Effect of traditional roughage-based or limit-fed, high-energy diets on growth performance and digestion in newly received growing cattle and subsequent implications on feedlot growth performance and carcass characteristics.

The objective was to determine the effects of ad libitum-fed roughage-based diets or limit-fed high-energy diets on growth performance, behavior, health, and digestion in newly received growing cattle and subsequent implications on feedlot growth performance and carcass characteristics. In experiment 1, 409 crossbred heifers (initial body weight [BW] = 279 ±â€…24 kg) in 32 pens were used in a randomized block design. Heifers were fed one of two dietary treatments: a total mixed ration with 0.99 Mcal net energy for gain (NEg)/kg dry matter (DM) fed ad libitum (0.99AL) or 1.32 Mcal NEg/kg DM limit-fed at 85% of intake of heifers fed 0.99AL (1.32LF85%). Both diets contained 40% DM as a branded wet corn gluten feed. In experiment 2, 370 crossbred heifers (initial BW = 225 ±â€…20 kg) were used in a randomized block design and were fed a diet formulated to contain 0.99 Mcal of NEg/kg DM for ad libitum intake or a diet formulated to contain 1.32 Mcal of NEg/kg DM and fed at 2.2% of BW daily (DM basis; 1.32LF2.2). For experiments 1 and 2, treatment integrity was maintained through the finishing phase where cattle were fed a common diet. Cattle were sorted by BW into heavy and light groups prior to finishing, with light cattle fed longer than heavy cattle to reach similar harvest BW. In experiment 3, eight ruminally cannulated heifers (average BW = 305 ±â€…23 kg) were used in a 2-period cross-over design and fed treatments from experiment 1 to assess digestibility and ruminal fermentation characteristics. Gain:feed was 47% and 35% greater (P < 0.01) in experiments 1 and 2, respectively, for limit-fed heifers compared with 0.99AL heifers. Rumination time was greater (P < 0.01) for 0.99AL compared with limit-fed treatments in experiments 1 and 2. Activity was greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF2.2 than for 0.99AL in experiment 2. In experiment 1, more (P = 0.03) carcasses from light-sort heifers than carcasses from heavy-sort heifers had livers with large, active abscesses. In experiment 2, finishing phase morbidity was greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF2.2 than for 0.99AL. Light-sort groups had fewer (P < 0.01) edible livers than heavy-sort groups, suggesting that greater number of days on feed may increase the risk of liver abscess prevalence and condemnation. In experiment 3, apparent total-tract DM and organic matter digestibilities were greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF85% than for 0.99AL. Overall, dietary treatments during the growing phase had little carryover effect on feedlot growth performance, carcass characteristics, or liver abscesses prevalence at harvest.

Heat Stress Mitigation Strategies in Feedyards: Use, Perceptions, and Experiences of Industry Stakeholders.

The purpose of this study was to: (1) understand heat mitigation strategies currently used and recommended by feedyard operators, veterinarians, and nutritionists, (2) understand their perceptions of heat mitigation strategies related to cattle health, performance, welfare, and carcass quality, (3) quantify the frequency of extreme heat events, and (4) understand industry needs associated with heat stress mitigation strategies. An online survey was shared via 11 industry association listservs. Descriptive statistics were performed on 56 responses (n = 22 operators, 26 veterinarians and eight nutritionists). Thematic analysis was performed on free-response questions. Sixteen (72.7%) operators, 23 (88.5%) veterinarians and eight (100%) nutritionists utilized at least one heat mitigation strategy. "Changing processing and shipping hours" (n = 42, 75%) had the most "strongly agree" responses when asked about strategy effectiveness. The majority of respondents agreed that heat stress negatively impacts cattle health, performance, and welfare (Mean ± SD; ≥7.8 ± 2.6 for all roles). Forty-two (75%) respondents experienced cattle death loss from extreme heat events. Thematic analysis indicated that respondents perceived pen infrastructure and water/feed management as important considerations for better mitigating heat stress impacts. When asked what resources would be helpful, respondents indicated research and data regarding the effectiveness of various strategies.

Bunk space requirements for growing beef cattle limit-fed a high-energy corn and corn co-product diet.

Bunk requirements for optimal growth performance of growing calves limit-fed high-energy corn and corn co-product diets have not been widely evaluated. Three-hundred eighty-five crossbred steers (initial body weight = 215 ± 25 kg) were purchased in Texas, transported to the Kansas State Beef Stocker Unit, and weighed at arrival. Steers were stratified by body weight and randomly assigned to 1 of 28 pens containing 12 to 14 head. Within block, pens were randomly assigned to one of four bunk allotment treatments: 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, or 63.5 cm of bunk per head for a 58-d receiving period. Calves were fed at 0700 h once daily at 1.8% of bodyweight (dry matter basis) from February 2 to March 13, 2021; thereafter the daily feed allotment was increased to 2.0% of bodyweight. The diet contained (dry matter basis) 39.5% dry-rolled corn, 7.5% supplement, 40% wet corn gluten feed, and 13% prairie hay. Steers were individually weighed on days 29 and 58 and pen weights were measured weekly to determine feed offered for the following week. Body weights on days 29 and 58, dry matter intake, or gain-to-feed ratio during the receiving period did not differ (P ≥ 0.34) between treatments. During the first 29 d, average daily gain (ADG) increased linearly as bunk space increased (P = 0.03); however, no treatment effects were observed thereafter. In addition, ADG standard deviation from days 0 to 29 responded quadratically (P = 0.05) where ADG standard deviation tended to be greater in the 38.1-cm allotment and was greater in the 50.8-cm allotment compared to the 25.4-cm allotment (P = 0.07 and P = 0.04, respectively). Bunk score tended to decrease linearly as bunk allotment decreased (P = 0.06). Following the receiving period, steers were blocked by bunk treatment and randomly assigned to 1 of 18 pastures. Steers were grazed for 90-d from May to August at a targeted stocking density of 280 kg live-weight ˖ ha-1. During the grazing season, ADG increased linearly with reduced (P < 0.01) bunk allotment; however, body weights did not differ (P = 0.91) between bunk treatments at the completion of the grazing period. In addition, overall total body weight gains and ADG from the receiving and grazing periods did not differ (P > 0.57) between bunk treatments. We interpreted our data to suggest that bunk space allotments of 25.4 to 63.5 cm per head had minimal impact on growth performance during a 58-d receiving period and did not affect final body weights following a 90-d grazing season.