A MASTER'S REPORT METHODS OF GRAIN PREPARATION FOR FINISHING BEEF CATTLE LOEPPKE DARYL W. submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Transcription

1 -1 Tj METHODS OF GRAIN PREPARATION FOR FINISHING BEEF CATTLE by V DARYL W. LOEPPKE B. S., Kansas State University, 1964 A MASTER'S REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment f the requirements fr the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department f Animal Husbandry KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 1966 Apprved by: Majr Prfessr

2 fr If).A R hu 2 C TABLE OF NTESTS INTRODUCTION 1 Physical Frm f Grain Methds and Descriptins f Preparing Grain 2 PROCESSING SORGHUM GRAIN 4 Intrductin 4 Whle Srghum Grain... 5 Fine Versus Carse Grinding... 7 Dry Rlled Versus Steam Rlled Srghum Grain 10 Steam Prcessed Srghum Grain 13 Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Srghum Grain General Summary f Prcessing Srghum Grain 22 PROCESSING RN 23 Intrductin. 23 Grund Versus Whle Crn 24 Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Crn Steam Prcessed Crn 28 General Summary n Prcessing Crn 31 PROCESSING BARLEY 32 Intrductin 32 Grund Barley Cmparisns 33 Dry Rlled Versus Steam Rlled Barley 36 Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Barley... 37

3 iii TABLE OF NTENTS (cntinued) Steam Prcessed Barley 39 General Summary n Prcessing Barley 41 VOLATILE FATTY ACIDS 42 SUMMARY 45 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 48 LITERATURE CITED 49

4 INTRODUCTION One f the many prblems that face cattle feeders is feed r grain preparatin. Grain prcessing and mixing equipment is expensive. The cattle feeder must decide n the ptimum methd f feed preparatin fr his wn cnditins, such as grinding, rlling, steam heating r pelleting. The prblem was simpler a few year's ag fr a cattle feeder was cnsidered well-equipped if he had a tractr-driven grinder and a scp shvel. Early investigatrs dubted that it was prfitable t prcess certain feeds fr fattening cattle, especially if hgs fllwed them in the feed lt. Tday, grain preparatin and mixing equipment is a majr item f expense and cncern in establishing a cmmercial feedlt, Diets nw in use demand much mre frm each pund fed» The large cash utlay fr expensive feed prcessing equipment may be justified when the csts are spread ver thusands f head f fattening cattle; therefre, a small imprvement in feed efficiency might pay fr rather expensive equipment. Under the present cnditins, with the idea f purchasing the ultimate in feed prcessing, sme feeders buy units n the basis f nly limited data. Every medium f cmmunicatin is used t "brag" abut a particular methd f prcessing. It is n wnder that there are indirect cntradictins with manufacturer's advertisements abut the feedlt results btained by their prduct* They cannt all be crrect. Methds f prcessing feed can becme widely accepted with little real knwledge f the true value. Tday, engineering "knw-hw" is

5 available t prepare grains any desired frm, nce a nutritinal advantage frm a certain physical state has been established. Physical Frm f Grain Since grains differ in their physical frm, they may vary in their respnse t the same methd f preparatin. Sft grains (e.g., new-crp srghum grain) may differ cnsiderably frm ld-crp grain, with its hard, flinty kernel. Thus, prcessed in the same way, there may be a difference in the final prduct. The age f the animals is als knwn t influence masticatin. Yung calves chew grains much mre thrughly than mature cattle (Mrrisn, 1959). Sme grains becme flury and dusty upn preparatin by grinding; therefre, it might be best t prepare this grain by steam rlling. Methds and Descriptins f Preparing Grain Whle Grain. Feeding grains in this physical state is nt cmmn in the mdern feedlt. Mst f the grains used fr fattening livestck are cvered with a seed cat resistant t digestive prcesses. Wrk has shwn whle grain is passed by the animal withut the grain seed cat being penetrated (Jnes et al., 1937). Grinding Grain. Grinding ccurs when the grain meets the milling surface resulting in particle size reductin. Hammer mills are ften used t accmplish this methd f preparatin. The hammer mill cnsists f a cylinder r rtr made up f several plates keyed t the main shaft r axle. Outside the rtating cylinder is a perfrated steel screen.

6 Hles in this screen may vary in size. Sy regulating the size f the hles used in the hammer mill, a fine grund r carse- grund prduct may be prduced. In rder t assign a quantitative value t particle size analysis, the American Sciety f Agricultural Engineers and the American Sciety f Animal Prductin have adpted a Mdulus f Unifrmity and Mdulus f Fineness f Grund Feed which is defined and can be calculated. Hwever, in reprting research wrk in which different types f grain preparatin were cmpared, the wrkers did nt define the fineness f their grinding by either f the abve methds (Stevens, 1961). Dry Rlling Grain. This methd f preparing grain is accmplished by passing the grain between tw rllers which crush the grain. The duble rller mill used fr this purpse cnsists f tw rlls rtating in ppsite directins at the same speed (Stevens, 1961). The rlls are usually crrugated r serrated. Steam Rlling Grain. T prcess grain by this methd, live steam is applied t the whle grain in a cnditiner three t five minutes befre rlling begins. Temperatures f the steam vary in different treatments. The amunt f misture added t the grain is nt knwn in mst f the feeding trials using this methd f preparatin. Under mst cnditins, a mre unifrm prduct with less fines can be prduced in a rller mill with steam cnditining than by dry rlling r grinding. Pelleted Grain. This is defined as "agglmerated feeds frmed by extruding individual ingredients r mixtures by cmpacting and frcing thrugh die penings by any mechanical prcess" (Rbinsn, 1961). Basically, the purpse f pelleting is t take a finely divided,

7 smetimes dusty and difficult t handle feed matter and by applicatin f heat, misture, and pressure, frm it int larger particles. Steam Prcessed (Flaked) and Cked Grain. The literature reviewed in this area f grain prcessing deals primarily with wrk being dne frm Califrnia, Arizna, and Clrad. These statins have reprted sme f the first wrk in flaking grains with applicatin t beef cattle feeding. The descriptin f the specific methds is reviewed with the data frm the feeding trials. A cmparisn f prcesses can be made at that pint t determine differences in prcessing methds. A general descriptin f steam prcessed grain is the subjecting f the grain t steam f a knwn temperature until the misture cntent f the grain is raised t a certain level befre being rlled t btain the flaked grain prduct. Cking the grain invlves the treatment with heat and misture fr a specified length f time befre prcessing. PROCESSING SORGHUM GRAIN Intrductin A large prtin f Kansas and ther midwest ern states which lie in the Great Plains, and particularly the High Plains, are unsuited fr crn prductin due t the arid climatic cnditins during the final stage f the grwing seasn. A grain crp which is adapted t these cnditins is srghum, Srghum vulgare (Martin and Lenard, 1951). Therefre, grain srghums are becming an increasingly imprtant part f Kansas agriculture and are being widely used as bth a

8 , cash crp and as a feed fr livestck. In 1964, the harvested acreage f grain srghum was 3,700,000, and the bushel prductin was 144,300,000 (Kansas Agriculture ). Chemical analysis (Mrrisn, 1959) has shwn that whle srghum grain and crn are very similar in their digestible prtein and ttal digestible nutrient cmpsitin. Srghum grain cntains 8.8 per cent digestible prtein and 80.1 per cent ttal digestible nutrients. Crn (Grade N. 2) cntains 6.6 per cent digestible prtein and 80.1 per cent ttal digestible nutrients. Srghum grain and crn are als very similar in the cmpsitin f ther nutrients. The srghum grain kernel differs frm ther grains, being mre dense and cmpact. Nearly 65 per cent f the grain kernel is starch (Mrrisn, 1959). Whle Srghum Grain When srghum grain was first being used as a cncentrate fr fattening livestck, feeders ften nticed large amunts f whle grain being passed by the animal and escaping digestin. In an attempt t btain better utilizatin, the grain was then grund. In three experiments cnducted at the Texas Statin (Jnes et al. 1937) invlving mil heads and threshed mil, it was fund that fr fattening calves fllwed by pigs, grinding threshed mil increased its value 41 per cent, and grinding mil heads increased their value 62 per cent. In ther wrk which has been reprted, special silage (in which the grain was grund) was cmpared t nrmal silage. The special silage fed t calves during the winter prduced in ne experiment

9 12 per cent mre gain than nrmal silage and in anther experiment 19 per cent mre gain. T determine the value f grinding srghum grain fr dairy cws, a test was cnducted at Kansas (Smith, 1948) in which the feces were cllected and washed t recver the grain vided. The results shwed that feeding whle grain resulted in excessive waste and that carse grinding was mre satisfactry than fine grinding. Fr the check grup f cws, the recvery f grain in the feces averaged 42 per cent f whle grain, 4.8 per cent f carsely grund, and 1.5 per cent f finely grund grain. Als in anther trial which has been reprted, wrkers cmpared whle srghum grain and grund grain t determine the effect grinding had n digestibility. The digestibility f all the nutrients except crude fiber was increased by grinding. Digestibility f crude prtein was increased 1.1 per cent; ether extract r fat, 4.1 per cent; and nitrgen free extract, 12.6 per cent. Grinding decreased the digestibility f the fiber 8 per cent. Thus, there appears t be cnclusive evidence that the grain srghums shuld be grund fr fatteing cattle. Hwever, the degree f fineness that these grains shuld be grund fr best results shuld be determined.

10 Fine Versus Carse Grinding The first lgical cmparisn f srghum grain wuld be between fine grinding and carse grinding* Fine grinding wuld expse a tremendus surface area f the starch prtin f the grain t rumen micrrganisms and digestin in the small intestine. At the Kansas Statin (Smith et al., 1949) which cmpared finely grund and carsely grund preparatins, there was nly a slight variatin between lts in efficiency f gain; but the steers receiving the finely grund preparatin appeared in better cnditin and were appraised $1.00 per hundred weight higher. It was als nted that the steers fed the finely grund grain were reluctant t eat. This wuld indicate a palat ability prblem r might suggest mre benefit frm the finely grund grain. A digestibility trial was cnducted using the same basal ratin, and it was cncluded that the finely grund grain was digested better. The digestin cefficients f dry matter, crude prtein, ether extract and nitrgen free extract were highest fr the finely grund preparatin. Crude fiber was digested t a greater degree where the grain was carsely grund. In a trial by Cx and Smith (1950) cmparing carsely and finely grund grain, nly small differences in daily gain were nted; and the grain cnsumptin was abut the same fr bth lts. There was little r n difference in efficiency f gain r cst f prductin. Repeating this experiment, these wrkers (1951) fund that the steers receiving finely grund srghum grain were slightly mre efficient

11 8 in feed utilizatin. Refer t Table 1. Anther similar feedlt test was cnducted with steer calves by Cx and Smith (1952) with carsely and finely grund srghum grain. The steers receiving carsely grund grain cnsumed slightly mre grain and thereby required slightly mre grain per pund f gain than did the steers fed the finely grund grain. The steers fed the carsely grund grain als graded higher in the carcass and had a higher dressing per cent. Overall, the differences present in this test were small. Smith and Parrish (1953) cmpared finely grund and carsely grund srghum grain in a fattening ratin fr yearling steers. The steers fed finely grund grain were nine per cent mre efficient in feed utili zatin and als had the lwest feed cst per pund f gain f the tw lts. The daily average gain per head fr the cattle fed finely grund and carsely grund was apprximately the same. In anther Kansas test (Baker et al. (1955) in which yearling heifers were fed the tw types f preparatin (finely grund and carsely grund) the results shwed daily cnsumptin f finely grund grain by the heifers was slightly lwer than cnsumptin f the carsely grund lt. The lt f heifers fed finely grund srghum grain als had a lwer feed efficiency than did their cunterparts. Gains by the heifers fed finely grund grain were materially higher, 11 per cent, than thse fed the carsely grund srghum grain. At the Oklahma Statin (Ttusek et al., 1964), wrkers using steer calves in cmparing carsely and finely grund srghum grain, reprted that the steer calves receiving the finely grund grain gained slightly faster than did the calves n carsely grund grain

12 Table 1, A cmparisn f fine grund and carse grund srghum grain fed t finishing cattle. Animals Initial Feed required Days n per lt weight Daily gain per lb, gain Statin Year feed F * C** F C F C F C Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Okla Kansas Okla * Average * F - Fine C - Carse (2.70 lbs. vs lbs. per day). In analyzing the feed data, the calves fed finely grund grain cnsumed 1.8 lbs. less daily and required 5.2 per cent less feed, even thugh the calves gained the same as thse fed the carsely grund grain. Apparently, energy in the finely grund grain was mre efficiently utilized. Less feed was required t satisfy the daily energy requirement f the calves fed the finely grund grain than f the carsely grund grain fed cattle. Ppe et al., (1962) at Oklahma used steer calves n a fattening ratin cmparing finely grund srghum grain t carsely grund grain. The calves fed the finely grund grain gained slightly better (2.31 lbs. vs lbs.) than thse fed the carsely grund g&ftia during the 193

13 10 day test. The advantage f the finely grund grup was als reflected in the feed required t gain ne pund. The cattle n the srghum grain that was prcessed by fine grinding were seven per cent mre efficient in their feed utilizatin. Summary f Fine Versus Carse Grinding. The results f the eight trials cmparing fine and carse grinding are summarized in Table 1. There appeared t be n advantage f carse grinding the grain ver the finely grund prcess. Even thugh the cattle fed the finely grund mil usually did cnsume a lesser amunt f cncentrate, it may nt be due t the "dustiness" f the ratin, but rather t the fact that the cattle btained mre digestible nutrients and thus required less feed. This is brne ut by the fact that the cattle fed the finely grund grain were mre efficient significantly less in feed utilizatin and made gains which were nt than thse fed carsely grund grain. Dry Rlled Versus Steam Rlled Srghum Grain Anther methd f preparing grain is the treatment by steam prir t rlling. In mst f the literature reviewed, the cnditins t which the srghum grain was subjected were nt stated; therefre a general steam rlling treatment will have t be assumed. The usual treatment appeared t be the ne which was described earlier in this reprt. Smith et al. (1960) cnducted experimental trials with yearling heifers n a fattening ratin fr 104 days. The tw treatments, dry rlled and steam rlled srghum grain, prduced nly minr differences in average daily gains and feed efficiency between the tw grups. These wrkers experienced sme difficulty in remving sufficient misture

14 11 frm the steam rlled grain after rlling. Cnsequently, part f the steam rlled ratin heated and develped a musty dr which may have affected the test results. In ther wrk dne at the Kansas Statin, (Bren et al., 1962) wrkers used yearling heifers and fed the tw types f preparatin, dry rlled and steam rlled during a 140 day test. They fund little differences in gains made by the cattle fed either treatment. Slightly less (0.5 lb.) steam rlled srghum grain was cnsumed daily by the heifers fed this preparatin, refer t Table 2. In a trial at Califrnia (Garrett et al., 1966) with the tw types f srghum grain preparatin, using yearling steers, wrkers cncluded that regular steam rlled grain did nt result in a significant stimulatin f daily gain r imprved feed efficiency. Apparently, steam rlled grain was mre palatable and the cattle did nt utilize it as efficiently as dry rlled grain, since they cnsumed six per cent mre each day. Three trials cmparing dry rlled and steam rlled srghum grain were cnducted at the Arizna Statin (Hale, 1963). The average daily feed intake fr the steers n a fattening ratin was increased slightly by steam rlling the grain, refer t Table 2; but there was n difference in the average daily gain between the lts f the tw treatments, There was a small advantage in feed efficiency, three per cent, fr the cattle n the dry rlled grain; but the wrkers reprted that this was prbably due because sme steers became sick in ne lt.

15 12 Table 2. A cmparisn f steam rlled and dry rlled srghum grain fr cattle. Animals Initial Feed required Days n per l t weight Daily gain per lb. gain Statin Year feed D* S** D S D S D Kansas Kansas Califrnia Arizna Arizna Arizna Average *D - Dry 3 - Steam Summary f Dry Rlled Versus Steam Rlled Grain. Frm the limited data which have been cnducted in cmparing dry rlled and steam rlled srghum grain, summarized in Table 2, there is little evidence that prves steaming the grain results in greater gains r better feed utilizatin. Sme wrkers thught steaming the grain prir t rlling wuld reduce the "dustiness" f the ratin and prmte greater cnsumptin f the grain, cnsequently, faster gains. Greater cnsumptin f the grain was evident in sme f the trials, but this did nt influence faster gains. Apparently, the srghum grain cat is very resistant t misture penetratin and steaming it three t five minutes has very little effect n its physical prperties.

16 13 Steam Prcessed Srghum Grain In the last few years there has been much interest in prcessing grains by using mist heat. Several trials have been cnducted t determine the value f the varius types f treatments. One such trial was carried ut at Oklahma where Ppe et al.,(1963) studied the feeding value f pre- gelatinized srghum grain. The grain was passed thrugh a special tube r steam chamber and heated t such a degree that it was almst cmpletely gelatinized. A maximum temperature f apprximately 270 F was achieved by steam heat and mechanical extrusin thrugh the dies t frm expanded pellets. Actual cking time in the F range was estimated t be abut ten secnds. This "expanded" grain came ut in small, hard cubes and was re-grund t have the physical state f naturally grund srghum grain. Gelatinized srghum grain and grain which had been grund in the natural state were fed t steer calves fr a 127 day feeding trial. Calves fed the steam-heated grain gained less than thse fed the untreated grain, Table 3. A marked difference was apparent in feed intake, with less f the ratin cntaining cked grain being cnsumed than that cntaining untreated grain. Hwever, feed efficiency was nly slightly different fr the tw treatments. Califrnia researchers (Garrett et al., 1966) in an investigatin f steam prcessing cmpared Texas Panhandle irrigated grain which was prepared fur different ways:

17 14 Table 3. Effect f steam heated (gelatinized) srghum grain fr fattening beef calves. Item Grund Treatment Pregelatinized Number f calves Average initial weight, lb Average daily gain, lb Average daily feed, lb Feed per lb. gain, lb (1) Dry rlled with n steam treatment. (2) Rlled after 8 minutes f steaming at 20 punds f pressure per square inch (psi). (3) Rlled after 1.5 minutes f steaming at 20 punds f pressure per square inch (psi) (4) Rlled after 1.5 minutes f steaming at 60 punds f pressure per square inch (psi) The feeding perid was 84 days fr replicatin ne, and 112 and 140 days fr replicatin tw and three. The ratins cntaining grain prcessed fr 1.5 minutes at steam pressure f 20 psi resulted in a significant (P ^.05) increase in daily gains ver thse f the ther three prcessing treatments. The feed per pund f gain fr steers fed the 20 psi ratin was significantly reduced in cmparisn with either the dry rlled r the psi treatment. Feed intake f thse animals fed the ratins cntaining the grain prcessed at 60 psi was significantly (P ^.05) lwer than either that f the psi r 20 psi treatment. Refer t Table 4.

18 15 Table 4. The effect f the methd f prcessing n srghum grain n fattening steers, * Item Dry rlled 8 min. psi Prcessing Methd 1.5 min. 20 psi 1.5 min. 60 psi Average daily gain, lb Feed cnsumptin per day Punds f feed per lb. f gain Hale and c-wrkers (1965) used srghum grain in their study f flaking r steam prcessing grain. Preparatin f the steam prcessed grain was as fllws: An versized tempering chamber was filled with grain and 20 punds f steam pressure applied fr 20 minutes. The temperature f the grain in the chamber was apprkimately that at which steam frms at the Tucsn, Arizna, altitude f 205 F. They fund the density f srghum grain wuld permit the temperature t increase t 210 F n ccasin, but the system was pen and culd nt exceed these limits. The prcess became cntinuus nce the grain started t flw thrugh the rller mill. The grain entered the rllers at the abve mentined temperature and had a misture cntent f 18 t 20 per cent. They bserved that the rlled srghum grain had a distinct and pleasant arma resembling that f cked cereal. The grain was rlled flat with n tlerance n the rlls. The result was large, flat flakes with n fines but with a cnsiderable amunt f the white starchy prtin shwing. They fund the difficulty in rlling was at a minimum when the rll crrugatins were s wrn that the rllers

19 16 were nearly smth. Their general rule was t prepare steam prcessed grain every ther day. Fr their experiments in cmparing the methds f steam prcessed and dry rlled grain, the Arizna wrkers used yearling steers n a fattening ratin. Steam prcessing the grain increased gains ver dry rlling by.30 lb. per day (3.20 lbs, vs lbs.) and reduced feed required per 100 punds gain by 36 punds. Feed intake fr the steam prcessed grain was increased by 1.3 punds per day. After analyzing the infrmatin in Table 5, ne might cnclude that steam prcessing srghum grain increased feed intake and imprved the nutritinal prperties f the kernel. Table 5. The Arizna cmparisn f steam prcessed versus dry rlled srghum grain. Item Dry Rlled Steam Prcessed Number f steers Average initial weight, lb Average daily gain, lb Average daily feed Feed per pund f gain In cnjunctin with the steam prcessing treatment at Arizna, wrkers there als cnducted a digestin trial t determine what fractins f the srghum grain were affected by the steaming prcess. A ratin cntaining 77 per cent dry rlled r steam prcessed grain was

20 17 used in the experiment. The results are given in Table 6. Table 6. The effect f steam prcessing and dry rlling srghum grain n digestibility. Item cessed Drv Rlled Number f steers Dry matter, % Crude prtein, % Ether extract, % Crude fiber, % Nitrgen- free extract, % Grss energy, % TON f ratin, % Calculated TDN f grain, % Steam prcessing and flaking srghum grain significantly imprved the digestibility f the dry matter, nitrgen free extract, and grss energy ver dry rlling. It was apparent that the nitrgen free extract, which represented the starch f the grain, was the fractin mst affected. Summary f Steam Prcessing Srghum Grain. There appears t be an advantage in preparing srghum grain by the steam prcess methd. Hwever, there have been nly initial investigatins in this area, s n definite r clear cnclusins can be made at this time. In general, steam and heat treatment enhanced the prduct, but a certain time f treating wuld determine the results btained.

21 18 When the grain was prcessed with the crrect steam treatment, the cattle fed the steam prcessed grain did imprve their daily gains and feed efficiencies significantly. This advantage was als pinted ut in the digestin trial where srghum grain was prcessed by steam prcessing. Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Srghum Grain Pelleting f srghum grain r/ill be the last physical frm f preparatin reviewed. Palleting is anther area in which there has been much interest. Hwever, many f the pelleting trials cnducted were invlved with pelleting cmplete ratins and rughages. The pelleting prcess reviewd here invlved fine grinding the srghum grain and then pelleting it befre it was fed t feedlt cattle. In the trials with pelleted grain, there was nt a cnsistent nnpelleted frm used in the tests. Therefre in Table 7, the cntrl lt preparatins will be gruped under nn-pelleted fr cmparing the effect with pelleted srghum grain. Richardsn et al. (1957) used finely grund pelleted srghum grain and rlled grain as the surce f cncentrate in tw different experimental ratins at Kansas. It was bserved that the calves receiving pelleted srghum grain were the first t reach a full feed. If permitted, the calves receiving the rlled srghum grain wuld have cnsumed mre grain than the ther lt. The calves n pelleted grain after abut 60 days seemed reluctant fr a shrt length f time t eat. N apparent reasn fr this was bserved and nrmal feed cnsumptin was then resumed. There was n difference in gains between the tw lts,

22 19 but the cattle fed the pelleted grain were eight per cent mre efficient in feed utilizatin. In anther test at Kansas (Richardsn et al., 1958) the value f pelleted srghum grain in a wintering phase f a feedlt test was studied. Three lts f steer calves were invlved in the study, cm paring pelleted finely grund grain with dry rlled and finely grund srghum grain. Rate f gain and feed efficiency were exceptinally gd in all lts. The average daily gain n the rlled grain grup was the highest (.05 advantage) amng the preparatins. There were little differences in feed efficiency between the lts* These data verall did nt indicate any real differences between the methds f preparing srghum grain in wintering ratins fr beef calves. At Oklahma (Ppe et al., 1958), twenty chice heifer calves were put n a full feed test cmparing srghum grain prcessed as finely grund and pelleted with dry rlled r finely grund grain. Gains were imprved nly very slightly (.08) by feeding the pelleted prduct. Pelleted grain prved less palatable t the calves, althugh average daily grain intake differed little (26.14 punds vs punds). Anther advantage f the animals fed the pelleted grain was that they were appraised almst a dllar mre per hundred weight than the nnpelleted grain fed cattle when finished and sld. Richardsn and c-wrkers (Kansas, 1959) in anther trial with steer calves n wintering ratins studied the effect f pelleting the srghum grain with grain that was cracked. Animals receiving the finely grund and pelleted grain gained slightly faster and utilized their feed

23 20 mre efficiently than did thse receiving the cracked grain, Table 7. Ppe et al. (Oklahma, 1959) in a cmparisn f rlled grain and pelleted srghum grain fund that the latter methd f preparatin resulted in a small increase in gain. Apparently dry rlled srghum grain was mre palatable, as in this test the steers fed the dry rlled grain ratin cnsumed mre grain daily. With better perfrmance n less grain, calves fed pelleted grain were 11.3 per cent mre efficient in cnversin f grain. The appraised market value f the cattle was essentially the same. In tw trials at Kansas (Richardsn et al., 1960, 1961), steer calves were used in fattening tests t cmpare pelleted with finely grund srghum grain. The results were the same fr bth studies. The cattle receiving the finely grund pelleted srghum grain were mre efficient. In the 1960 trial, the wrkers bserved that the cattle fed finely grund grain had a higher dressing percentage and carcass grade than their cunterparts when finished and slaughtered. The Oklahma Statin (Ppe et al., 1960) in cmparing pelleted srghum grain t finely grund grain in a fattening ratin fr steer calves, fund the cattle cnsumed abut a pund less per head daily f the pelleted grain than f the finely grund grain. In additin, the pelleted steer ratin grup made.13 pund less average daily gains. Althugh the calves fed the pelleted ratin cnsumed less srghum grain, they ate mre rughage, thereby making the feed required fr each pund f gain greater. This test des nt agree with the ther trials at Kansas and Oklahma.

24 21 O»M r-l c *d n4 <D «B 03 M r-l c <-< a a a> a * 3 d 54 rs '4 3 C O U 00 e H t *d <D 1-4 r-t u r*» J4 a d <u r* u 03 t4 d 0)! CD 1-4 i-4 O (4 >N u a O 54 >> 54 d s 54 c 0) G O a3 O a> e u 00 c a) 0) 44 a-. vd m vd n v n vo en <3N m r-s»n in r4 <so st ON vd 00 O ON vo ON :~> n ON I A n (0 TS 0) 4J.Q Q} r-l 00 t «54 fi > «L < 0 a: «t O C5N O r-s. i-4 m VO i-4 en «"4 O st c rs. fs» t-4 i-4 en m O N ON en <3) Q. t C O c ON en m en OO c r-( st v in ON n st 00 r-i st ft st m Mf en c (S "d 45 u 05 j a c i-«cc <u n a, t u «-3 u 5 * n- I 0} 4J t-4 O C3 i * 04 e «>n a) CQ 0J a «4 54 r-s. en m % m st r-s IA vo c m r-s. st \ ON m st st 00 ON m «n ON CJN r-s 00 tn On en «n r-s m ON r-s m ON ON O»n m s cjn n On t-4 r-4 r-l Ps. st ON ON «n vo ON en 91 vo ON en m ON st sj 0J i-4 r-l CJ P4 a) u a -4 8 c «4J 0) 09 «c & (0 (0 a c a 2 tfl t s ja c i-4 c 03 (0 c > < t 1 04 :=> * I

25 22 In a mre recent study made cmparing finely grund srghum grain t finely grund pelleted grain, the Oklahma Statin (Ppe et al., 1961) bserved that the livestck fed finely grund grain gained slightly better than the pelleted fed cattle (2.31 punds vs punds). Hwever the utilizatin f the ratin was in favr f the pelleted grain fed steers, as they were mre efficient in cnverting their ratin int punds f beef. Summary f Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Srghum Grain. A nummary f the tests cmparing pelleting with varius ther methds f preparing srghum grain is reprted in Table 7. Fine grinding and pelleting srghum grain usually reduced the feed intake. One cause may have been the unpalatability f the ratin. Althugh the feed efficiency f animals fed the pelleted srghum grain was better, and the daily gains were slightly higher, this was ffset by the cst f preparatin in ths trials, because f the extra cst f pelleting. General Summary f Prcessing Srghum Grain There is cnclusive evidence that srghum grain shuld be prcessed in sme way fr fattening beef cattle. Cattle fed finely grund and carsely grund srghum grain did nt differ significantly in daily gains r feed efficiency. Hwever, feed efficiency was slightly in favr f the cattle fed the finely grund grain. Steam rlling had n advantage ver dry rlling grain when it was fed. The cst f steaming the grain was nt in the literature, but this fact must be kept in mind as the steam treatment wuld be mre expensive.

26 23 There appeared t be sme advantage fr the steam prcess methd if the srghum grain was expsed t the crrect amunt f steam and heat, as bth gain and feed efficiency were imprved. Hwever, n definite cnclusin can be made n the value f this methd since nly initial research has been dne n flaking r steam prcessing. The extra cst f fine grinding and pelleting srghum grain usually ffset any advantage frm this methd f preparatin. PROCESSING RN Intrductin Crn (Zea mays ) ranks first in imprtance as a crp in the United States, ccupying a furth f the crpland (Martin and Lenard, 1951). The explanatin f the develpment f the beef cattle industry f the United States is fund in crn. Other cuntries in the wrld have cattle f as gd r better breeding, and have as gd r mre favrable climates; but n ther cuntry has such a great supply f crn available fr cattle feeding. Crn is highly palatable, being eaten readily by cattle f all ages. It meets the requirements f a high energy feed, being high in digestible carbhydrates and fat (Mrrisn, 1959). In fact, crn may be said t cmbine many f the essentials f a valuable cattle feed. In Kansas, the majr areas f prductin are in the nrtheastern cunties and the nrthern tier f cunties brdering Nebraska. In 1965, 1,350,000 acres (Kansas Agriculture, ) f crn were harvested in Kansas. The bushel prductin f 62,100,000 made it the secnd mst

27 24 imprtant feed grain crp in Kansas next t srghum grain, being the first. In searching the literature fr che varius methds by which crn had been prepared, it was surprising t find hw little had been dne. Apparently, crn was cnsidered "superir ' because it did nt have the physical disadvantages f sme f the ther feed grains. Crn was cnsidered the standard fr cmparisn. Mst f the varius methds f preparatin that were tried n ther grains were t vercme its inadequacies; crn must have been cnsidered as nt belnging t this grup. Grund Versus Whle Crn The crn kernel des nt have the physical prperties that srghum grain pssesses such as being small in size and having a seed cat resistance t digestin. Therefre cattle may nt find it as difficult t masticate crn prir t swallwing. The term "grund crn" may refer either t the grund ears f crn r grund shelled crn. In this reprt, grund crn will refer t grund shelled crn. The results at Nebraska and Iwa (Snapp, 1962), in cmparing the feeding f shelled crn and carsely grund crn t yearling steers, shwed little difference in average daily gain, refer t Table 8. Feed efficiency was in favr f the ungrund shelled crn. The steers n shelled crn gained slightly mre than did the lt fed the carsely grund grain.

28 25 Table 8. A cmparisn f shelled and grund crn in fattening ratins. Av. animals Initial Average Feed per lb. Days n per lt weight dai ly gain f gain Statin Year feed Wh*"" Gr**Wh Gr * Wh " Gr " Wh Gr Oklahma Nebraska ~ Nebraska Iwa Average *Wh - tt-rjfri Gr - Whle Grund Taylr (1942) at Oklahma used calves in dry lt n a finishing ratin. Bth lts f calves gained the same ver a 68 day feeding perid, while ne lt was fed whle shelled crn and the ther grund shelled crn. The feed efficiency was highest in the grup fed the grund shelled crn preparatin. At Illinis (Newman et al., 1955), tw types f grinding, burr mill and hammer mill were cmpared in preparing crn that was fed t steers in a fattening ratin. Average daily gain fr the burr mill was 2.08 punds and thse frm the hammer mill were 2.21 punds which were nt significantly different. The feeding efficiency f the tw lts als did nt differ significantly. Gdrich and c-wrkers (1962) evaluated the grinding and dry rlling f shelled crn fr cattle at the Suth Dakta Statin. They used steer calves n a 119 day test. The cattle fed grund shelled

29 26 crn gained 0.10 punds mre per head daily than thse fed rlled crn. This difference in gain was nt statistically significant. Feed cnsumptin was high fr cattle f this size, but it was abut the same fr the tw methds f crn preparatin. The cattle n the grund crn ratin were fur per cent mre efficient, which again was nt statistically significant. Summary f Whle Versus Grund Shelled Crn. In analyzing Table 8, with the limited material cmparing whle crn t grund crn, it is apparent there was nt a difference between the tw methds f feeding. This pertains t bth daily gains and feed efficiency f the feedlt cattle. There was nt a significant advantage fr preparing crn by either the burr mill r hammer mill prcess, r in the ne trial reprted here. Grinding shelled crn with a hammer mill usually prduces a high per cent f fine material. Rlled shelled crn is mre unifrm in particle size and is ften cnsidered t have an advantage ver grund crn. The abve test frm Suth Dakta was nt enugh evidence t draw a cnclusin n whether rlling crn prduces less fines, which wuld be less "dusty" and cnsequently prmte higher feed intake and faster gains. Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted Crn Arnett and Bradley at Kentucky (1960) studied the effect f finely grinding crn and then pelleting it befre feeding it t steers in a fattening ratin. The cntrl lt was fed grund crn. Steers in the

30 27 lt receiving pelleted crn had the highest average daily gain. This represented a 18.5 per cent increase. Imprvement in feed efficiency f 13.9 per cent favred the pelleted crn when cmpared with the cntrl lt. They reprted that carcass grade was nt affected by either f the treatments. Under the cnditins f this experiment, the use f pelleted crn increased average daily gain f 0.36 punds and prduced 100 punds f gain n 148 punds less feed. Little et al. (1962) cmpared the value f pelleted crn with grund crn fed t steers in a fattening ratin during a 134 day perid. These wrkers fund increased rate f gain and imprved feed cnversin f steers fed pelleted crn as cmpared t grund crn (Table 9). Clantn f Nebraska (1963) cmpared the tw frms f crn, either pelleted r grund, with the hay rughage fed in the grund physical state. He fund the highest gains were recrded with the grup f steers fed the grund crn. The grund crn steers gained 12 per cent faster than thse fed the pelleted crn. The carcasses f the grund crn lt were als graded higher than their cunterparts. The feed efficiencies f the tw preparatins were nt recrded in this test. The Nebraska test did nt agree with the tw trials at Kentucky. Perhaps this was due t the fact that the rughage was als grund. Mre feeding experiments with pelleted crn need t be cmpleted befre any cnclusin can be made abut the effect f pelleting n crn fr feedlt feeding. Summary f Pelleted Versus Nn-pelleted crn. After analyzing the limited data in Table 9, ne might cnclude pelleting crn des

31 28 Table 9. The effect f pelleted and nn-pelleted crn in three fattening trials. Initial Average daily Feed per punds Days n weight gain gain Statin Year feed P* I/** P U P U Kentucky Kentucky Nebraska Average *** P - Pelleted U - Unpelleted kirk Kentucky averaged feed eff., nly. imprve daily gain and lwer the feed requirement. Hwever the imprvement in gain and feed efficiency are prbably nt large enugh t defray the extra cst f pelleting. Steam Prcessed Crn Steam prcessed r flaked crn experiments have been carried ut by Matsushima et al. (1964). They cmpared the value f flaked crn with cracked crn. The Clrad prcessing methd cnsisted f cking the grain fr apprximately 12 minutes at 200 F and then putting it thrugh a rller mill t prduce a flaked kernel. After the grain was rlled, its misture was reduced t apprximately 15 per cent t avid spilage befre the grain was fed. Yearling heifers were fed a 70 per cent shelled crn and 30 per cent barley ratin by weight. This was fed t tw separate lts as flaked

32 29 grain and cracked grain mixtures. The flaked grain exhibited cn siderably mre bulk than the cracked grain. At a 90 per cent dry matter basis, the weight f the grains in a five galln cntainer were as fllws: regular cracked grain, 50.6 punds] cked-flaked grain, 41.7 punds. There was n significant difference in the cattle gains between the tw treatments. Cattle fed the flaked grain cnsumed 3.8 per cent less feed than thse fed the regular cracked grain. These wrkers bserved the absence f separatin f feed in the feed bunks by the cattle fed the flaked grain, while quite frequently there was a settling f fine pwdery material in the bunks where regular cracked grain was fed. In anther similar test carried ut by Matsushima et al. (1965) at Clrad, N. 2 crn was used as the nly grain in the ratin. The wrkers fund an advantage in feeding the flaked crn t heifer calves ver the crn prepared by cracking. During the 149 day feeding perid, the heifers n flaked crn cnsumed 2.3 punds r 15 per cent less grain per head daily and shwed an 8 per cent greater feed efficiency than thse n cracked grain. Table 10 gives the infrmatin regarding the trial, n the fllwing page. At Califrnia, Garrett et al. (1966) used their methd f prcessing grain. Refer t page 14 fr a descriptin f the prcesses invlved. The ratin cntained crn which was steam prcessed fr 1.5 minutes at a steam pressure f 20 psi. Their ratin resulted in an increase in daily gains ver all ther prcessing treatments. The feed per pund f gain fr steers fed the 20 psi ratin was significantly reduced in cmparisn

33 30 Table 10. Clrad feeding trial cmparing flaked crn with cracked crn. Treatment Cracked Crn Flaked Crn Percentage f gain fed 75% 100% N. f cattle Initial weight, lbs Average daily gain, lbs Daily feed cnsumptin Feed per pund f gain with either dry rlling r the psi treatment. Feed intake f thse animals fed the ratins f crn prcessed 60 psi was significantly (P <.05) lwer than either the psi r 20 psi treatment. The Kentucky Statin has als dne experimental wrk in flaked crn. Neither the prcess nr the cnditins f the prcess were reprted. The tests at that statin shwed varied results. Summary n Steam Prcessed Crn. There appeared t be an advantage in preparing crn by the steam prcess methd. Hwever, here, as in the case f srghum grain, there have been nly preliminary investigatins, s n definite cnclusins can be made. There seemed t be a perid f time in which crn culd be treated with mist heat which wuld enhance the prperties f the crn kernel. The advantages which were brught ut in the trials reviewed were in daily cnsumptin and feed efficiency. Daily gains were nt imprved significantly by the feeding f steam prcessed crn.

34 31 Table 11. The effect f methds f prcessing crn fed t fattening steers. Prcessing Methd 8 rain. 1.5 min. 1.5 min. Item Dry rlled psi 20 psi 60 psi Average daily gain, lb, 3, Feed cnsumed per day 20, Punds f feed per pund f gain General Summary n Prcessing Crn Frm the evidence that has been presented here, there was n advantage fr grinding shelled crn ver feeding it with n prcessing. This can be applied t bth gains and feed efficiency. In additin, grinding the crn either by burr mill r hammer mill shwed little advantage in the feed lt trial which was reviewed. Frm the few studies which have been dne with pelleting crn, there was an indicatin that pelleting may imprve gains and efficiency. This des nt take int cnsideratin the extra cst f preparatin, which was nt included in the test presented here. The area f preparatin which shwed the mst prmise as far as increasing feed efficiency appeared t be steam prcessing r flaked crn. Average daily gain with flaked crn was imprved ver thse gains made by cattle which were fed crn in ther physical frms. Mre experimental wrk n a larger basis will have t be dne in this area befre the adptin f flaked crn can be justified fr the mdern feedlt.

35 32 PROCESSING BARLEY Intrductin Barley ranks furth in imprtance amng the cereal crps f the United States, being exceeded by crn, wheat, and ats (Kansas Agriculture, ). The principle barley states are Minnesta, Nrth Dakta, Califrnia, Suth Dakta, Nebraska, and Wiscnsin. Kansas des nt rank as an imprtant barley prducing state. The harvested acres f barley fr Kansas in 1964 were 276,000, and the bushel prductin amunted t 62,100,000. Barley has a kernel surrunded by a tugh, heavy hull which lessens its digestibility and renders it smewhat unpalatable (Mrrisn, 1959). The kernel itself is rather hard and flinty in texture and des nt "chew up" as easily as crn. Barley supplies slightly less ttal digestible nutrients than crn. It has the same nutritive deficiencies as the ther grains which have been discussed in the previus sectins. Its prtein is nt f gd quality, thugh smewhat better than that f crn. There were nly limited data available n the effect f different physical frms f barley, such as barley meal, pelleted, r rlled cnditins fr fattening beef cattle. The usual research dealt with substitutin f crn rather than hw t best prepare barley fr fattening purpses. In an early cmparisn f feeding barley whle r carsely grund, Baker at Nebraska (1942) used light weight heifer calves. The calves were hand- fed twice daily. The calves fed whle barley made 1.88 punds

36 33 per head average daily gain while the carsely grund barley fed heifers made a gain f 2.17 punds per day. The whle barley lt made the slwest and the mst expensive gains. The calves fed carsely grund barley were 14 per cent mre efficient in their grain cnversin than thse fed the whle preparatin. The abve test gives an indicatin that barley shuld be prepared by sme methd t btain faster gains with greater feeding efficiency. Grund Barley Cmparisns The fllwing review cvers barley which had been grund and fed as meal cmpared with barley in ther physical frms. The ther grains which have been previusly reviewed shwed little difference amng carsely grund, dry rlled, r steam rlled grain. Therefre, these different barley preparatins are gruped and cmpared in Table 12. The first cmparisn f barley will cncern the different results btained in penetrating the hull f the barley kernel. Dinussn et al. (1%0) cmpared grund barley which was the result f medium grinding, with rlled barley. There was a slight advantage frm feeding rlled barley in average daily gains which is shwn in Table 12. The feed utilisatin f the steers als favred the grup fed the rlled barley. The daily cnsumptin f feed was greater fr the lt fed the rlled barley preparatin. In this experiment, ne steer died frm blat, and there were tw ther mild cases f blat in the grund barley fed cattle. There als was ne case f blat in the rlled barley grup. In additin, the steers n barley meal were

37 34 C O t4 U CU c> u C O «3 <D «- 60 M O M a a) 0) c/j 01 T-t t-4 VI >> U Q c -H 4J U 4 a a> u a «O -c: T3 C a) * n «i-i ex * 0)! u Xi " v Qi U <U O F* C i-» 1 (0 > H r-< O im > < - ON en a n H n St cm 00 ON. * en r-< ON i^. r* r*. f*. ON en r-4 l-» CN O NO g u M *j SI u 4-> -* -S 4J OC c a M $ St St a T-t 00 in p-t a en ft m st m cn NO en st NO t r-t OX ON a> i-i u «0 c O '-) 50 > > 0) < en i-i O e OB H (4 cm 8 c >> 0) - c ft **! St ON ^ st O m St On m ON r 1 S >-i i ~ H 0) H M z < m vo ON r-l i «0 (J u 0) J! AS 5 u (0 < Vi Q O z rs * t _ V) 3! jc 4J I

38 35 nt as easy t keep n feed as the rlled barley steers, which appeared related t the "dustiness" r fineness f grind. The literature reprted that the steers n the rlled barley were easier t keep n feed. In a trial cmparing grund barley with steam rlled barley at Oregn (1952) there was a slightly higher average daily gain fr the cattle fed the grund barley as cmpared t the steam rlled grain. Actually, the advantage f the daily gain was nn- significant. The feed efficiency was slightly in favr f the steam rlled barley lt (Table 12). In feed trials cnducted by Stanley at Arizna (1945) cmparing grund barley with rlled barley in a steer fattening ratin, the rlled barley lt gained.29 punds mre per day and made mre efficient gains than did the ther lt. At the Nebraska Statin (1942), cmparisns between carsely grund and finely grund barley revealed n significant difference in daily gains by heifer calves fr a 200 day feeding perid. The calves fed carsely grund barley were nly slightly higher in daily gains and als slightly higher in feed efficiency. Hwever, the wrkers at this statin nticed the cattle did nt accept the finely grund grain s readily as the carsely grund, but this bservatin did nt shw in the results. Als accrding t the reprt the carsely grund barley was easier t feed. Cnclusin n Grund Barley Cmparisns. In analyzing the abve trials where barley in meal and carsely grund barley, frm was cmpared t dry and steam rlled, there was evidence that the meal frm sligfetly

39 36 slwed daily gain and resulted in a higher feeding efficiency with the cattle. Dry Rlled Versus Steam Rlled Barley The cnditins under which the barley in the fllwing experiments was steamed and rlled were nt stated specifically in the literature. Therefre, it will be necessary t assume that the grain was steamed fr a shrt perid f time (three t five minutes) befre being rlled and nt a sufficient length f time was allwed fr the steam t penetrate the barley. This is the mst cmmn practice fr steam rlling grain. In cmparisns f steam and dry rlled barley, the Nrth Dakta Statin (1962) fund that there was n real differences in gain f steers ver a 160 feeding day perid. The gains f the tw treatments were 2.31 punds and 2.28 punds per day with feed efficiency slightly in favr f the steam rlled barley grup. Dinussn et al. (1965) ran a similar trial t the ne abve. Again the results were apprximately the same. The differences between the average daily gains f the tw lts were 0.03 punds and the feed efficiency wa3 slightly in favr f the steam rlled barley. Hale (1965) reprted a summary f fur trials at the Arizna Statin which cmpared the preparatin f dry rlled with steam rlled barley. N differences in average daily gain were nted between the tw types f prcessing. Neither were there differences in the average daily feed intake and feed required per pund f gain, Table 13.

40 37 Table 13. The respnse f fattening cattle t dry rlled and steam rlled barley. Av. animals Initial Av. daily Feed per Days n per lt weight gain f gain Statin Year feed D* S** D S D S D S lb. N, Dakta / N. Dakta Arizna 1965 "* _ **" Averaj , * D - Dry **s - Steam WWW m f / (sum f 4 trials) Summary f Dry Versus Steam Rlled Barley. There was little evidence that steam rlling barley was mre beneficial t cattle than dry rlling. Gains were nt imprved with the steam rlled barley and feed efficiency was changed nly slightly. In these experiments, the extra cst f steam rlling the barley was nt reprted; therefre the extra cst f prcessing was nt taken int cnsideratin. \ Pelleted Versus Hn- pelleted Barley T determine whether it was an advantage t finely grind and pellet barley, trials have been cnducted with cattle fattening ratins. At Oklahma (1959) wrkers used finely grund and pelleted barley and crimped barley in steer calf ratins fr a 144 day feed test. The pelleted barley ratin lwered the average daily gain in the test, (Table 14). In additin, the feed efficiency was less fr the pelleted

41 38 0) <4-l CJ a i c c CD pi O C Vt CJ rf a. a 2 13 «Oh t m m si- 3N u a a >% 4> r-l i 'r* T> CD s < e cu rsi «O s e rl U a a i c r-1 JJ M Si U 00 B I &< 00 r 3 3 c (0 00 e H w c r-«> CD Oi < a Gfc St a\ ON a O U UV m c s "O >> CJ cs cj 3 n 0) 0J m O ON "O *-< OJ CD 4) r-< O J3 (0 H M U9 4J u.m 00 Vt 5 < &,

42 39 barley cattle. Thus, there appeared t be n advantage t fine grinding and pelleting the barley in the ratin at Oklahma. The Nrth Dakta Statin (1965) reprted n pelleting barley as cmpared t barley that was prcessed by rlling. Their trials used steers fed a fattening ratin fr 250 days. Their results shwed the pelleted ratin averaged higher in daily gain, which was nt significant. Als the feed efficiency f the pelleted barley ratin was nly slightly better than thse fed the rlled barley treatment. Summar y f Pelleted ersus Nn- pelleted Barley. The wrk n pelleting barley which is summarized in Table 14 shwed n advantage either in daily gain r feed efficiency. The tw tests which were used here lead ne t believe pelleting may depress feedlt perfrmance f cattle. Steam Prcessed Barley There has been interest in steam prcessing barley, as in the ther grains previusly discussed. Therefre, different investigatins have been carried ut at varius statins n the merits f such a preparatin fr barley. Hale and c-wrkers (1965) used barley as ne f their principle grains in a study f flaking r steam prcessing f grains. Preparatin f the steam prcessed barley was by the methd described n page 15. Fr their experiments in cmparing the methds f preparatin f barley, the Arizna wrkers used yearling steers n a fattening ratin. One lt was fed steam prcessed barley and the ther grup dry rlled barley.

43 40 Steam prcessing the barley resulted in an increase in rate f gain f 0.21 punds daily ver dry rlling (2.96 punds versus 2.75 punds). Feed intake was increased by 1.40 punds per day. The feed efficiency f steers fed barley was nt imprved by steam prcessing, since the cattle cnsumed mre grain fr the extra gain. Table 15. The respnse f steers t steam prcessed and dry rlled barley. Item Dry Rlled Steam Prcessed Number f steers Average initial weight, lbs Average daily gain, Average daily feed lbs Feed per pund f gain In analyzing the abve infrmatin in Table 15, ne might cnclude that steam prcessing barley imprved its physical characteristics which resulted in an increased feed intake, but it did nt affect its nutritinal prperties. Califrnia research (1966) n steam prcessing barley has shwn sme benefit under their methd f preparatin. (The Califrnia methd is described n page 14.) The ratin cntaining grain prcessed fr 1.5 minutes at a steam pressure f 29 psi resulted in an increase in daily gain ver all ther prcessing treatments. The feed per pund f gain fr steers fed the 20 psi ratin was reduced in cmparisn with either dry rlled r the psi treatment. Feed intake f animals

44 41 fed the ratin cntaining the grain prcessed at 60 psi was less than that f thse fed either the psi r 20 psi grain. Refer t Table 16 fr trial results. Table 16. Effect f varius steam pressures and length f time n barley. Item Prce ssing Methd 8 min. 1.5 min. 1.5 min, Dry Rlled psi 20 psi 60 psi Average daily gain, lbs Feed cnsumptin per day Punds f feed per pund f gain Summary n Steam Prcessing B arley. The tw trials just reviewed indicate the pssibility f imprving feed efficiency and pssibly daily gain f cattle by steam prcessing the barley. T btain these advantages, hwever, the crrect time f heat expsure and misture must be applied. Mre research must be carried ut in this area t determine whether r nt steam prcessing is feasible. General Summary n Prcessing Barley In reviewing the methds f preparatin f barley, there seemed t be a slight advantage in feeding carsely grund r rlled barley ver fine grinding. Furthermre, the fine grinding did nt imprve feed efficiency.

45 42 Steaming the barley befre rlling had n effect n daily gains f cattle, but did reduce the feed required fr gains. The tw experiments reprted here shwed n definite advantage fr pelleting barley after it had been finely grund. Steam prcessing the barley shwed that the nutritinal qualities f barley were nt affected, but it did affect the physical prperties. The barley seemed mre palatable, therefre the cattle cnsumed mre and gained faster. Again, as fr the ther steam prcessed grains, mre research must be dne n flaking barley t knw the true value f the prcess. VOLATILE FATTY ACIDS The largest cnstituent f the srghum grain, crn, and barley kernel is starch, therefre the ruminant use f this part f the grain is vital t the results that are btained in the feedlt. S, the questin is what happens t the starch prtin f the grain in ruminatin when fed t cattle? Starch is fermented in the rumen f the animal. The end prducts f this fermentatin are the vlatile fatty acids, (VFA); acetic, prpinic, and butyric. Research has shwn that f the three, prpinic can be metablized by the rumen epithelial tissue mst efficiently. Shaw (1959) fund the VFA were nearly cnstantly prduced in the same prprtins frm hur t hur within the rumen and that they were absrbed in prprtin t prductin. This means the higher the prpinic acid prductin in the rumen frm a feed surce used fr fattening, the better the efficiency f the ratin.

46 43 Vlatile fatty acids levels and prprtin have been shwn t be affected by certain types f ratins. In wrk dne primarily with dairy cattle and sheep, it has been demnstrated that the prprtin f VFA can be greatly altered by (a) greatly restricting rughage cnsumptin r feeding an all grain ratin and (b) feeding a high prprtin f steamrlled r flaked crn. Sampling dairy cattle by stmach tube, Tyznk and Allen (1951) fund that a high cncentrate ratin caused a decrease in acetic, increase in prpinic, and n change in butyric acid in the rumen. Balch et al. (1955) reprted that acetic acid prprtins f the rumen fluid drpped frm abut 55 per cent n a nrmal ratin t abut 36 per cent n a ratin f tw punds f hay and 24 punds f cncentrates. Prpinic acid was increased frm abut 23 per cent t abut 35 per cent by the high cncentrate ratins. Ttal acetic acid present in the rumen remained fairly cnstant, but the prprtinate weight f prpinate increased t accunt fr the differences in percentages. Ellit and Lssli (1955) reprted that as the prprtin f grain increased in the ratin relative prprtins f acetic acid decrease, whereas prpinic and butyric acids increase. Balch et al. (1955) demnstrated that the nature f the starch in the ratin determined whether the diet wuld have an effect n the milk fat percentage. Ratins with as little as fur punds f hay plus crn meal gave nrmal milk fat; hwever, the same ratin with the crn meal re placed by flaked crn reduced milk fat. They suggested the special effect f flaked crn, in which the starch granules were ruptured and

47 44 starch partly dextrinized, was assciated with a changed bacterial metablism in the rumen and reticulum. Pfander and Muhrer (1957) made vlatile fatty acid determinatins with whle, carse, cracked, grund and flaked crn in sheep at Missuri. Vlatie fatty acids were prduced mre rapidly frm flaked crn as cmpared t ther prepared frms f crn in fistulated sheep. In additin the amunt f VFA prduced were higher abve the base level fr the flaked crn than fr the ther preparatins f crn. Cabezas (1964) studied the effect f grund, cracked r flaked crn, and pelleted grund crn n feedlt perfrmance. The grund r flaked crn and the pelleted grain were fed t fistulated steers t determine the effect f physical frm n level f vlatile fatty acids in the rumen. Acetate t prpinate ratis were clser tgether (P"C.05) with the diet cntaining flaked crn and further apart with the pelleted grain than with the diet cntaining grund crn. The decrease in acetate t prpinate ratis prduced by the ratins cn taining flaked crn was assciated with the increase in feed efficiency btained with that diet when fed t fattening cattle. The increase in feed efficiency btained with steers fed the pelleted diet was assciated with a lwered ruminal digestin f the dietary cnstituents resulting pssibly frm a faster rate f passage f the pellets thrugh the rumen. This was evidenced by lwer cncentratins f VFA in the rumen f steers fed pelleted diets than in rumens f steers fed either grund r cracked crn. There was virtually n infrmatin in the literature n the effect f flaking f mil and barley n VFA prductin.

48 45 SUMMARY The purpse f this reprt was t summarize the results which have been btained when the three grains, srghum grain, crn, and barley were prcessed by different methds and fed t beef cattle. The results btained with srghum grains shwed evidence that it shuld be prcessed in sme manner fr cattle, as mre grain was digested by the animals and a higher daily rate f gain was btained where it was prcessed. Crn which was fed either whle r carsely grund in feedlt trials, prduced abut the same daily gain and feed efficiency, thereby leaving ne in dubt as t whether crn shuld be prcessed. Researchers fund with barley, that feeding the whle kernel, reduced gains and increased the feed required per pund f gain as cmpared t feeding carsely grund barley. Fine cmpared t carse grinding srghum grain shwed that the finely grund grain prduced mre efficient gains while the average daily gain was nt significantly higher. Increasing the surface area f the grain prduced by fine grinding may be ne reasn why these cattle ate less. They might have been able t utilize finely grund grain mre efficiently than the carsely grund prduct. Grinding crn by the tw methds, burr mill r hammer mill, made little difference in daily gain r feed efficiency. The cmparisns f dry rlled versus fine grinding, resulted in slightly higher daily cnsumptin f the dry rlled crn, but daily gains were the same. The trials cmparing fine grinding, carse grinding, steam rlling, and dry rlling barley shwed that cattle fed the finely grund barley

49 46 gained slightly less and required mre feed fr each pund gained, cnsequently fine grinding was fund nt t be beneficial. Frm the limited data n dry rlling and steam rlling srghum grain, there seemed t be little advantage fr either treatment. Daily gain and feed efficiency were nt affected. This same statement culd be made abut barley which was als prcessed by bth dry rlling and steam rlling. In these experiments the extra cst f steaming was nt reprted, therefre the added expense must be kept in mind in figuring the value f the different methds. The methd f steam prcessing r flaking grain seemed t hld the mst ptential fr imprving gain and feed efficiency with crn, barley, and srghum grain. There appeared t be a certain length f time at which grains culd be subjected t a cmbinatin f heat and misture, in rder t prduce desirable results. Pelleting srghum grain resulted in a reductin in daily feed intake, with little difference in daily gain. Hwever feed efficiency was slightly imprved fr thse cattle fed the pelleted grain. Pelleting crn imprved bth daily gain and feed efficiency. In the case f pelleted barley, there was n advantage in pelleting as shwn in the trials which were reviewed here. In fact, the nnpelleted grain was slightly better in daily gain and feed efficiency. Vlatile fatty acids (VFA) are the end prducts f starch fermen tatin in the rumen. Of the three fatty acids, prpinic is the easiest metablized by the ruminant tissue. Therefre, a feed prcess which increases the amunt f prpinic acid prduced in the rumen

50 47 wuld result in a mre efficient animal. The methd f prcessing which did affect the rati f the VFA prduced, was steam prcessing r flaking f grain. In the trials cnducted with flaking crn, the animals prduced a greater amunt f prpinic acid and were cnsequently mre efficient in their feedlt gains.

51 48 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authr wishes t express his sincere appreciatin t Dr. Ed Smith, majr advisr, fr his advice, cunseling, and assistance in cmpleting this reprt. The writer als wishes t extend his gratitude t all f his prfessrs wh aided and assisted him thrughut his graduate study. The writer als feels greatly indebted t his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harld 6. Leppke, whse financial assistance helped make his educatinal endeavr a reality.

52 49 LITERATURE CITED Arnett, Dudley and N. W. Bradley Pelleted, flaked and grund crn and pelleted distillers dried grains with slubles fr fin ishing beef steers in dry lt. University f Kentucky Field Day Reprt, pp Baker, Marvel L Feeding barley t heifer calves winter University f Nebraska Cattle Prgress Reprt N Baker, F. H., E. F. Smith, R. F. Cx, and D. Richardsn A cmparisn f rlled, carsely grund, and finely grund mil grain fr fattening yearling heifers. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Day Reprt. Circular 320, pp Balch, C. C, D. A. Balch, S. Bartlett, M. P. Bartrum, V. W. Jhnsn, S. J. Rwland, and J. Turner. 1955a. Studies n the secretin f milk f lw fat cntent by cws n diets lw in hay and high in cncentrates. J. Dairy Research. 22:270. Balch, C. C, D. A. Balch, S. Bartlett, Z. D. Hasking, V. W. Jhnsn, S. J. Rwland, and J. Turner. 1955b. Studies f the secretin f milk f lw fat cntent by cws n diets lw in hay and high in cncentrates. V The imprtance f the type f starch in the cncentrates. J. Dairy Research. 22:10. Bren, F. W., E. F. Smith, D. Richardsn, R. F. Cx, and D. Fllis The effects f added prtein t dry rlled and steam rlled srghum grain fattening ratins. Kansas State University Feeder's Day Reprt. Bulletin 447, pp Cabezas, Marc T The effect f physical frm n nutritive value f ruminant diets. (Abstract) Dissertatin Abstracts 25(6) : Clantn, D. C Cattle finishing ratin. University f Nebraska Beef Cattle Prgress Reprt, pp Cx, R. F. and E. F. Smith A cmparisn f rlled, carse grund, and mil grain fr fattening steer calves. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt. Circular 273. pp Cx, R. F. and E. F. Smith A cmparisn f rlled, carsely grund, and finely grund mil grain fr fattening steer calves. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Day Reprt. Circular 283, pp Dinussn, W. E., D. W. Blin, D. 0. Ericksn, and M. L. Buchnan Fattening beef cattle n barley. Farm Research Vl. 21, N. 7. pp. 4-8.

53 50 Dinussn, W. E., D. 0. Ericksn, C. N. Ilaugse, and M. L. Buchnan Barley fr fattening beef cattle. Farm Research, Vl. 22, N. 6, pp Ellit, J. M. and J. X. Lsli Relatinship f milk prductin efficiency t the relative prprtin f the rumen vlatile fatty acids. J. Dairy Science. 42:843. Garner, G. B., W. U. Pfander, and M. E. Muhrer Effect f the physical frm f grain n the rate f vlatile fatty acid pr ductin in ruminants. (Abstract) J. Animal Science 16 (4): Garrett, V. N., G. P. Lfgren and J. L. Hull Steam pressure prcessing f grain fr fattening cattle. University f Cali frnia Feeder's Reprt, p. 31. Gdrich, R. D., F. W. Whitzal and L. B. Embry Effect f grinding and rlling n the feeding value f shelled crn fr cattle. Suth Dakta State Cllege Feeder's Reprt. Mime Hale, W. H. Utilizatin f mil and barley fr fattening steers Feedstuff s 35 (20). p. 89. Hale, W. H., Bruce Taylr, W. J. Saba and Kenneth Palmer The effect f steam prcessing mil and barley and the use f varius levels f fat with steam prcessed mil and barley in highcncentrate steer fattening ratins. University f Arizna Cattle Feeder's Reprt, pp , Hffman, E. N., Ralph Bgart, and M. J. Burris Crn, barley and bnemeal fr fattening cattle ratins. Oregn State Cllege, Statin Bulletin 528. Jnes, J. M., W. H. Black, F. E. Keating, and J. H. Jnes Fattening beef calves n mil grain prepared in different ways. Texas Agricultural Experiment Statin. Bulletin N Kansas Agriculture th Annual Reprt. Kansas State Bard f Agriculture. Tpeka, Kansas, p. 13F Secretary, Ry Freeland. Little, C. 0., N. W. Bradley and B. M. Jnes, Jr Grund, flaked and pelleted crn fr fattening beef steers. University f Kentucky Research Reprt, pp Martin, Jhn H. and Warren H. Lenard Principles f Field Crp Prductin. Srghums. New Yrk, The Macmillan Cmpany. p. 397.

54 51 Matsushima, J. K., J* I. Sprague and D. E. Jhnsn Flaked r cracked grain. Clrad Farm and Hme Research. 14(4) :6-7. Matsushima, J. K., D.. Jhnsn, M. W. Heeney, and B. A. Weichenthal Flaked crn. Clrad Farm and Hme Research. Vl. 16, N. 1. pp Mrrisn, Frank B. Feeds and Feeding. Factrs affecting the value f feeds. Twenty-secnd Editin, Unabridged. Clintn, Iwa. The Mrrisn Publishing Cmpany, p , Newman, A. L., W. W. Albert, and R. W. Kleis Test f methds f grinding grund shelled crn fr fattening beef steers. University f Illinis Feeder's Reprt. AS430F. Ppe, L. S., R. F. Hendricksn, Lwell Walters, Gerge Waller and W. D. Campbell Effect f rlling vs. pelleting mil, previus implantatin, and certain feed additives n the feedlt perfrmance f steers and heifer calves. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, pp Ppe, L. S., L. E. Walters, Gerge Waller, and W. D. Campbell Rlled vs. pelleted mil and certain feed additives fr fattening steer calves. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, p Ppe, L. S«, Lwell Walters, Gerge Waller, Jr., and W. 0. Campbell Effect f pelleting and steam rlling mil, with and withut enzymes, fr fattening steer calves. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, pp , Ppe, L. S., Gerge Waller, Gerge Odell, and W. D. Campbell Methds f prcessing mil fr fattening steer calves. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, pp. 114, 119. Ppe, L. S., 0. F. Harper and Gerge R. Waller Steam heated (pregelatinized) mil fr fattening beef calves, Oklahma State University Feeder's Day Reprt, p. 66. Richardsn, D., E. F. Smith, B. A. Kch, and R. F. Cx A study f the value f pelleting mil grain. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt, p. 67. Richardsn, D., E. F. Smith, B. A. Kch, F. W. Bren and R. F. Cx A study f the value f pelleting srghum grain. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt, p. 64, Richardsn, D,, E. F. Smith, F. W, Bren, B. A. Kch, R, F. Cx, and 0. J. Keltz A study f the value f pelleting srghum grain. Kansas State University Feeder's Reprt, p. 61.

55 52 Richardsn, D., E. F. Smith, B. A. Kch, F. W. Bren, and W. S. Tsien Rlled vs. finely grund pelleted srghum grain in cattle ratins. Kansas State University Feeder's Reprt, p. 30. Richardsn, D., E. F. Smith, F. W. Bren, and B. A. Kch Rlled vs. finely grund pelleted srghum grain in cattle ratins. Kansas State University Feeder's Reprt, p. 33. Rbinsn, Ry. Pelleting Intrductin and general definitins. Feed Prducti n Handbk, Inc., Kansas City, Missuri. First Editin p. 43. Shaw, J. C Nutritinal physilgy f the rumen: A new apprach t rumen nutritin. Feedstuffs 3(37) :18. Smith, fid. F. Feeding value f grain srghum greatly increased by grinding. The Kansas Stckman, June p. 21. Smith, Ed. F Effect f grinding n the nutritive value f grain srghum fr fattening steer calves. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt, p. 21. Smith, Ed. F., D. B. Parrish, and A. B. Pickett Effect f grinding n the nutritive value f grain srghums fr fattening steer calves. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt, p. 37. Smith, E. F., and D. B. Parrish A cmparisn f rlled, carsely grund and finely grund mil grain fr fattening yearling steers. Kansas State Cllege Feeder's Reprt, p. 49. Snapp, Rsce R., and A. L. Heuman. Beef Cattl e. Fifth Editin. New Yrk. Jhn Wiley and Sns p Stanley, E. B Ratins fr fattening cattle in Arizna. Bulletin 198. University f Arizna, p. 10. Stevens, Carl. Basic prcessing peratins, grinding and rlling. Feed Prductin Ha ndbk. Feed Prductin Schl, Inc., Kansas City, Missuri. First Editin pp Taylr, Bruce R The preparatin f crn fr fattening beef calves. Mimegraph Circular N. 84. Oklahma A. and M. Cllege Feeder's Reprt. Ttusek, Rbert, Dwight Stephens, and Lwell Walters Imprving the utilizatin f mil fr fattening calves: value f fine grinding and supplemental vitamin A. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, p. 63.

56 53 Tyznik, W. and N. N. Allen The relatin f rughage intake t the fat cntent f the milk and the levels f fatty acid in the rumen. J. Dairy Science. 34:493 (Abstract) Urban, Kenneth, L. S. Ppe, and Dwight Stephens Cmparisns f tw methds f preparing barley fr fattening steer calves. Oklahma State University Feeder's Reprt, p. 34.

57 METHODS OF GRAIN PREPARATION FOR FINISHING BEEF CATTLE by DARYL W. LOEPPKE B. S., Kansas State University, 1964 AN ABSTRACT OF A MASTER'S REPORT submitted in partial fulfillment f the requirements fr the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department f Animal Husbandry KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 1966

58 The research reviewed shwed that prcessing srghum grain in sme manner was beneficial fr fattening cattle. Grinding grain increased its value 41 per cent in ne test; and in a srghum silage trial, the grinding f the grain increased gains 12 and 19 per cent. Grinding increased the digestibility f all the cmpnents f srghum grain except crude fiber. Cattle cnsumed a smaller amunt f fine grund srghum grain. Hwever, they were mre efficient and their daily gain was nly slightly less than that f cattle fed carse grund grain. In trials cmparing dry rlled and steam rlled srghum grain, the perfrmance was abut the same. Steam prcessing srghum grain with 20 punds f pressure per square inch fr 1.5 minutes prduced significantly greater daily gains. Efficiency was als significantly imprved by steam prcessing. Prcessing the grain at a higher pressure, 60 punds, significantly reduced the feed intake. Increased gains and imprved feed efficiency were bserved with anther steam prcessing methd which emplyed 20 punds f pressure fr 20 minutes. In a digestin trial with steam prcessed srghum grain, the nitrgen free extract was the fractin mst affected. Fine grinding and pelleting srghum grain decreased cnsumptin and increased feed efficiency by eight per cent with very little effect n daily gain. Finishing cattle fed whle shelled crn perfrmed as well as thse fed carsely grund crn. Dry rlled crn gave abut the same results as grund crn.

59 Pelleting crn imprved average daily gain slightly and imprved feed efficiency 13 per cent. The extra cst f pelleting crn was nt in the literature reviewed. Crn steamed fr 12 minutes at 200 F and then rlled was superir t cracked crn. Steaming resulted in 15 per cent less grain cnsumed per day and shwed an eight per cent imprvement in feed efficiency. Cattle receiving whle barley gained 14 per cent less and were less efficient than cattle fed grund barley. When finely and carsely grund barley were cmpared, the daily gain and feed efficiency were slightly higher fr the latter. There was little evidence that steam rlling r pelleting barley was mre beneficial than dry rlling. Gains were nt imprved and feed efficiency was changed nly slightly. The extra cst f steam rlling was nt reprted. Steam prcessing f barley resulted in larger daily gains and, under certain cnditins, mre efficient gains. Steam prcessing r flaking crn increased the amunt f prpinic acid prduced in the rumen.

60