Impact of Body Weight Gain During Stocker/Backgrounding on Feedyard Performance and Carcass Traits Galen E Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Transcription

1 Impact of Body Weight Gain During Stocker/Backgrounding on Feedyard Performance and Carcass Traits Galen E Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln gerickson4@unl.edu

2 Reasons for backgrounding/stocker programs Feedlots daily slaughter/replacement Economics of backgrounding Feed resources Commodity prices Forage less expensive than grains/byproducts Cattle size

3

4

5 Carcass Constraints and Issues Hot carcass weight Historically kg base Increased upper limit: 454 or 477 kg Fatness Base: YG 3 Premium 1 & 2 Discount 4 & 5 Base: USDA Choice- (lower 1/3) Premium: upper Choice and Prime Discount: Select, Standard, No roll

6 Quality Grading Marbling evaluation of the quantity of intramuscular fat in the longissimus muscle between the 12 th and 13 th ribs PRIME PREMIUM CHOICE CHOICE SELECT NO ROLL USDA NATIONAL SUMMARY OF MEATS GRADED

7 Data Source: USDA-NASS, Compiled & Analysis by LMIC Livestock Marketing Information Center M-S-25 11/23/16

8 Yield Grading Fat Thickness Linear measure of backfat Rib eye Area Cross-section area of longissimus muscle Hot Carcass Weight Weight of the freshly dressed carcass immediately prior to chilling Estimated % of KPH Fat Subjective evaluation of weight of internal fat in relation to carcass weight YG1 YG2 YG3 YG4 YG5

9 Camera grading

10 Endpoints If you want to assess impact on quality Time (days fed) Body weight Carcass weight Equal carcass fatness % EBF Fat thickness Yield grade carcass density=composition

11 Weaning spring-born calves Calf-fed feedlot NOV Fall 183 DOF Winter corn stalks NOV MAR Harvest MAY Spring grass MAY Harvest AUG Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years) Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years) Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years) Adams et al., 2008 (sorting) 132 DOF Short Yrl feedlot Fall Winter Spring Summer MAY grass OCT 96 DOF Harvest DEC Long Yrl feedlot Fall Winter Spring Summer Age 200 d 320 d 383 d 515d 540 d 636 Fall Winter

12 Calves vs. Yearlings Item Calf-Fed Long-Yearling P-value No. animals (pens) 804(80) 302(18) -- Initial BW, kg ADG, kg/d DMI, kg/d G:F, kg/kg HCW, kg Rib fat, cm Marbling score Rib fat adjusted traits HCW, kg Marbling score Griffin et al., 2007 Prof. Anim. Scient.

13 Finishing performance and carcass characteristics for calves vs yearlings a Item Calf-fed Yearling Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg Days on feed Feed intake, kg/d % of weight Daily gain, kg Gain/feed Fat depth, cm Choice, % a 5 years, 489 head, 48 pens Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

14 Finishing performance and carcass characteristics for calves vs yearlings a Item Calf-fed Yearling Initial weight, kg Final weight, kg (592) Days on feed (139) Feed intake, kg/d % of weight Daily gain, kg Gain/feed Fat depth, cm (1.22) Choice, % a 5 years, 489 head, 48 pens Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

15 Design Weaned calves in fall Control (random) Sorted 1/3 calf-feds Heaviest 1/3 (calffeds) Lightest 2/3 Wintered 1/3 wintered, fed in summer (short yearlings) Heaviest fed summer (short yearlings) Lightest grazed pasture 1/3 wintered, grazed pasture, fed in fall (long yearlings Fed in fall (long yearlings) Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

16 Feedlot Initial BW, kg D E C C B A Calf-fed Summer Yearling Fall Yearling Sorted Unsorted Sort * Feeding period interaction = P<0.01 Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

17 Gain Efficiency, Gain/ lb of feed B A C C D D Calf-fed Summer Yearling Fall Yearling Sorted Unsorted Sort * Feeding period interaction P = 0.02 Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

18 Hot carcass weight, kg D E C C B A Calf-fed Summer Yearling Fall Yearlings Sorted Unsorted Sort * Feeding period interaction P<0.01 Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

19 Growth performance - feedlot phase Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years) Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years); Adams et al., 2010 (sorting)

20 Growth performance - feedlot phase Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years) Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years); Adams et al., 2010 (sorting)

21 Growth performance - feedlot phase Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years) Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years); Adams et al., 2010 (sorting)

22 Carcass traits of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling beef steers Item Calf-fed Long yearling SEM 12 th -rib fat, mm 13.4 a 10.8 b th -rib fat rate, mm/d 0.08 b 0.11 a YG HCW, kg 367 b 400 a 2.4 **HCW, kg adj (12 mm) 355 b 422 a 2.4 Marbling score a 550 a 9.9 **Marbling score, adj 503 b 534 a 12.2 Marbling rate, points/d 1.13 b 2.17 a Marbling score = 400, slight; 500, small; 600 modest Choice or higher, % 74 a 66 b 3.8 Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years) Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years); Adams et al., 2010 (sorting)

23 Weaning fall-born calves Growth performance of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling steers Item Calf-fed Short yearling Long yearling SEM 1 Feedlot DOF 188 a 158 ab 94 b 22 ADG, kg DMI, kg/d 8.58 b b a 0.5 G:F th -rib fat gain, mm/d SEM = standard error of the mean; n = 3/group Pens/group = 1 over 3 years Sainz & Vernazza Paganini et al., 2004

24 Weaning fall-born calves Carcass traits of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling steers Item Calf-fed Short yearling Long yearling SEM 1 12 th -rib fat, mm YG HCW Marbling score Carcass fat, % 27.7 ab 29.4 a 23.9 b 1.49 Choice or higher, % SEM = standard error of the mean; n = 3/group. Pens/group = 1 over 3 years 2 Marbling scores: slight, 7 to 9; small, 10 to 12; modest, 13 to 15. Sainz & Vernazza Paganini et al., 2004

25 If enough energy in the diet Empty = initial Solid = final 16 studies IBW: 143 to 416 kg Finished weights: 356 to 571 kg ADG: 0.67 to 1.87 kg Owens et al., 1995

26 Meta-analysis of finishing performance and carcass traits from calffed and yearling production systems from 10 published studies Item Calf-fed Yearling SEM P-value Performance Initial BW, kg Final BW, kg ADG, kg/d DMI, kg/d Gain:Feed, kg/kg Carcass characteristics HCW, kg LM area, cm Rib fat thickness, cm KPH, % Yield Grade Marbling Score Marbling grid: Slight 00 =300, Small 00 =400, Modest 00 =500. (Lancaster et al., 2016)

27 Calf-feds Lower DMI/d, lower ADG, better efficiency Increased days in feedlots Marketing flexibility limited (70% calves spring born) Yield grade discounts an issue (too fat) Lower carcass weights Yearlings Greater DMI/d, greater ADG, poorer efficiency Less days on feed Overweight carcasses an issue (SORTING?) Leaner, grade better? More flexibility on marketing Healthier (in the feedlot anyway)

28 Impact of initial BW (assuming previous ADG) Most were yearling feeding studies (not all) Individually fed, 2002 to 2015 experiments 21 experiments, 16 steers, 5 heifers Initial BW range: 226 to 542 kg Final BW range: 370 to 764 kg HCW range: 233 to 481 kg DOF range: 93 to 189 days Melton et al., unpublished

29 Trial-Adjusted HCW Initial BW impact on HCW y = 0,6198x + 276,79 R² = 0, Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

30 Trial-Adjusted DMI Initial BW impact on finishing DMI y = 0,0103x + 13,676 R² = 0, Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

31 Trial-Adjusted ADG Initial BW impact on finishing ADG 5,5 5 4,5 4 3,5 3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 y = -3E-06x 2 + 0,0058x + 0,8491 R² = 0, Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

32 Trial-Adjusted G:F Initial BW impact on finishing G:F 0,3 0,25 y = -5E-10x 3 + 1E-06x 2-0,0011x + 0,4789 R² = 0,089 0,2 0,15 0,1 0, Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

33 Methods Growing diet by year 1 Ingredient, % Yr 1,2 Yr 3 Sweet Bran Wheat Straw MDGS 35 - WDGS - 35 Supplement 2, All values presented on a DM basis. 2 Supplement includes limestone, trace minerals, and vitamin A, D, E premix 3 Formulated for 200 mg/animal Rumensin daily Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

34 Methods Finishing diet by year 1 Ingredient, % Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 HMC Sweet Bran Wheat Straw Grass Hay MDGS WDGS Supplement 2, All values presented on a DM basis. 2 Supplement includes limestone, trace minerals, and vitamin A, D, E premix 3 Formulated for 330 mg/animal of Rumensin and 90 mg/animal Tylan daily Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

35 Results Growing performance of calves in GROW treatment GROW Growing performance DOF 76 Initial BW, kg 266 Ending BW, kg 365 DMI, kg 8.1 ADG,, kg 1.29 G:F Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

36 Results Effects of post-weaning management on finishing performance and carcass characteristics FINISH GROW SEM P-value Calves, n Total DOF Finishing performance DOF Initial BW, kg <0.01 Final BW 1, kg <0.01 DMI <0.01 ADG 1, kg <0.01 G:F <0.01 Carcass Characteristics HCW, kg <0.01 LM area, cm th rib fat, cm Marbling <0.01 Calc. Yield Grade Calculated on a carcass-adjusted basis using a common dressing % (63%) 2 Marbling score: 400 = Small, 500 = Modest, etc. Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

37 Effect of treatment on performance during the growing period (d 1-112) Treatment WP SF PF SEM P-value Initial wt, kg 253 a 237 b 234 b 2.87 <0.001 Final wt, kg 382 a 369 b 377 ab 3.76 <0.51 DMI, kg/d a 6.1 b 0.20 <0.001 ADG, kg 1.15 a 1.10 b 1.18 a 0.02 <0.009 G:F a b <0.001 ab Means without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

38 Effect of treatment on performance during the finishing phase Treatment WP SF PF CF SEM P-Value Initial wt, kg 382 a 369 b 377 ab 239 c 3.76 <0.001 Final wt, kg 584 a 581 a 571 ab 559 b 6.22 <0.001 Days on feed DMI, kg/d 10.4 ab 10.9 a 10.1 b 8.6 c 0.24 <0.001 ADG, kg 1.64 a 2.02 b 1.85 c 1.63 a 0.04 <0.001 G:F a b b b <0.001 abc Means without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

39 Effect of treatment on carcass characteristics Treatment WP SF PF CF SEM P-value Dressing % 65.9 a 65.1 b 65.9 a 66.3 a 0.27 <0.014 HCW, kg 386 a 379 ab 376 ab 371 b 4.4 < th - rib fat 1.35 a 1.27 a 1.24 a 1.63 b <0.001 LM area 86.5 ab 89.7 a 89.0 a 84.5 b 1.29 <0.023 KPH, % 3.00 a 3.00 a 3.00 a 3.09 a <0.41 Yield grade 3.19 a 2.76 b 2.94 b 3.39 a <0.001 Marbling 409 a 449 b 423 ab 401 a 9.8 <0.012 score 1 ab Means without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05) 1 300=Slight 00, 400=Small 00, 500=Modest 00

40 Visceral fat mass (g/kg EBW) at termination of the growing and finishing phases 35 WP SF PF c b a a a a Initial Intermediate Final

41 Shain et al., 1998 Downs et al., 1998 Jordon et al., 1999 Shelby slower fast slower faster slower faster slower finishing Growing ADG Growing G:F Finishing DMI Finishing ADG Finishing G:F HCW fat depth Marbling

42 Krehbiel Cody year 1 Cody year 2 WP SF PF finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Growing ADG Growing G:F Finishing DMI Finishing ADG Finishing G:F HCW fat depth Marbling

43 Krehbiel Cody year 1 Cody year 2 WP SF PF finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Growing ADG Growing G:F Finishing DMI Finishing ADG Finishing G:F HCW fat depth Marbling

44 Finishing ADG, kg 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 0 0,5 1 1,5 Summer ADG, kg

45 Finishing ADG, kg 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 0 0,5 1 1,5 Summer ADG, kg shain downs jordon krehbiel cody yr 1 cody yr 2

46 Finishing G:F 0,2 0,15 0,1 0, ,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 Summer ADG, kg shain downs jordon krehbiel cody yr 1 cody yr 2

47 Conclusions: BW gain on finishing Some impact, but small on subsequent ADG If all pasture grazing, greater impact? Is silage different? Same is true for G:F Growing makes cattle bigger at same fatness Slower gain, bigger at equal fatness Measures on a per day basis, not a big impact Can t determine whether pasture & drylot behave similarly Certainly more points needed within studies (almost all just 2 points)

48 Impact of Body Weight Gain During Stocker/Backgrounding on Feedyard Performance and Carcass Traits Galen E Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln gerickson4@unl.edu