Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products

Similar documents
Value of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn

A Summary of Feeding Market Cows for the White Fat Cow Market

Grass-fed and Organic Beef: Production Costs and Breakeven Market Prices, 2008 and 2009

Effect of Backgrounding System on Performance and Profitability of Yearling Beef Steers

Opportunities and Challenges for Cow/Calf Producers 1. Rick Rasby Extension Beef Specialist University of Nebraska

RESEARCH AGRICULTURAL SOUTHEAST AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER. Report of Progress 1069

Utilizing Coproducts in the Grazing Program

Beef Cattle Handbook

Integration of Pasturing Systems for Cattle Finishing Programs

Effect of rotation crop, cover crop, and bale grazing on steer performance, carcass measurements, and carcass value

EFFECTS OF LIMIT FEEDING ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS

Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle

Rough-N-Ready. Maximize Your Calves Growth Potential

Revised Estimated Returns Series Beginning in 2007

EFFECT OF GRAZING TALL FESCUE ENDOPHYTE TYPES ON SUBSEQUENT FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY

Efficacy of Grazing Stockpiled Perennial Forages for Winter Maintenance of Beef Cows

BEEF FACTS. The goal of the Center for Research and Knowledge Management at the National Cattlemen s Beef. Product Enhancement/Beef Safety

The Use of Real-Time Ultrasound to Predict Live Feedlot Cattle Carcass Value

Forage Systems for Pasture Finishing Beef

RESEARCH AGRICULTURAL SOUTHEAST AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER. Report of Progress 1013

What Hay Is Right For Your Livestock. Tom Gallagher Capital Area Agriculture Horticulture Program Livestock Specialist

Feedlot Nutrition for Holsteins

University of Florida Presentation. By: Jerry Bohn

2010 UW Extension Cattle Feeder Clinic Proceedings 1

Distillers Grains Feeding and Beef Quality

Canfax Research Services A Division of the Canadian Cattlemen s Association

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

Lick Tanks to Deliver Condensed Corn Distillers Solubles to Summer Grazing Beef Cows

Influence of Cow BCS and Late Gestation Supplementation: Effects on Cow and Calf Performance 1

Grazing System Effects on Soil Compaction in Southern Iowa Pastures

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2017 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

U.S. Beef Production Practices ---

Forage and Livestock Management Considerations

Forage and Livestock Management Considerations

Grazing Economics 101 Keys to Being a Profitable Forage Producer MODNR-SWCP Mark Kennedy and John Turner

Backgrounding Calves Part 2: Herd Health and Feeding

ALFALFA FOR BEEF CATTLE

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

FORAGE SYSTEMS TO REDUCE THE WINTER FEEDING PERIOD. Gerald W. Evers

Fall Calving in North Dakota By Brian Kreft

Experiences with Kura Clover in Agricultural Systems in Wisconsin

What Is the Cost of Gain for Stocker Cattle on Ryegrass Pasture?

Got Milk? An Economic Look at Cow Size and Milk. July 13 th, 2015

Effects of Creep Supplementation While Grazing Improved Irrigated Pastures

Value-Based Marketing for Feeder Cattle. By Tom Brink, Top Dollar Angus, Inc.

Winter Cow Feeding Strategies. Why is this Important?

CATTLE FEEDING INVESTIGATIONS,

Update on Preconditioning Beef Calves Prior to Sale by Cow Calf Producers. Objectives of a Preconditioning Program. Vac-45 Calves

Forage Finishing Beef Cattle in Northern Ontario

Cattle Market Situation and Outlook

feezeted Dry-Lot Cattle Feeders

Beef Cattle Nutrition Fast Start Training Dec. 11, Overview U.S. Beef Cattle Numbers. Industry Segments U.S.

Change FORAGES MORE PEOPLE FORAGES: CHANGE-CHALLENGES- OPPORTUNITIES. Garry D. Lacefield Extension Forage Specialist University of Kentucky

Performance Testing Bulls on the Farm

Marketing Cull Cows How & When?

FEED EFFICIENCY IN THE RANGE BEEF COW: WHAT SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT?

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXII November 29, 30, & December1, 2011, Mitchell, NE

Use of Soft-Red Winter Wheat Forage for Stocker Cattle Production During the Fall and Winter 1

Commentary: Increasing Productivity, Meat Yield, and Beef Quality through Genetic Selection, Management, and Technology

A GRAZING AND HAYING SYSTEM WITH WINTER ANNUAL GRASSES. Steve Orloff and Dan Drake 1 ABSTRACT

Incorporating Annual Forages into Crop-Forage-Livestock Systems

Balancing Forage Demand with Forage Supply

November Feed Price Evaluations

Seasonal Trends in Steer Feeding Profits, Prices, and Performance

Why Rotational Stocking Makes Dollars and Sense Victor Shelton & Jerry Perkins Grazing Specialists Natural Resources Conservation Service

Effects of Backgrounding and Growing Programs on Beef Carcass Quality and Yield

Economics Associated with Beef Cattle Ranching. Larry Forero UC Cooperative Extension April 21, 2016

2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE August 1972 FCR-83 cooperating with New Mexico State University COSTS NOV

AGRICULTURAL ALTERNATIVES

MCA/MSU Bull Evaluation Program 2016 Buyer Survey and Impact Report

CATTLE FEEDING INVESTIGATIONS, 1926-'27¹

October 20, 1998 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info U.S., WORLD CROP ESTIMATES TIGHTEN SOYBEAN SUPPLY- DEMAND:

Stockpiling Forages. Stockpiling Perennial Grasses. Stockpiling. Risky business? 8/22/2010. Rocky Lemus August 25, 2010 MSPFSC

Sorghum as a Feed for Lambs

Comparison of Feedlot Performance and Carcass Traits Among Various Three-Breed Cross Calves

Grazing Management Different Strategies. Dr Jim Russell and Joe Sellers Iowa State University

Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics

How High Fuel, Fertilizer and Commodity Prices Affect Manure Management Decisions

EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS. Story in Brief

Nutrition, facilities, and management of the Holstein steer. Steven Rust Michigan State University

Wagyu 101. Michael Scott Certified Executive Chef Academy of Chefs Corporate Chef for Rosewood Ranches Texas Raised Wagyu Beef

FEEDING HORSES WHEN FEED IS SHORT R.J. (Bob) Coleman Ph.D. PAS

Quality Grade: What is driving the recent upswing?

Use of Linear and Non-linear Growth Curves to Describe Body Weight Changes of Young Angus Bulls and Heifers

Kent and Linda Solberg

Wheat Pasture Intake by Early-Weaned Calves

THE ROLE OF THE U.S. ETHANOL INDUSTRY IN FOOD AND FEED PRODUCTION

Cow-Calf Ranch Input Worksheet- Unit Cost of Production Workshop Users Guide

Quality Standards for Beef, Pork, & Poultry. Unit 5.01

Beef Cattle Library. Weaning Management of Beef Calves 1. Oregon State University. Beef Cattle Sciences

The Modern Range Cow has Greater Nutrient Demand than the Old Style Range Cow

Residual feed intake and greenhouse gas emissions in beef cattle

THE EFFECTS OF CO-ENSILING WET DISTILLER S GRAINS PLUS SOLUBLES WITH CORN SILAGE ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE OF BRED BEEF HEIFERS DURING LATE PREGNANCY

Georgia Beef Challenge Rules and Entry Form Ugabeef.com

Telephone: (706) Animal and Dairy Science Department Rhodes Center for Animal and Dairy Science

Understanding SHRINK in Beef Cattle

Economics of Breeding, Gestating and Farrowing Hogs in Natural Pork Production; Financial Comparison

Beef Cattle Research Update

Forage Utilization Guidelines for Beef Cattle

Transcription:

Animal Industry Report AS 652 ASL R2067 2006 Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products Mark S. Honeyman, honeyman@iastate.edu James R. Russell Daniel G. Morrical Dallas L. Maxwell W. Darrell Busby See next page for additional authors Recommended Citation Honeyman, Mark S.; Russell, James R.; Morrical, Daniel G.; Maxwell, Dallas L.; Busby, W. Darrell; and Sellers, Joe (2006) "Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products," Animal Industry Report: AS 652, ASL R2067. Available at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ans_air/vol652/iss1/13 This Beef is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Research Reports at Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Animal Industry Report by an authorized editor of Digital Repository. For more information, please contact digirep@iastate.edu.

Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products Authors Mark S. Honeyman, James R. Russell, Daniel G. Morrical, Dallas L. Maxwell, W. Darrell Busby, and Joe Sellers This beef is available in Animal Industry Report: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ans_air/vol652/iss1/13

Animal Industry Report 2006 Finishing Beef Cattle on Grass Supplemented with Self-fed By-Products A.S. Leaflet R2067 Mark Honeyman, professor, Jim Russell, professor, Dan Morrical, professor, department of animal science; Dallas Maxwell, ag specialist; Darrell Busby, area extension livestock specialist; Joe Sellers, area extension livestock specialist Summary and Implications The objective of this study was to feed beef cattle to market weight (or as near as possible) by grazing coolseason grass supplemented with self-fed by-product pellets. The study took place at two locations in southwest Iowa. Yearling cattle were used at the Armstrong Farm and fall born calves were used at the Neely-Kinyon Farm. At each location, the cattle were allotted by weight to treatments of: 1) grazing with immediate access to by-product pellets in a self-feeder (early) and 2) grazing with later access (mid- June) to the same pellets (late). The trial started April 21, 2005. The by-product pellets were a blend of DDGS, soy hulls, and wheat midds. Overall, the calves supplemented the by-product feed early grew faster than the calves supplemented later. The early supplemented calves consumed 15.5 lb/day of byproduct feed and gained 2.50 lb/day. The later supplemented calves consumed 17.4 lb/day of feed and gained 2.17 lb/day overall and 2.37 lb/day while supplemented. Overall, the yearling steers supplemented the byproduct feed early grew faster (ADG=2.61) than the steers supplemented later (ADG=1.80). The early supplemented steers consumed an average of 19.9 lb/day for 180 days. The late supplemented steers during the first period (without supplementation) gained only 0.53 lb/day, which was the result of a shortage of forage and the forage that was available was fescue. Once supplementation occurred, the late supplemented steers partially compensated by consuming 20.1 lb/day of supplemental feed and gaining 2.32 lb/day. Some of the cattle reached market weight by the end of grazing season on October 12, 2005. Five calves were harvested with an average live weight of 1,009 lb, an average carcass weight of 598 lb, and 59.3% yield. Nineteen yearling steers were harvested with average live weight of 1,225 lb, an average carcass weight of 744 lbs, and 60.7% dressing percentage. Average daily feed cost for the byproduct feed including feeder rent ranged from $1.19/day to $1.48/day. Some lessons can be derived from this study. The byproduct feed was a ration that the cattle consumed readily from self-feeders with minimal problems. The by-product feed should be offered as soon as the cattle are put in pasture for maximal gains. With good grass, yearling steers can be expected to gain 400 to 500 lb over six months of grazing with by-product feed supplementation. Achieving choice grade may be challenging with this system. Introduction There has been increasing interest by some consumers for beef from cattle that are finished or fattened on grass rather than in a conventional feedlot. Also recently, Iowa has had a proliferation of plants that produce ethanol from corn. The by-product of this process is distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). The objective of this study was to feed beef cattle to market weight (or as near as possible) by grazing cool-season grass supplemented with self-fed byproduct pellets. Materials and Methods The study took place at two locations in southwest Iowa the ISU Armstrong Farm, Lewis, IA and the Neely- Kinyon Farm, Greenfield, IA, during 2005. Yearling cattle were used at the Armstrong Farm and fall born calves were used at the Neely-Kinyon Farm. At each location, the cattle were allotted by weight to treatments of: 1) grazing with immediate access to by-product pellets in a self-feeder (early) and 2) grazing with later access (mid-june) to the same pellets (late). The trial started April 21, 2005. The by-product pellets were a blend of DDGS, soy hulls, and wheat midds (Table 1). The by-product feed was chosen because of its low starch content and high digestible fiber content, which compliments the forage and minimizes negative associative effects. It is also easy and safe to feed in a self-feeder with minimal risk of acidosis and over eating digestive problems. The pasture at the Armstrong Farm was primarily tall fescue. It had not been grazed the prior year. The pasture at the Neely-Kinyon Farm was a mix of bromegrass and bluegrass with 15 to 20 percent legumes, primarily birdsfoot trefoil. The cattle at each site continuously grazed their assigned pasture. The cattle were weighed when they were placed on grass, when the self-feeders were added to the second treatment and in October when the cattle were removed from grass. Prior to the self-feeders, the cattle were hand-fed the by-product pellets for approximately 2 weeks for adjustment. At the end of the study, the cattle near market weight were harvested. The yearling cattle were scanned by a certified ultrasound technician for backfat, ribeye area, and marbling. The calves were not scanned. The cattle that were not ready for market were placed in a conventional feedlot for finishing. By-product feed usage was recorded.

Animal Industry Report 2006 Results and Discussion Calves. Overall, the calves supplemented the byproduct feed early grew faster than the calves supplemented later. The Neely-Kinyon Farm pasture had a lower stocking rate (calves) and higher quality forage (minimal fescue) than the Armstrong Farm pasture, and thus offered better grazing. The early supplemented calves consumed 15.5 lb/day of by-product feed and gained 2.50 lb/day. The later supplemented calves consumed 17.4 lb/day of feed and gained 2.17 lb/day overall and 2.37 lb/day while supplemented. The calves had an average body condition score of 3.19 at the beginning of the trial in April and an average body condition score of 5.6 (late) and 6.0 (early) in October. The calves body condition score increased by 2.34 (late) and 2.88 (early). Yearlings. Overall, the yearling steers supplemented the by-product feed early grew faster (ADG=2.61) than the steers supplemented later (ADG=1.80). The early supplemented steers consumed an average of 19.9 lb/day for 180 days. The late supplemented steers during the first period (without supplementation) gained only 0.53 lb/day, which was the result of several problems in the pasture. First the pasture was grazed prior to the start of trial during March and April for approximately 30 days. Stocking rate was probably too high, 1.5 to 1.6 steers/acre for this pasture s productivity. And, the pasture was primarily tall fescue, which contributed to fescue toxicity and high body temperatures in some steers. Two steers died and two had to be removed from the late supplemented group. Once supplementation occurred, the late supplemented partially compensated by consuming 20.1 lb/day of supplemental feed and gaining 2.32 lb/day. Overall the late steers gained 1.80 lb/day as compared with 2.61 lb/day for the early group. Carcass data. Some of the cattle reached market weight by the end of grazing season on October 12, 2005. Five calves were harvested with an average live weight of 1,009 lb, an average carcass weight of 598 lb, 59.3% yield, average backfat of.36 in., and average ribeye area of 11.7 sq. in. Four calves graded choice and one graded select with four head at yield grade #2 and one at yield grade #1 (Table 2). Nineteen yearling steers were harvested with average live weight of 1,225 lb, an average carcass weight of 744 lbs, 60.7% dressing percentage, average backfat of.32 in., and average ribeye area of 12.8 sq. in. Quality grades for the yearling cattle were disappointing with only four grading choice and fifteen grading select. Yield grades indicated that cattle were still relatively lean with five steers at yield grade #1, ten head at yield grade #2, and four head at yield grade #3 (Table 2). All of the yearlings were scanned at the end of the trial by a certified ultrasound technician and had an average backfat of 0.28 in. and an average ribeye area of 12.5 sq. in. Only one calf and four yearlings harvested were from the late supplemental groups. Costs. The cost assumptions were that the by-product feed cost 7 /lb delivered plus $2/day for a self-feeder for each group (these were the actual costs) and $40/acre for pasture stocked with 1.5 cattle per acre. The costs for each group are shown in Table 2. Average daily feed cost for the by-product feed including feeder rent ranged from $1.19/day to $1.48/day. Costs were higher for the yearlings because they ate more feed. Feed cost of gain was from 46 to 82 per pound of gain. When the pasture cost was included the cost of gain was $53 to $96 per cwt of gain. The late supplemented yearlings were the highest cost because of their low gain. Death loss was not included in cost of gain calculations. Conclusions Some lessons can be derived from this study. The by-product feed was a ration that the cattle consumed readily from self-feeders with minimal problems. The by-product feed should be offered as soon as the cattle are put in pasture for maximal gains. Yearlings can reach market weight on grass with supplementation of a by-product feed. With good grass, yearling steers can be expected to gain 400 to 500 lb over six months of grazing with by-product feed supplementation. Daily gains of about 2.5 lb/day can be expected with this system. Achieving choice grade may be challenging with this system. Cattle could meet natural or grass-finished criteria, but not organic using this system. Pasture quality is a factor in this system.

Animal Industry Report 2006 Table 1. Composition and calculated analysis of a by-product feed mix. Composition % DDGS 50.0 Soy hulls 25.0 Wheat midds 20.9 Molasses Calcium carbonate 2.5 1.6 Total 100.0 Calculated Analysis Dry matter, % 90.1 Crude protein, % 21.8 Calcium, %.94 Phosphorus, %.67 NE m.91 NE g.61 TDN, % 85.9 Table 2. Performance of grazing beef cattle supplemented with by-product feed. Calves Yearlings Early suppl. Late suppl. Early suppl. Late suppl. Number, head 26 27 21 32 1 Stocking rate, hd/a 1.34 1.48 1.49 1.56 Live weight Avg lb 2 (4/21/05) 433 435 735 734 Avg lb 3 (6/10/05) 582 519 856 760 Avg lb 4 (10/12/05) 868 813 1,189 1,048 Body condition score 5 Avg (4/21/05) 3.12 3.26 3.98 3.93 Avg (6/10/05) 4.16 3.44 4.67 3.86 Avg (10/12/05) 6.00 5.60 6.55 5.69 Average daily gain First period, lb/day 2.98 1.68 2.42 0.53 Second period, lb/day 2.31 2.37 2.68 2.32 Overall, lb/day 2.50 2.17 2.61 1.80 Avg feed consumed, lb/day 15.5 17.4 19.9 20.1 Choice or better % 25 0 20 25 YG 1 and 2, % 100 100 73 100 Avg daily feed cost 6, $/day/hd 1.16 1.29 1.46 1.48 Feed cost of gain 6, $/cwt of gain 46 59 56 82 Total cost of gain 7, $/cwt of gain 53 67 64 96 Marketed off-grass, hd 4 1 15 4 Marketed off-grass, % 15.4 3.7 71.4 14.3 1 During the study, 2 steers died and 2 steers were removed. The effective number was 30.5 head. 2 In date was April 21, 2005. Early supplement started this date. 3 Mid date was June 10, 2005. Late supplement started this date. 4 Out date was October 12, 2005. 5 Body condition score: 1=extremely thin, 9=extremely fat. 6 Includes $2/day self-feeder rent for 30 cattle or 7 /hd/day. 7 Includes 17 /day pasture rent or $40/acre for 1.5 head of cattle/acre. Death loss not included.