value can be found in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> beef herds. Feedout projects<br />

provide a source of information for cattle producers to learn about feedlot performance, genetic<br />

differences, and discover cattle value.<br />

Page 48 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Forage Production Costs and Yields for South-Central <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

S. Metzger<br />

Carrington Area Farm Business Management Program<br />

As livestock feeders who produce both beef and forages look for more viable cash flows, they will need<br />

to be aware of the true cost of producing forages and what that may mean to the bottom line of their<br />

feeding enterprises. These beef and forage producers will be challenged to find the most profitable<br />

combination of concentrates and forages that produces both the desired gain as well as the desired<br />

profit.<br />

Forage production data for this study was gathered directly from producers enrolled in the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

Farm Business Management Program in Region 3 at Bismarck, Casselton, Carrington, Enderlin,<br />

Jamestown, Napoleon, and Wahpeton. Each of these sites collected and summarized the data for its<br />

own area, after which the data was combined into an annual regional report. Farms or ranches located<br />

within the Red River Valley or west of Bismarck were deleted from the Region 3 report and were<br />

included in the regional reports that were more reflective of the corresponding areas.<br />

The data for this study included corn silage, alfalfa hay, grass hay and mixed alfalfa-grass hay. These<br />

forage crops comprised a total of 30,141 acres. The annual field data came from an average of 54<br />

farms or ranches with some duplication as some farms or ranches produced more than one of the<br />

forages in any given year. The FINPACK system was used to do the individual forage enterprise<br />

analysis for the 2006 to 2008 time frame. To secure as large a database as possible, a limited number<br />

of owned forage enterprises were converted to a cash-rent equivalency by elimination of the real estate<br />

taxes and long-term interest and then assigning to those limited enterprises a cash-rent amount that<br />

was in line with the historic cash rents for those forages and the specific yearly rent for those forages.<br />

The greatest amount of forage dry matter per acre was from corn, which at an average of 11.44 tons<br />

and a harvest time moisture of 65% still yielded 4.0 tons of dry matter. This was followed by alfalfa hay<br />

and grass hay, with alfalfa-grass hay finishing in fourth place at 1.31 tons per acre harvested at an<br />

estimated 15% moisture or approximately 1.11 tons of dry matter.<br />

The greatest cost per ton of dry matter was also attributed to corn silage at $61.90 while the least cost<br />

was associated with grass hay at $33.85 per ton. Alfalfa hay and alfalfa-grass hay came in at $49.36<br />

and $45.37, respectively. While cost per ton of dry matter is one method of comparing forages, it is<br />

vital to note that the quality and specific nutrient content of the various forages must always be<br />

addressed. While grass hay may have one of the lowest costs per ton of dry matter produced, it may<br />

also be much lower in energy and specific nutrients than some higher cost forages such as corn silage.<br />

It should also be noted that hay produced on CRP ground would most likely have been included as<br />

alfalfa-hay because of the mix of forages found within it.<br />

The main value of knowing the real costs of forage production lies in being able to more correctly<br />

correlate the cost of the forage to the nutrient content of the forage. A forage such as corn silage may<br />

be more expensive, but it may be a better fit for a specific livestock enterprise as opposed to a much<br />

lower cost forage such as grass hay. In addition, this knowledge will also help producers to more<br />

adequately compare home-grown forages to purchased forages. Producers often express some<br />

surprise that home-grown forages are as costly as they are, when all costs, including overhead<br />

expenses are considered. All of these things can help beef producers to control their expenses while<br />

working towards the best bottom line possible.<br />

Page 49 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Table 1 Forage Crop Production 2006-2008 in Region 3, South Central <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>.<br />

Corn Silage Alfalfa Hay Grass Hay Alfalfa-Grass<br />

Years 2006-2008 Region 3 At 65% Moist. 10-15% Moist. 10-15% Moist. 10-15% Moist.<br />

Number of Fields 47 44 39 76<br />

Number of Farms 42 39 31 51<br />

Acres per field 55.0 112.7 178.8 205.6<br />

Total Acres of Forage Crop 2,583 4,960 6,974 15,624<br />

Yield in Tons per Acre 11.44 2.20 1.52 1.31<br />

Operator Share 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00<br />

Value per Ton, includes LDP $22.43 $55.07 $27.51 $41.10<br />

Total product return/acre $256.56 $121.33 $41.73 $53.70<br />

Misc. Income per acre $7.50 $2.08 $0.00 $2.16<br />

Gross Value per Acre $264.06 $123.41 $41.73 $55.86<br />

Direct Expenses/Acre<br />

Seed $39.96 $1.81 $0.00 $0.00<br />

Fertilizer $42.18 $4.06 $0.00 $0.09<br />

Crop Chemicals $14.16 $0.71 $0.00 $0.12<br />

Crop Insurance $12.96 $0.48 $0.00 $0.00<br />

Fuel and Oil $19.14 $12.21 $9.87 $8.55<br />

Repairs $17.22 $10.64 $9.74 $6.63<br />

Custom Hire $20.55 $1.02 $0.03 $1.58<br />

Land Charge $35.16 $33.49 $10.22 $11.11<br />

Misc. $4.14 $1.84 $1.50 $0.99<br />

Operating Interest $5.27 $3.86 $2.02 $4.46<br />

Total Direct Costs/Acre $210.74 $70.12 $33.38 $33.53<br />

Return over Direct Exp. $53.32 $53.29 $8.35 $22.33<br />

Overhead Expenses/Acre<br />

Hired Labor $7.62 $3.70 $2.08 $1.49<br />

Machinery & Building Leases $0.91 $0.25 $0.00 $0.14<br />

Farm Insurance $2.31 $2.08 $0.61 $2.04<br />

Utilities $2.08 $1.70 $0.48 $1.10<br />

Interest $3.30 $2.68 $0.96 $2.33<br />

Mach. and Building Depreciation $16.73 $11.19 $5.88 $8.99<br />

Miscellaneous $4.17 $3.29 $1.63 $2.39<br />

Total Overhead Expense/Acre $37.12 $24.89 $11.64 $18.48<br />

Total Listed Expenses/Acre $247.86 $95.01 $45.02 $52.01<br />

Net Return per Acre without Direct or CC $16.20 $28.40 ($3.29) $3.85<br />

Direct Expense per Ton $18.42 $31.87 $21.96 $25.60<br />

Total Listed Expense per Ton $21.67 $43.19 $29.62 $39.70<br />

Net Return per Ton $1.42 $12.91 ($2.16) $2.94<br />

Breakeven Yield in Tons per Acre $10.22 $1.52 $1.64 $1.17<br />

Estimated Cost per Ton of Dry Matter $61.90 $49.36 $33.85 $45.37<br />

Farm Program Payments per Acre $11.09 $9.24 $0.00 $1.64<br />

Net Return/Acre Including Prog. Payments $27.29 $37.64 ($3.29) $5.49<br />

* Data Source, Region 3 Reports, 2006-2008, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Farm Business Management Program<br />

Page 50 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Challenges and Opportunities for <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong>s in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

V.L. Anderson<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> Carrington Research Extension Center<br />

Introduction<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> is known as a beef cow/calf state, with nearly a million cows scattered across much of the<br />

state. The feeding industry is not well developed in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> so the question has often been<br />

asked, what is the potential for this segment of the beef industry? In one three-year study conducted at<br />

the Carrington Research Extension Center in the early 1990s, 130 head of <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> feeder cattle<br />

were gathered up each fall from cooperating producers and fed to finishing weight at the Carrington<br />

Center or at commercial feedyards in Kansas or Nebraska. Cattle in the southern yards gained faster<br />

on diets with steam-flaked corn and added fat. Cattle finished at Carrington were less efficient but the<br />

cost of gain was $.046 less per pound. This paper is a discussion of the positive and negative aspects<br />

of the resources, geography, markets, attitudes, education, research and other factors that may affect<br />

the development and success of beef feedlots in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>.<br />

Background<br />

Farmers and ranchers have diversified their crop base in the past 40 years from primarily wheat and<br />

barley to include soybeans, corn, sunflower, canola, dry beans, field peas, potatoes, sugarbeets, and<br />

other crops. All of these crops have potential to be used as feed or produce feed products after<br />

processing. Several crop processing operations have developed across the state, producing up to 3<br />

million tons of co-product feeds per year.<br />

Most operating feedyards in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> are associated with crop production enterprises to capture<br />

value from home-raised feeder cattle, feeds (grains and forages), utilize manure as fertilizer, and keep<br />

employees busy throughout the year. Cropping systems that include deliberate feed production<br />

increase the options for crop rotations.<br />

Farmer-feeders may be able to expand their livestock enterprises without significant attention.<br />

However, developing new, stand alone, larger-scale livestock enterprises (beef feeding, dairy, or swine)<br />

may draw attention and criticism from those competing for land, urban folks who think their country<br />

homes should not be exposed to odors and noises of farming, and even animal rights activists who<br />

oppose any livestock enterprise. Community support is essential to successful development in these<br />

scenarios. Many rural communities in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> would welcome the development of new or<br />

expanding livestock enterprises.<br />

Resources for <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Operations<br />

Feed<br />

The single greatest expense for feedlot operators, after the purchase of the cattle, is feed. There is a<br />

smörgasboard of feeds available in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>. Grains grown and available in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> include<br />

corn, barley, field peas, feed-grade wheat, and oats. Regarding corn, high-moisture grain, earlage, or<br />

silage may be the harvest and storage method of necessity in some years. Several co-products are<br />

available in volume from many different processing plants throughout the state. These co-products<br />

vary in moisture, protein, fiber, energy, and mineral content. The list of co-products includes wheat<br />

middlings, barley malt sprouts, distillers grains with solubles, corn gluten feed, sugarbeet pulp, canola<br />

meal, sunflower meal, soybean meal, linseed meal, crambe meal, potato waste, dry bean splits, barley<br />

hulls, soybean hulls, pea hulls, oat hulls, and screenings of all kinds. Procurement of co-products<br />

needs to be planned ahead of time, in some cases many months to insure feeds are available at a<br />

agreed-upon price.<br />

Page 51 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Off-quality commodities such as sunflower seeds, canola, and other crops can be fed with some<br />

limitations. Opportunity purchases of feed products such as sprouted wheat or heat-damaged corn can<br />

lower feed costs but should be fed with care and diluted in the rations.<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> has published several circulars and research papers on the nutritional value and recommended<br />

uses of many of these feeds. Commodity groups and processing plants also have information on their<br />

respective feed ingredients.<br />

Grains and forages are typically much less expensive in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> than other regions of the country.<br />

Corn grain averages $.50 to $.75 per bushel lower in cash price at Carrington than in the High Plains<br />

feeding areas. Forage prices reported in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> are often half the price of forages in other<br />

regions of the nation. Co-products tend to be priced closer to other regions of the country, but shipping<br />

increases the cost to livestock producers in the west or south.<br />

Feeder Cattle<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> feeder cattle are in demand at commercial feedlots in the High Plains. Steers often have<br />

more marbling and grade higher than the national average of about 55 to 60% USDA Choice, with<br />

steers from some herds consistently grading 95% Choice. British-influence crossbred cattle account for<br />

a very high percentage of <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> feeder cattle. A major concern in developing a year-round<br />

supply of market beef is the high percentage of spring-born calves with subsequent high volume sales<br />

of weaned calves in October and November. However, more cow/calf producers are backgrounding<br />

their steers into January. Summer grazing of yearlings is still practiced with heavy feeders available in<br />

the fall for short feeding to market weight. Cull heifers are sold in late winter.<br />

Co-mingling feeder cattle from smaller herds in the state is not a good management practice as disease<br />

exposure and resistance vary with ranch environment and vaccination programs. A thorough<br />

preventive maintenance vaccination and health care program is advised following <strong>Beef</strong> Quality<br />

Assurance guidelines.<br />

Infrastructure<br />

Virtually all the infrastructure needs for feedlot operations are available in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>. Water, roads,<br />

and electricity are fundamental to developing feeding enterprises and readily available throughout the<br />

state. Some areas of the state may be challenged to provide immediate veterinary services. There are<br />

adequate trucking firms, feed suppliers, farm equipment dealers including specialized feed processing,<br />

mixing and delivery equipment, livestock auction barns, and contractors for construction of feedyards.<br />

Professional engineers are available for designing facilities and contractors for construction. Some of<br />

the larger feedyards use the services of professional nutritionists and feed companies may provide<br />

information to feeders on ration formulation and feedyard management.<br />

Some lending agencies are more familiar and supportive of livestock enterprises than others.<br />

Feedyards should provide a solid business plan with documented information to their lenders.<br />

There are a number of supporting organizations for feedyard development and operations throughout<br />

the state. These include many rural communities with economic development programs, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

Department of Health for permit information, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Department of Commerce for zoning<br />

information, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s Association environmental program and Feeder Council, and<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>State</strong> University with animal science and nutrient management research and extension<br />

programs.<br />

Page 52 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


Weather<br />

The idea of ―winter‖ seems to be challenging and limits some from recognizing the opportunity for<br />

feeding cattle in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>. Certainly, there are challenges to operating a feedyard in the cold,<br />

wind, and snow. Planning and preparation with appropriate facilities and equipment are important to<br />

managing winter weather. Shelterbelts for catching snow, feed storage and access, water fountains,<br />

and snow removal all affect winter operations. A detailed analysis would be useful to assess the effects<br />

of feeding animals in the cold vs. warmer but potentially wet and muddy conditions farther south.<br />

British-crossbred cattle adapt to cold to some degree even though cold temperatures increase<br />

maintenance energy requirements. Winter weather can be mitigated by providing wind protection and<br />

in some cases bedding animals. Dry, bedded pens have been proven to improve gains and efficiency<br />

with a net advantage to bedding reported as high as $80 per head from improved performance and<br />

increased carcass grade and value. Bedding animals also sequesters up to three times more nitrogen<br />

in the manure, increasing the fertilizer value by creating an optimum carbon-nitrogen ratio. The<br />

logistics of bedding can be challenging in large feedyards. Some yards box scrape pens on a regular<br />

basis to provide snow-free dirt pads for animals.<br />

Land<br />

Land costs in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> are lower than virtually any state in the nation. Site selection for a livestock<br />

enterprise needs to consider water source and water table proximity, wind direction, proximity to towns<br />

or neighbors, durability of roads, rainfall, soil type, slope, feed sources, land to spread manure, and<br />

employee access. Information to assist in site selection is available from the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s<br />

Association environmental program director or from <strong>NDSU</strong> nutrient management specialists.<br />

Market Opportunities<br />

A number of auction markets operate throughout <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> where feeder cattle are offered for sale.<br />

The supply of feeder cattle is highly variable during the year based on marketing spring-born calves at<br />

weaning in the fall and into mid-winter. Spring and summer market volume is low.<br />

Terminal markets for fed cattle include large commercial packing houses (Tyson, Cargill, etc.), local<br />

butcher shops, and some auction markets. New terminal markets have been attempted in <strong>North</strong><br />

<strong>Dakota</strong> and some international business entities are working on plans for a new packing plant at this<br />

writing. The large commercial packing houses are located several hundred miles to the south, requiring<br />

significant expense to ship fat cattle to market.<br />

Labor<br />

People raised in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> generally have a good work ethic. Some are gifted with husbandry skills<br />

and instinctively know how to ―read‖ cattle and provide appropriate feed, management, and care for<br />

optimum performance. Labor for feedlot operations, including pen riders, truck drivers, maintenance<br />

people, and cattle processing crews can sometimes be challenging.<br />

Challenges<br />

In some areas, crop producers do not have appropriate appreciation for the value of manure as a<br />

fertilizer. It is important to capture income from every aspect of livestock production that has real value.<br />

This point is evidence that <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> has lost some of its livestock ―culture‖ or appreciation for the<br />

intergration of crops and livestock production. Although many young people have expressed interest in<br />

developing livestock enterprises, besides simply being interested in livestock production, the<br />

acceptance of risk and the annual cycle of the farm business must be accepted and managed.<br />

Knowing how to manage commodity price risk through market positions, futures, options and other<br />

instruments can increase the odds of approved credit lines from lenders, although some lending<br />

agencies are not livestock savvy or have had less than positive experiences with some livestock<br />

enterprises. New or expanding livestock producers need a good business plan that identifies all the<br />

Page 53 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


positive aspects of an enterprise and accounts for all the challenges and risks in a business-like<br />

manner.<br />

Summary<br />

All of the resources for feeding cattle in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> are present. People with the passion, business<br />

skills, and resources can succeed in this enterprise as there are a number of successful commercial<br />

feedyards in <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> that serve as examples. The owners, managers, and operators of these<br />

yards have been open and instructive in describing their operations. There are a number of education<br />

programs to help new and existing livestock producers gain knowledge and more carefully define their<br />

enterprises. These include site visits by <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s Association environmental programs<br />

director, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s Association feedlot intern programs, <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Schools and<br />

producer feeder calf finishing projects, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Farm Business Management Program records<br />

analysis, NRCS and <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Stockmen’s Association facilities grant programs, assistance from<br />

the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Department of <strong>Agriculture</strong> and the <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Department of Commerce, local<br />

economic development organizations, and individual assistance from a wide variety of people in the<br />

industry.<br />

Acknowledgements<br />

The author is appreciative of many livestock producers and colleagues in industry and universities that<br />

provided input for this paper.<br />

Diagnostic Note – Infectious Bovine Keratoconjunctivitis (Pinkeye)<br />

N. W. Dyer<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory<br />

Moraxella bovis is the primary known cause of infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis or pinkeye, the<br />

most important ocular disease of cattle worldwide. It is most commonly seen in the warmer months.<br />

While the disease is not a significant cause of mortality, it does cause considerable economic loss due<br />

to secondary problems related to corneal ulcers. It is well known that certain risk factors, such as<br />

ultraviolet radiation, dust, chaff, grass awns and face flies predispose an animal to pinkeye. Based on<br />

recent biochemical analysis, there are fifteen distinct subgroups of this bacteria, some of which are<br />

pathogenic and some not. Pathogenic strains possess proteins that allow them to attach to corneal<br />

epithelial cells, and cytotoxins that can degrade corneal proteins thus leading to ulcers and the clinical<br />

signs associated with them (tearing, sensitivity to light, and conjunctivitis). 6 Commercial vaccines<br />

provide protection against only a few pathogenic strains; therefore they will not be 100% effective<br />

against disease.<br />

Moraxella (now being changed from Branhamella to Moraxella) ovis has also been isolated from cases<br />

of pinkeye, but experts do not universally agree that it is a cause of pinkeye. The organism can be<br />

isolated from normal bovine eyes as well. Recent research shows that M. ovis produces toxins that<br />

degrades bovine red blood cells, white blood cells and corneal epithelial cells, and therefore may play a<br />

role in clinical disease. 3 It is not uncommon to isolate M. bovis and M. ovis from cases of pinkeye,<br />

suggesting a synergistic effect between the two organisms.<br />

Moraxella (formerly Mycoplasma) bovoculi is a recently identified related organism that has been<br />

isolated from calves with pinkeye. 2,5 Recent studies indicate that the organism may contribute to<br />

Page 54 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


pinkeye, and has been confused with Moraxella ovis. 1 A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to<br />

differentiate M. ovis from M. bovoculi was recently developed, and can be performed on presumptive<br />

M. ovis isolates at the <strong>NDSU</strong>-VDL. The problem of cause is further confused by the fact that Moraxella<br />

bovoculi can be isolated from normal bovine eyes as well. Recent vaccine trials with an autogenous<br />

bacterin to M. bovoculi were unsuccessful in preventing clinical disease in infected groups of calves. 4<br />

This further calls into question the significance of M. bovoculi as a pathogen, and highlights the fact that<br />

more information is needed to define this organism as a cause or contributor to pinkeye.<br />

Currently, then, M. bovis is the only known cause of pinkeye, and can be isolated from ocular swabs<br />

and identified. It is not currently definitively known if M. ovis and M. bovoculi can cause pinkeye, and,<br />

while we can culture the organisms, PCR is needed to tell the two apart. There are no commercial<br />

vaccines that include protection against M. ovis and M. bovoculi. Autogenous vaccines can be made<br />

against these bacteria if isolated, but consulting with your veterinarian is advised when considering the<br />

efficacy and administration of such vaccines.<br />

From a standpoint of pathogenesis, it seems likely that some sort of trauma or co-infection causes<br />

enough damage to the surface of the eye that colonization by resident conjunctival bacteria becomes<br />

possible. This would explain why both M. ovis and M. bovoculi can be found in normal eyes, but can<br />

also be isolated from diseased eyes. Therefore, the need to differentiate M. ovis from M. bovoculi by<br />

PCR needs to be considered on an individual basis by the producer and the practitioner. M. bovis is<br />

clearly a cause of pinkeye and it’s recovery from ocular swabs should encourage some combination of<br />

management, therapy and vaccination. Consult your veterinarian and diagnostic laboratory with any<br />

questions.<br />

1 Angelos J. A., and Louise M. Ball. Differentiation of Moraxella bovoculi sp. nov. from other coccoid<br />

moraxellae by the use of polymerase chain reaction and restriction endonuclease analysis of<br />

amplified DNA. J Vet Diagn Invest 19:532-534 (2007).<br />

2 Angelos J. A., P.Q.Spinks,L.M. Ball, and Lisle W. George. Moraxella bovoculi sp. nov., isolated from<br />

calves with infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis. Int J of System and Evol Micro 57:789-795<br />

(2007).<br />

3 Cerny H E, D.G.Rogers,J.T. Gray,D.R Smith, and Susanne Hinckley. Effects of Moraxella<br />

(Branhamella) ovis cultures filtrates on bovine erythrocytes, peripheral mononuclear cells, and<br />

corneal epithelial cells. J of Clin Micro 44:772-776 (2006).<br />

4Funk L.,A.M. O’Connor, M. Maroney,T. Engelken, V.L. Cooper,J. Kinyon and P. Plummer. A<br />

randomized and blinded field trial to assess the efficacy of an autogenous vaccine to prevent<br />

naturally occurring bovine keratoconjunctivitis (IBK) in beef calves. Vaccine 27:4585-4590 (2009).<br />

5 Levisohn S., S.Garazi, I. Gerchman, and Jacob Brenner. Diagnosis of a mixed mycoplasma infection<br />

associated with a severe outbreak of bovine pinkeye in young calves. J Vet Diagn Invest 16:579-<br />

581 (2004).<br />

6 Postma C. G., J.C. Carfagnini, and Leonardo Minatel. Moraxella bovis pathogenicity: An update. Comp<br />

Immun Micro and Inf Dis 31:449-458 (2008).<br />

Page 55 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


<strong>NDSU</strong> BBQ Boot Camps 2009<br />

Celebrating the Products of Livestock Production<br />

D. Newman<br />

<strong>NDSU</strong> Department of Animal Sciences<br />

At the second annual round of BBQ Boot Camps, more than 800 <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong>ns learned the secrets of<br />

grilling a tasty steak, burger, chop or kabob and the importance of handling meat safely. <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong><br />

<strong>State</strong> University Animal Science faculty partnered with Food Science faculty and the <strong>NDSU</strong> Research<br />

Extension Centers and <strong>NDSU</strong> Extension Service to conduct 10 BBQ Boot Camps at 10 different<br />

communities throughout the state in spring and summer of 2009.<br />

The program introduced people to new cooking methods and practices; meat cut selection; food safety,<br />

such as proper cooking temperatures and using meat thermometers; using rubs, marinades and<br />

seasonings; and smoking, gas and charcoal cooking. Participants also heard about current topics in<br />

the beef, pork and lamb industries, including research and Extension activities at <strong>NDSU</strong>, and had a<br />

chance to sample a large variety of barbecued meat.<br />

Page 56 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


―BBQ Boot Camp is a unique opportunity to explain and discuss current topics in the meat and livestock<br />

industry at the grass-roots level, all while having a lot of fun with barbecue,‖ said <strong>NDSU</strong> Extension<br />

swine specialist David Newman, who helped organize and direct the events.<br />

The BBQ Boot Camp was very successful at reaching an entirely new demographic of individuals.<br />

Reaching this audience is very important as the consumers of agricultural products become more and<br />

more removed from the farm (a traditional agricultural background). This is true even in a state like<br />

<strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> where the economic base remains firmly grounded in agriculture.<br />

The Boot Camps were highly successful according to survey data collected at each event. A total of<br />

807 consumers attended 10 BBQ Boot Camps. Fifty-five percent of attendees were men and 45%<br />

were women. Of the 807 attendees, 675 volunteered to complete the pre- and post-surveys. The<br />

participants increased their knowledge and indicated they will change their behaviors based on the<br />

questions asked. The average ―bbq knowledge‖ score on the pre-event survey was 73.9%. After<br />

attending the Boot Camp, the average score on the post-event survey was 90.6% (a 16.7% increase).<br />

Overall, the program was very well received by those in attendance, generating an average approval<br />

rating of 4.77 out of 5, indicating that participants felt they learned something positive from the<br />

sessions.<br />

The <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> Commission, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Pork Producers Council, <strong>North</strong> <strong>Dakota</strong> Lamb and<br />

Wool Producers Association, <strong>North</strong>ern Plains Distributing Inc. and Cloverdale Foods helped sponsor<br />

the camps.<br />

There is potential for this program to continue in the future. For more information contact David<br />

Newman at (701) 231-7640 or david.newman@ndsu.edu.<br />

Page 57 2009 <strong>NDSU</strong> <strong>Beef</strong> <strong>Feedlot</strong> Research Report


<strong>NDSU</strong> is an equal opportunity institution.<br />

Direct inquiries to the Vice President for the Division of Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701) 231-7708.<br />

This publication will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities upon request, (701) 231-7881.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!