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

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

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

Carcass Constraints and Issues Hot carcass weight Historically 250-431 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

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 http://www.ams.usda.gov/amsv1.0/getfile?ddocname=stelprdc5087255

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

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

Camera grading

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

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

Calves vs. Yearlings Item Calf-Fed Long-Yearling P-value No. animals (pens) 804(80) 302(18) -- Initial BW, kg 291 435 0.01 ADG, kg/d 1.73 2.06 0.01 DMI, kg/d 9.71 13.89 0.01 G:F, kg/kg 0.178 0.148 0.01 HCW, kg 367 390 0.01 Rib fat, cm 1.35 1.20 0.01 Marbling score 510 525 0.21 Rib fat adjusted traits HCW, kg 355 422 0.01 Marbling score 503 533 0.04 Griffin et al., 2007 Prof. Anim. Scient.

Finishing performance and carcass characteristics for calves vs yearlings a Item Calf-fed Yearling Initial weight, kg 244 373 Final weight, kg 501 544 Days on feed 207 108 Feed intake, kg/d 7.9 11.3 % of weight 2.1 2.5 Daily gain, kg 1.26 1.54 Gain/feed.162.136 Fat depth, cm 1.22.97 Choice, % 76.0 64.9 a 5 years, 489 head, 48 pens Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

Finishing performance and carcass characteristics for calves vs yearlings a Item Calf-fed Yearling Initial weight, kg 244 373 Final weight, kg 501 544 (592) Days on feed 207 108 (139) Feed intake, kg/d 7.9 11.3 % of weight 2.1 2.5 Daily gain, kg 1.26 1.54 Gain/feed 0.162 0.136 Fat depth, cm 1.22 0.97 (1.22) Choice, % 76.0 64.9 a 5 years, 489 head, 48 pens Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

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.

Feedlot Initial BW, kg 450 400 350 300 250 200 360 358 395 421 150 294 262 100 50 0 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.

Gain Efficiency, Gain/ lb of feed 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.170 0.179 0.161 0.164 0.153 0.147 B A C C D D 0.000 Calf-fed Summer Yearling Fall Yearling Sorted Unsorted Sort * Feeding period interaction P = 0.02 Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

Hot carcass weight, kg 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 368 390 389 398 351 417 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.

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)

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)

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)

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 0.3 12 th -rib fat rate, mm/d 0.08 b 0.11 a 0.002 YG 2.7 2.6 0.14 HCW, kg 367 b 400 a 2.4 **HCW, kg adj (12 mm) 355 b 422 a 2.4 Marbling score 1 539 a 550 a 9.9 **Marbling score, adj 503 b 534 a 12.2 Marbling rate, points/d 1.13 b 2.17 a 0.10 1 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)

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 1.22 1.44 1.54 0.2 DMI, kg/d 8.58 b 10.33 b 12.42 a 0.5 G:F 0.142 0.140 0.124 0.009 12 th -rib fat gain, mm/d 0.054 0.063 0.071 18 1 SEM = standard error of the mean; n = 3/group Pens/group = 1 over 3 years Sainz & Vernazza Paganini et al., 2004

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 10.7 10.7 10.6 0.62 YG 2.94 2.88 3.10 0.14 HCW 294 315 331 15 Marbling score 2 11.2 10.9 9.8 1.22 Carcass fat, % 27.7 ab 29.4 a 23.9 b 1.49 Choice or higher, % 46 48 30 1 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

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

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 251.3 376.5 17.5 0.01 Final BW, kg 528.5 555.2 16.4 0.01 ADG, kg/d 1.52 1.71 0.08 0.01 DMI, kg/d 8.49 11.52 0.65 0.01 Gain:Feed, kg/kg 0.178 0.157 0.005 0.01 Carcass characteristics HCW, kg 337.1 344.5 11.9 0.10 LM area, cm 2 78.78 81.16 3.19 0.09 Rib fat thickness, cm 1.38 1.20 0.06 0.01 KPH, % 2.34 2.23 0.17 0.01 Yield Grade 2.98 2.85 0.12 0.15 Marbling Score 1 425 420 16.9 0.66 1 Marbling grid: Slight 00 =300, Small 00 =400, Modest 00 =500. (Lancaster et al., 2016)

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)

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

Trial-Adjusted HCW Initial BW impact on HCW 1200 1000 y = 0,6198x + 276,79 R² = 0,6859 800 600 400 200 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

Trial-Adjusted DMI Initial BW impact on finishing DMI 35 30 y = 0,0103x + 13,676 R² = 0,1971 25 20 15 10 5 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

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 = 0,0129 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

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 0,05 0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Initial BW Melton et al., unpublished

Methods Growing diet by year 1 Ingredient, % Yr 1,2 Yr 3 Sweet Bran 30 30 Wheat Straw 31 31 MDGS 35 - WDGS - 35 Supplement 2,3 4 4 1 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

Methods Finishing diet by year 1 Ingredient, % Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 HMC 50 51 51 Sweet Bran 30 30 30 Wheat Straw 5 - - Grass Hay - 5 5 MDGS 10 10 - WDGS - - 10 Supplement 2,3 5 4 4 1 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

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 0.1609 Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

Results Effects of post-weaning management on finishing performance and carcass characteristics FINISH GROW SEM P-value Calves, n 105 104 Total DOF 196 245 Finishing performance DOF 196 169 Initial BW, kg 265 367 7.7 <0.01 Final BW 1, kg 591 626 15 <0.01 DMI 9.5 10.1 0.3 <0.01 ADG 1, kg 1.67 1.53 0.04 <0.01 G:F 1 0.1763 0.1512 0.0037 <0.01 Carcass Characteristics HCW, kg 372 394 9 <0.01 LM area, cm 2 34.8 35.1 0.7 0.66 12 th rib fat, cm 1.37 1.52 0.08 0.06 Marbling 2 423 465 12 <0.01 Calc. Yield Grade 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.04 1 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

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 -- 7.7 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 -- 0.143 a 0.198 b 0.007 <0.001 ab Means without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

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 123 104 104 196 -- -- 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 0.156 a 0.186 b 0.186 b 0.190 b 0.005 <0.001 abc Means without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

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 <0.12 12th - rib fat 1.35 a 1.27 a 1.24 a 1.63 b 0.048 <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 0.047 <0.41 Yield grade 3.19 a 2.76 b 2.94 b 3.39 a 0.076 <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

Visceral fat mass (g/kg EBW) at termination of the growing and finishing phases 35 WP SF PF 30 25 20 c b a a a a 15 10 Initial Intermediate Final

Shain et al., 1998 Downs et al., 1998 Jordon et al., 1999 Shelby slower fast slower faster slower faster slower finishing Growing ADG 0.72 0.82 0.28 0.81 0.51 0.90 1.29 Growing G:F Finishing DMI 12.1 11.7 13.8 13.7 14.2 14.2 10.1 9.5 Finishing ADG 1.63 1.63 2.16 1.98 2.15 2.15 1.53 1.67 Finishing G:F 0.134 0.138 0.157 0.145 0.151 0.151 0.151 0.176 HCW 394 372 fat depth 1.07 1.07 1.28 1.21 1.10 1.23 1.52 1.37 Marbling 18.7 18.7 19.5 19.1 529 517 465 423

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 1.15 1.1 1.18 1.03 0.81 0.73 0.45 0.94 0.75 0.9 0.47 0.143 0.198 0.129 0.125 0.122 0.118 10.4 10.9 10.1 8.6 13.9 14 14.2 14.4 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.9 11.4 1.64 2.02 1.85 1.63 1.72 1.70 1.67 1.76 2.01 1.77 1.80 1.73 1.97 1.72 0.156 0.186 0.186 0.19 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.122 0.16 0.139 0.145 0.142 0.153 0.152 386 379 376 371 449 449 439 418 426 437 473 433 434 379 1.35 1.27 1.24 1.63 1.40 1.37 1.47 1.32 1.60 1.37 1.42 1.32 1.30 1.42 409 449 423 401 484 514 491 492 481 488 538 483 511 442

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 1.15 1.1 1.18 1.03 0.81 0.73 0.45 0.94 0.75 0.9 0.47 0.143 0.198 0.129 0.125 0.122 0.118 10.4 10.9 10.1 8.6 13.9 14 14.2 14.4 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.9 11.4 1.64 2.02 1.85 1.63 1.72 1.70 1.67 1.76 2.01 1.77 1.80 1.73 1.97 1.72 0.156 0.186 0.186 0.190 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.122 0.160 0.139 0.145 0.142 0.153 0.152 386 379 376 371 449 449 439 418 426 437 473 433 434 379 1.35 1.27 1.24 1.63 1.40 1.37 1.47 1.32 1.60 1.37 1.42 1.32 1.30 1.42 409 449 423 401 484 514 491 492 481 488 538 483 511 442

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

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

Finishing G:F 0,2 0,15 0,1 0,05 0 0 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

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)

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