WELCOME TO THE 2001 CARRINGTON RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTER BEEF AND BISON FIELD DAY JULY 19, 2001 AGENDA Livestock Production Research and Review 9:30 A.M. TO NOON Bison Research Projects: Energy and Protein........................................... Vern Anderson Bison Economics......................................................................................... Steve Metzger Fly Ash for Feedlots...................................................................................... Deb Hassette Feeding Potato Waste to Livestock.................................................................... Eric Bock Cattle Feeding Partnerships and Businesses ................................................... Karl Hoppe Backgrounding Economics ......................................................................... Steve Metzger Field Peas are Excellent in Beef Rations .................................................. Vern Anderson Heifer Diets Affect Lactation................................................................... Manny Encinias Feeding Cow Cake made with Crambe Meal ............................................ Vern Anderson Special Afternoon Walking Tour (1:00 – 2:30) ................................. Charles Linderman Livestock facilities for controlling and using livestock waste Noon Meal Noon – 1 p.m. Sponsored by area businesses and commodity groups
Transcript
WELCOME TO THE
2001 CARRINGTON RESEARCH EXTENSION CENTER BEEF AND BISON FIELD DAY
JULY 19, 2001
AGENDA
Livestock Production Research and Review
9:30 A.M. TO NOON Bison Research Projects: Energy and Protein........................................... Vern Anderson Bison Economics......................................................................................... Steve Metzger Fly Ash for Feedlots...................................................................................... Deb Hassette Feeding Potato Waste to Livestock.................................................................... Eric Bock Cattle Feeding Partnerships and Businesses ................................................... Karl Hoppe Backgrounding Economics ......................................................................... Steve Metzger Field Peas are Excellent in Beef Rations .................................................. Vern Anderson
Heifer Diets Affect Lactation................................................................... Manny Encinias Feeding Cow Cake made with Crambe Meal ............................................ Vern Anderson Special Afternoon Walking Tour (1:00 – 2:30) ................................. Charles Linderman Livestock facilities for controlling and using livestock waste
Noon Meal Noon – 1 p.m.
Sponsored by area businesses and commodity groups
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our appreciation is expressed to the following for cooperation, contributions, and support of beef and bison studies during the recent past. Alltech, Inc. AVIKO Inc. Carrington Development Corporation Carrington Jobs Development Authority Carrington Farm Business Management Program Certified Angus Beef Program Dakota Growers Pasta Company Dow AgriSciences Energy and Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota Foster County Feeders, LLP Four-Way Bison Partnership Heartland Inc. and Hubbard Feeds IBP, Inc. Kings, LTD Ladish Malt –Cargill Manna Pro Corp. National Bison Association North Dakota Agricultural Products Utilization Commission North Dakota Barley Council ND Barley Feeders, LLLP North Dakota Buffalo Association North Dakota Livestock Endowment Foundation North Dakota National Guard North Dakota Pea and Lentil Association North Dakota State University Animal and Range Sciences Department Agriculture and Bioengineering Department Agricultural Economics Department
Veterinary and Microbiological Sciences Department North Dakota State Board of Agricultural Research and Education Northern Crops Institute Oilseed Partners, LLC Turner Ranches United States Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative – Equipment Grants Program Alternative Crops Program Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Other numerous individuals and organizations Trade names and companies used are for clear communication. No endorsement is intended nor criticism implied of products mentioned or not mentioned.
LIVESTOCK RESEARCH AND EDUCATION
This publication provides results and information on activities accomplished during the recent past in beef production. Beef and bison research reports are published separately to provide information useful to producers in their operations to become more profitable and sustainable. We hope some of the papers are of value to all. Beef Research Beef cow/calf enterprises can utilize more crop residues and co-product feeds and be both biologically and economically sustainable. Cows can add value to cropping system biomass and spread the risk of single enterprise farming. Beef nutrition research includes “new” and “unusual” feeds balanced in diets for the genetic potential of the cows. Similarly, value added concepts in the feedlot enterprise have been proven to be feasible when management and economies of scale are optimized. The tremendous variety and quantity of feedgrains and processing co-products in the region insure competitive feed pricing for North Dakota feeders. Bison Research There is a tremendous need for more information on the biology and economics of bison production. The Bison Center of the Northern Plains will continue to contribute as resources allow. Waste Management Waste management is a visible and restrictive program that affects all livestock producers. Improving the environment of confined animals by stabilizing soil with fly ash, controlling runoff, irrigating with livestock runoff, and composting plant and animal biomass are areas of current and future focus. We hope the information in this publication is useful to you and leads to improved quality of life, financial reward, and “success” as a grower of food. If you have questions or comments on past research, suggestions for future studies, or want to interact with one of us, please e-mail us at our individual addresses or call (701) 652-2951. These proceedings are published at the Carrington Research Extension Center website at www.ag.nodak.edu/carringt/. Eric Bock Research Specialist [email protected] Charles Linderman, MS Steve Metzger Extension Waste Management Specialist Farm Business Management Instructor [email protected][email protected] Karl Hoppe, PhD Vern Anderson, PhD Extension Livestock Specialist Animal Scientist [email protected][email protected]
Profi vs Integra Field Pea in Growing Diets for Feedlot Steers ................................. 1 Eric Bock and Vern Anderson
The Business of Feeding Cattle with Partnerships and Other Legal Structures......... 3
Vern Anderson and Karl Hoppe
Potato Co-Product in Diets for Growing and Finishing Steer Diets .......................... 6 Vern Anderson and Eric Bock
Production and Economic Factors Associated with Backgrounding
Beef Calves in East-Central North Dakota .........................................................11 Steve Metzger
Stabilizing Feedlots Using Coal Ash........................................................................ 15
Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett
Progress Report: Identifying Fast Growing Genetics; North Dakota Winter Show Steer Classic Pen Division Feedout Project 2001.........................20
Karl Hoppe, Russ Danielson, Dale Hildebrandt
CalfWEB: An Internet Site For Calculating and Storing Cattle Feeding Breakevens and Closeouts ..................................................................................24
Karl Hoppe, John Dhuyvetter, Greg Lardy, Dwight Aakre
The Beef Cow/Calf Enterprise What Is The Optimum Level of Crambe Meal in Range Cake? .............................. 27
Vern Anderson, Eric Bock, Chip Poland
Altering Dietary Energy in Pregnant Beef Heifers................................................... 33 A.M. Encinias, H.B. Encinias. A.E. Radunz, T.D. Klein,
M.L. Bauer, C.S. Park, G.P. Lardy
Nutritive Value of Minor Oilseed Meals for Livestock ........................................... 40 Vern Anderson, Marsha Kapphahn
Special Articles
Field Peas in Beef Cattle Diets A Summary of Research and Recommendations......................................................42
Vern Anderson
Future Beef Research .............................................................................................49
PROFI VS. INTEGRA FIELD PEA IN GROWING DIETS FOR
FEEDLOT STEERS
Eric Bock and Vern Anderson Carrington Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Introduction Acres planted to field peas have been increasing throughout the Northern Plains states and provinces. Peas are a nutrient-dense feed grain, containing high levels of crude protein and energy. The targeted market for peas is human food where prices are often highest. Some varieties, however, are bred and grown for feed. As a grain legume, peas have been incorporated into diets for swine, sheep, dairy, and beef. A regional commercial feed manufacturer has included field peas as a significant ingredient in a very popular feed product. Data from previous beef research trials indicates peas are very palatable and improve dry matter intake and gain in creep rations, growing diets, and finishing diets. More pea varieties are being grown as breeders develop new strains for different purposes and environments. It appears that there may be substantial variation in nutrient content of peas from variety or environmental differences. This trial was conducted to assess animal performance when two popular field pea varieties were fed to growing feedlot steers. Both Profi and Integra field peas were developed in Europe as food-grade varieties and are widely adapted to the northern plains. They are popular varieties with satisfactory yields. Agronomy trials at the Carrington Research Center indicate average yields were 53 bushels per acre for Profi and 56.4 bushels per acre for Integra. The objectives of this trial were to measure the differences in performance of feedlot cattle due to pea variety.
Table 1. Nutrient composition of Profi and Integra field pea Profi Integra Dry matter, % 87.78 87.22 -----------Dry matter basis---------- Crude Protein, % 24.08 17.50 Acid Detergent Fiber, % 6.59 11.41 Neutral Detergent Fiber, % 18.94 21.35 Calcium, % .24 .29 Phosphorus, % .38 .34
Materials and Methods Crossbred steers (n=42) were allotted to one of two treatments, Profi or Integra field pea as the primary energy source. Table 1 provides laboratory analysis of the nutrients in these varieties. Note that protein content of Profi is much higher (24.08%) than Integra
(17.50%) in this study. It is important to note that Integra’s generally have higher protein content (22.5%) than the lot used in this trial. Steers were weighed at start of the trial on December 14, midway through trial, and at the end of the trial on February 8. Steers were also weighed 61 days after the trial was completed to test any differences due to treatment when steers were fed a common finishing diet. Diets were balanced to achieve a concentrate to roughage ratio of 60/40 in the first period (growing ration) and 75/25 in the second period (finishing ration). Diets were fed once daily in a fenceline bunk at equal levels to both treatments. Rations were balanced to meet minimum nutrient requirements for yearling steers projected to gain 3 lbs./day in the growing phase and 3.75 lbs/day in the finishing phase.
Table 2. Diets for steers fed Profi and Integra field peas Period 1 Period 2 --------------Lbs., as fed------------- Field Peas 9.50 13.5 Midds 2.38 4.15 Straw 2.38 2.30 Silage 12.35 8.22 Supplement 0.50 0.50
Table 3. Performance of steers fed Profi or Integra field pea
Period 1 Period 2 Overall After-trial Profi Integra Profi Integra Profi Integra Profi Integra
Results and Discussion In this non-replicated demonstration trial, we observed some interesting numerical differences due to variety. Even though dry matter intake was very similar between treatments (Table 3) during both feeding periods when expressed either as pounds per day or as percent of body weight, average daily gain varied by period with reciprocal responses by variety. Gains were noticeably higher for the Integra treatment during period 1 and for the Profi treatment during period 2 with an apparent advantage overall for the Profi diet. Feed efficiency followed the same pattern as gains with the steers fed Integra peas exhibiting more efficient conversion in period 1 and Profi in period 2. Averaging both periods suggests Profi peas improved gains and feed efficiency. There appeared to be an effect of treatment even after the steers were fed an identical diet. As you can see in Table 2., the steers fed Profi peas achieved noticeably higher gains. With satisfactory performance observed from steers in both treatments and during both periods, the reader is given more confidence in using peas, regardless of variety in feedlot diets. Any statistically significant differences due to protein level or other factors will have to be determined in further research with adequate replications. Suffice to say, peas
are palatable and nutritious for growing and finishing beef cattle and should be fed when they compete economically with other feed sources.
THE BUSINESS OF FEEDING CATTLE WITH PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER LEGAL STRUCTURES
Vern Anderson and Karl Hoppe
Carrington Research Extension Center Introduction Cattle feeding is an opportunity for 1) grain farmers to capture more value from their commodities, 2) cattlemen to profit from the genetics in their herds, and 3) investors to profit from opportunities not seized by others. For those not familiar with feeding cattle, several types of opportunities exist to gain knowledge and confidence in the enterprise. Educational events, such as the NDSU Feedlot School held annually at the Carrington Research Extension Center, provide cattlemen an overview of feeding and offer resources for further investigation. Web sites, extension publications, and books are excellent references on feeding. Marketing services are quick to provide advice. North Dakota lending agencies can provide finances for cattle feeding; however, they are not as familiar with cattle feeding as compared to grain farming. Real experiences in cattle feeding begin when dollars are invested and cattle are placed on feed. For each 10,000 head of cattle fed to market weight, $32 million is injected into the economy. This paper describes some organizations that combine resources and approaches for individuals feed cattle with minimum risk and maximum return. Partnerships for Feeding Partnerships in ND take several forms. Limited liability partnerships (LLP’s) are true partnerships best suited for a small numbers of partners where each individual investor/partner has to agree on each decision. The limited liability, limited partnerships (LLLP’s) can be legally operated by a managing board. There is no restriction on “farming” status of investors in either partnership type. The limited liability term means partners are liable only for their level of participation if the business does not succeed. Partnerships subscribe to the rule of thumb “co-mingle dollars but not cattle”. Successful examples of this rule are demonstrated in two investor partnerships currently feeding cattle in the area. Rockford Feeders, LLP has been feeding cattle for three years and the ND Barley Feeders, LLLP initiated feeding less than one year ago. Both of these partnerships are successful to date but some pointed lessons have been learned. They are 1) protect your market position with hedges and options, secure modest profits vs gambling on a windfall, 2) focus your solicitations on small groups or individuals with a common vision, 3) purchase cattle and feed at market prices, sharing the net returns with all partners. Partnerships can form when two or more people agree on a common vision and develop a business plan with clearly stated goals and operating methods. Some legal advice is required to file the partnership forms and maintain the organization as a business according to state laws. Partnerships that own cattle should work with their feeder to insure that best management practices for cattle and timely marketings are accomplished.
Proceeds are distributed according to pre-agreed upon terms, but based on proportion of participation. The major advantage of partnerships is the combining of modest resources from a number of individuals to operate on an economical scale, feed cattle using best management practices, spread purchases and marketing over time, and use professional risk management tools. Cooperatives for Feeding Cooperatives are formed for specific purposes. The Central Dakota Cattle Feeders Association was developed as a cooperative that finances cattle. Each person feeds their own cattle and with cumulative numbers, the cooperative offers lenders security that leads to increased leverage, modest interest rates, and lower equity per head required. Cooperative feedlots owned by cattlemen, like Dakota Prairie Beef at Gascoyne, ND provide another method of cattle feeding. Instead of building on-farm feedlots, the producers create a central feedyard that employs professional management with economies of scale. Since the producers own the feedlot, they share in the custom feeding profits via a dividend and equity accumulation. The cooperative charges member feeders for feed and yardage as any commercial yard. Some cooperative yards require members to fill pens or pen spaces to maintain cattle numbers. Yardage may be charged for contracted animal numbers for the period of time regardless of actual cattle in the pen. In this case, the responsibility for filling the pen falls with the cooperative member. Retained Ownership Cow/calf producers can feed their own calves at home or at a commercial yard. When they feed at home, with home grown feed, upfront loans may be secured for all but $35 equity per head plus personal guarantees. In this case, a producer would do his own breakeven calculations, plan rations and feeding management, and market his own steers. Help is available from a variety of sources including NDSU livestock specialists to plan or review on-farm feeding operations. Feeding at a commercial yard would increase the equity requirement to $125 per head, but many commercial yards provide breakeven calculations, use professionally developed rations, feeding according to best management practices and offer marketing advice and services. Investor Feeder Individuals with the capital, interest, and risk tolerance may invest in a single lot or in multiple lots of cattle at commercial yard(s). Managing marketing risk is the major challenge as the price of a hedge or put weighs against profit potential from cash sales. On the other hand, a volatile cash market can be fiscally stressful if the market turns adverse. Seasonal price patterns are not always consistent. Individuals who do this are encouraged to become knowledgeable in the use of futures and options. Commercial instruction is readily available to learn more about his approach. Bottom line is managing your risk. Commercial yards charge $.25 per head daily for yardage, plus feed, medicine, implants and other supplies.
Developing the Feeding Industry A major limitation to feeding more cattle in ND is the amount of pen space. More feedlots are needed to capture the value of grain and/or cattle. A few steps to consider for individuals or partnerships are: Formulate a business plan, company structure, and roles of partners. Address regulatory requirements for environmental compliance including runoff containment, water sources, slope, soil type, pen space, surface and ground water, recycling nutrients, and others. Estimate construction costs based on amount of earth to move, buildings needed, pens and bunks, and other facilities. Develop estimate of initial cash outlay and monthly cash flow for your lender. A sound business plan will use conservative numbers and give your lender confidence that your proposal is potentially profitable. Additional reading is recommended including the NDSU Extension publication “A checklist for feedlot siting and environmental compliance” AS-1155, Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook, MWPS 6, and Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, MWPS 18, all available through your local county extension office or research extension centers. The Bottom Line The test of any business plan is how much money does it make. This can be measured by return on investment or return on equity. How does it function after being launched and operating for a period of time? Are the predicted numbers reasonable? What are the major deviations? How can they be fixed or what can be done to make the business even more profitable? More information on making money by feeding cattle can be obtained by contacting one of the authors.
POTATO CO-PRODUCT IN DIETS FOR GROWING
AND FINISHING STEER DIETS
Vern Anderson and Eric Bock Carrington Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Abstract Potato co-product from AVIKO LLC in Jamestown ND was fed to growing steers during the winter and through finishing to test effects of high moisture potato diets in feedlot cattle. The 82% moisture product was added at 0, 10, 20, and 30% (dry matter basis) of the diet replacing corn as an energy source. Growing diets were about 65% concentrate and finishing diets were 85% concentrate. Feed intake, gain, feed efficiency, and carcass traits were not different but cost of gain decreased with increasing potato co-product given the prices of commodities in this study. Potato co-product makes an excellent feed for growing and finishing steers when used in a balanced ration when priced competitively.
Introduction The North Dakota potato industry has developed to a point where the disposal of its co-products is a serious problem. The disposal options are: landfill, land application, or utilize as a livestock feed ingredient. Potato co-products contain substantial amounts of energy in the form of starch, and are generally low in fiber and protein. Ruminant livestock have the capacity to consume relatively large amounts of potato co-product in a variety of forms and moisture levels. The greatest liability for potato co-products is the high moisture content. This limits the hauling distance and may affect animal intake and/or performance during periods of cold weather. Current potato peeling methods employ steam versus the previously used alkali peeling method, which may have yield a nutritionally different feed product. With the potential for increasing amounts of potato waste and a growing feeding industry in North Dakota, research trials were conducted to evaluate this co-product in growing and finishing diets. This project is one component of a comprehensive potato co-product research study involving products from Simplot at Grand Forks, AVIKO, at Jamestown, and faculty and graduate students from NDSU Animal Science Department. Materials and Methods One hundred-twenty steers were received and preconditioned together at the Carrington Research Center in the fall of 2000. At the start of the trial in December, steers were weighed and allotted to one of four treatments with three replicates per treatment and 10 head per pen. The diet treatments were potato co-product fed at 0%, 10%, 20%, or 30% of the diet dry matter. The potato co-product consisted of approximately equal amounts of three different by-products which were rejected fries, filter cake, and peelings.
Steers were fed a growing diet with a concentrate to roughage ratio of 65:35 for 55 days, followed by a finishing diet with a concentrate to roughage ratio of 85:15 for 84 days. Diets were formulated to meet the nutrient requirements of growing and finishing steers gaining approximately 3.0 and 3.5 pounds respectively. Steers were fed to appetite once daily in a fenceline bunk. Synovex S was implanted in all steers at the start of the trial. An ionophore and supplemental calcium were included in the supplement. Steers were weighed every 28 days. Carcass data was collected after a 24-hour chill. Table 1. Diets for steers fed potato co-product during growing and finishing Treatment Item 0% Potato 10% Potato 20% Potato 30% Potato ------------------------Dry matter basis, lb/hd/day---------------------- Growing Corn 9.22 8.25 5.26 2.73 Midds 3.9 3.81 3.87 3.77 Potato co-product 0 2.78 4.77 6.88 Straw 2.81 2.80 2.66 2.59 Alfalfa 2.78 2.78 2.76 2.78 Canola Meal .89 .89 .89 .89 Supplement .54 .54 .54 .54 Finishing Corn 15.06 12.14 9.53 6.46 Midds 5.28 5.14 5.15 5.07 Potato co-product 0.00 2.92 5.71 8.34 Straw 2.66 2.42 2.42 2.39 Alfalfa 1.79 1.75 1.76 1.65 Canola Meal 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.97 Supplement .54 .54 .54 .54
* Linear and quadratic effects (P<.10)
Table 2. Performance of steers fed potato by-product at 0%, 10%, 20%, or 30% of diet dry matter Treatment Item 0% Potato 10% Potato 20% Potato 30% Potato SE P value Number head 30 30 30 30 Growing Initial weight, lbs. 783.07 787.97 786.03 790.07 9.96 .97 DMI, lbs. 20.48a 21.08b 20.74c 20.14d .01 .01 ADG, lbs. 3.37 3.64 3.74 3.53 .13 .25 F/G, lbs. 6.09 5.80 5.50 5.72 .12 .07 Cost/lb. gaina, $ .214 .197 .174 .167
**Ingredient costs- Rumensin: $300/ton, Mineral: $320/ton, Limestone: $100/ton, Wheat Midds: $60/ton, Corn: $1.70/bu., Canola Meal: $100/ton, Straw: $25/ton, Alfalfa: $50/ton, Potato co-product: $7.50/ton a,b,c,d Values with different superscripts are significantly different (P<.05) Table 3. Carcass traits of steers fed potato co-product during growing and finishing
Treatment Item 0% Potato 10% Potato 20% Potato 30% Potato SE P value Hot Carcass Wt, lb. 769.24 774.48 769.77 768.48 9.54 .97 Dressing Percent 60.45 60.94 61.31 60.94 .30 .12 Marbling Score* 479 498 499 531 19.81 .32 Fat Thickness, in .49 .50 .48 .53 .03 .70 Rib Eye Area, sq in 13.36 13.41 13.24 13.05 .22 .67 KPH, % 2.20 2.12 2.08 2.19 .04 .13 Yield Grade 3.23 3.25 3.22 3.33 .07 .70 *Score indicates quality grade with 400+ = low choice and 500+ = average choice
Results and Discussion Steers performed equally and satisfactorily during the entire feeding period on all diets. The only significant difference (P<.05) in overall performance was in dry matter intake. The steers fed 30% potato co-product consumed approximately 0.5 lbs. less per day than the other three treatments (Table 2). However, no differences (P>.05) were observed in daily gain or feed efficiency. There were differences between feeding periods as the steers fed 10%, 20%, and 30% potato co-product tended to gain more during the growing period, while the steers fed 0% co-product had the performance advantage (P<.05) in the finishing period. The finish period gain differences were linear and quadratically significant (P<.10). There appears to be no interaction of cold and moisture content of the diet. The growing diet was fed during December, January, and February. The heat increment of forage may have offset any extra energy required to warm the moist diet. Finishing diets performed in an opposing pattern with the potato co-product diets providing lower gains. With dry matter intake essentially the same, the variability of the potato co-product or simply the lower energy density of potato co-products may be partially responsible for changes in gain. With reported feed prices, the cost per lb. of gain was $0.042/lb less when potato co-product was fed at 30% versus 0%. This amounts to approximately $20/hd over the duration of the trial. There were no significant differences (P>.05) in carcass characteristics (Table 3). Potato co-product is a palatable and economical energy source in both growing and finishing diets. Moisture level does not appear to be a critical factor at the levels imposed in this trial. Feeders who use potato co-product should sample the feed periodically for nutrients as there can be some variation based on amount of peel, filter cake, or fries present. Cattle generally relish the feed and it provides dust control from added moisture. It can be fed fresh, with timely deliveries from the processing plant. Periodic shutdowns for maintenance or cleaning can interfere with availability. Potato waste can also be ensiled during the summer when large amounts are available and fed during the winter. Cost equivalency for potato co-product at the various levels fed was calculated using respective cattle performance over the entire feeding period. Table 4 provides a matrix of breakeven costs for potato waste to corn at a range of corn prices and at the dietary levels of potato co-product fed in the study.
Implications Potato co-products are limited in their use by transportation costs which amount to approximately $1 per ton for every 10 miles hauled from the AVIKO plant near Jamestown, ND. For feeders within a reasonable radius, using potato waste in growing and finishing diets can lower the cost of gain without sacrificing performance. Breakeven pricing or marketing at equivalent value will not attract feeders to use potato co-product. Feeders are motivated by profit so a programmed discounting system may be the best approach i.e. potato co-product is offered for sale at an agreed upon percentage of the breakeven price based on average cash corn prices. Resistance to using the feedstuff comes in the form of logistics and delivery scheduling, shrinkage from moisture
loss during trucking and storage, certain odors that accompany the product, and attraction of flies and insects in the feeding area. The product can be variable in composition and non-homogenous in consistency with differing proportions of rejected fries, peeling, and filter cake. In spite of these factors, economic opportunity for profit by feeding potato co-product exists.
Table 4. Equivalent value of potato by-product when replacing corn at 10%, 20%, and 30% of diet dry matter in feedlot rations.
PRODUCTION AND ECONOMIC FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH BACKGROUNDING BEEF CALVES
IN EAST-CENTRAL NORTH DAKOTA
Steve Metzger Carrington Area Farm Business Management Program
Carrington Research Extension Center, NDSU
Introduction As beef producers enjoy the returns associated with the higher end of the beef cattle cycle, consideration should be given to methods by which the beneficial returns of raising beef cattle can be extended even further than the present cattle cycle. Many producers today may be able to strengthen their cash flow position by becoming either involved for the first time or simply more involved in the process of backgrounding beef cattle. Producers who do become involved in backgrounding beef cattle need to be keenly aware of the production and economic figures associated with this phase of the beef cattle business. Procedure Data for this study was compiled through the Carrington Area Farm Business Management Program in conjunction with the North Dakota Farm Business Management Education Program. This public education program is one of sixteen farm business management programs in the state wide North Dakota program and one of nine programs located within what is known as Region III, that area including the south-eastern one-fourth of the state, up to the western edge of the Red River Valley. The Carrington Area program, from which this data was drawn, includes farms and ranches in the counties of Eddy, Foster, Griggs, Kidder, Sheridan, Stutsman, and Wells. The beef backgrounding information for this study was part of the total farm and individual enterprise data, collected during the years 1991 through 2000, from farms and ranches involved in the program. The minimum number of lots of backgrounded calves involved in any one year was 9 with a maximum of 23. The minimum number of calves included in any one year was 834 with the maximum being 2,553 head. A total of 160 lots of calves were included over the 10 years. The enterprise data collected for backgrounding, followed the normal production cycle. The enterprises were begun when the calves were weaned and concluded when the calves were sold and/or transferred out into a replacement heifer or finishing calf enterprise. The time frame was typically from about November of one year until approximately the end of March in the following year. The most accurate and complete data was available when the calves were followed for the entire length of the backgrounding enterprise. While sale or purchase weight slips were used whenever possible, it must be acknowledged that some producers did not weigh all calves when they were entered into the backgrounding enterprises and used estimated weights, based off of calves that were
sold or transferred out. For heifers or steers that were kept and entered into breeding or finishing enterprises at the conclusion of the backgrounding enterprise, weights were often based off the herdmate calves that were sold. Although this leads to some judgmental calls on calf weights, feed quantities, feed values and other expenses were recorded for the individual enterprises and are part of the total expense and cost calculations for these backgrounding enterprises. Results and Discussion The average number of calves involved per year, as shown in Table 1, was 1,471 head with a total of 14,714 included in the ten years of the study. The average amount spent for feed was $29.79 per hundred-weight (cwt.) of production with $20.09 of that amount going for concentrates, protein supplements, minerals, and vitamins. The balance of $9.70 was used for forages including grass hay, alfalfa, stover, straw, and others. Veterinary costs and livestock supplies accounted for an average of $2.18 per head while other direct costs including marketing, fuel, repairs, bedding, and operating interest accounted for $6.31 per cwt. of production. Overhead costs averaged $1.89 per cwt. and ranged from a low of $.88 in 1992 to a high of $3.47 in year 2000. The total average cost of production for a hundred pounds of gain averaged $40.17 for the 10-year period. The lowest cost of production, of $31.05 occurred in 1991 and the highest cost of production was in 1997 when it reached $49.32 per cwt. produced. Since this study was seeking the cost of production it did not include the cost of the calf when it was purchased or transferred into the backgrounding enterprise. Only the additional weight gain, expenses, and increase in total value are considered here. Although the database no longer included the beginning and ending weights for years 1991 through 1994, the average incoming weight for years 1995 through 2000 was 539 pounds with a range of 525 to 555 pounds for the six years. The average sale or transfer out weight for the six-year period was 706 pounds with an average annual range of 703 to 712 pounds per head. Although there was considerable variation within individual years, the annual averages were quite close. The 10-year average daily gain was calculated at 1.84 pounds per day with a feed conversion rate of 10.45 pounds of feed per pound of gain. It should be noted that there were significant differences between lots of calves within the same production year. For example, in year 2000 the average daily gain ranged from just under one pound per day to a maximum of 3 pounds per day. The 10.45 pound average feed conversion rate reflected 5.08 pounds of concentrates and 5.37 pounds of forages. Over the 10-year period, the concentrate to forage ratio was quite stable and usually did not vary more than 10 percent from a 50-50 ratio. With a range of $3.38 to $42.82 per cwt. a 10-year average net return of $20.45 per cwt. or $34.15 per head was achieved. For comparative purposes, the same 10 years of net return per cwt. for cow-calf producers in the program, are also listed. As noted in Table 1 the average net return per cwt. for cow-calf operators, many of whom are the same operators that were involved in the backgrounding study, is $9.74 per cwt. of production or $52.87 per cow.
Implications Two concerns that should be addressed in backgrounding are feed conversion and marketing. Segregating calves based on sex and/or calf size can enhance feed conversion. Calves with the potential to create pounds and profits should not be held back because they are fed a ration designed to grow out replacement heifers in the same lot or pen. The other concern that needs to be addressed is that of marketing. Futures and options, as well as cash forward contracting, are tools available to help producers take the price risk out of backgrounding and feeding cattle. Futures and options can also be used to lock in feed prices thus taking the risk out of the largest expense, after the value of the calf itself. As beef producers continue to seek out methods of gaining additional dollars and profits for their efforts, more attention may well be paid to backgrounding calves as a method of creating additional income. In each of the ten years of this study, the average annual return was positive and the 10-year average profit per cwt. was more than double that of the cow-calf producer. For many producers, backgrounding calves is a natural continuation of the beef growing process. The feeding of healthy weaned calves is an enterprise that can be completed with a minimum amount of labor and in many instances can be contracted out to commercial feedlots. Backgrounding is an enterprise that typically consumes less capital and overhead dollars and can be short term or continued on into a full beef-finishing project as the market dictates. By backgrounding and addressing the concerns stated above, beef producers have the ability to enhance their profitability and thus their chances for success in their farming or ranching operation.
Table 1. Backgrounded Calves 1991-2000, Production and Economic Factors per Cwt. of Production.
Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassett Energy & Environmental Research Center
University of North Dakota
Abstract
The University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) and North Dakota State University Carrington Research Extension Center (CREC) have teamed up to conduct a 3-year project demonstrating the placement, engineering performance, and environmental performance of coal combustion byproducts (CCBs) for feedlot surfaces. The project demonstrates the use of coal ash in feedlot settings provides operators with an environmentally safe, low-cost option to improve feedlot conditions, animal health, and weight gain.
Background Livestock producers in North Dakota and the region are seeking a low cost alternative to placing concrete in feedlots. Earthen pens and laneways do not withstand pressure, particularly when wet for any length of time such as during spring thaw. As the integrity of the pen or laneway=s surface breaks down, deep mud and poor drainage reduce animal performance and health (as indicated by poor weight gain), increase odor emissions, and prevent regular maintenance operations such as manure removal. Commonly, the soil/manure interface layer is damaged, resulting in deeper leaching of nutrients and an increased risk of groundwater pollution.
Sufficient evidence exists to suggest using CCBs can lead to significant improvements in pen and lane-way conditions. Preliminary work performed at the EERC indicates that several lignite coal ashes are suitable for use in feedlot surfacing. Table 1 describes some of the different classes of CCB. It is important to note that properties will vary with the sources of coal and the combustion process.
Table 1: Description of CCBsCCB Type Characteristic Texture
Fly ashNon-combustible particulate matter removed from stack gases. Powder, silt-like
Bottom ash Collected in dry bottom boilers, heavier than fly ash.Sand-like, some coarse agglomerates
Boiler slag Collected in wet bottom boilers or cyclone units. Glassy, angular
FGD* materialSolid or semi-solid material obtained from flue gas scrubbers
Fine to coarse (dry or wet)
FBC** materialMainly bed material (sand or other inert material), and a mix of fly ash and bottom ash Fine to coarse
*Flue Gas Desulfurization**Fluidized Bed Combustor
Project Overview With funding from Great River Energy, Otter Tail Power Company, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, the North Dakota State Board of Agricultural Research and Education, and the U.S. Department of Energy, a research team has been developed to demonstrate the use of coal ash in feedlot settings. The research team is comprised of the EERC, CREC, and Power Products Engineering, Inc. Criteria being evaluated in the demonstration include engineering performance, environmental performance, and the economics of the materials and placement techniques. Year 1 Work accomplished in Year 1 of the project includes engineering laboratory development of ash-based surfaces planned for the demonstration phase of the project and laboratory evaluation of environmental performance of ash submitted by project partners. Preliminary performance testing was also conducted on ash in two different feedlot surface applications. The primary focus for Year 1 was at the CREC bison research facility. The CREC site consists of 16 well designed pens each 75’ X 60’. A cross-section view of the facility is shown in Figure 1. Each pen holds 10-12 bison and has identical sloping. See Figure 2 for a schematic of the feedlot layout.
Figure 1: Cross-Section View of CREC Bison Research Facility
The feeding/watering areas, runoff ditches, and holding ponds, shown in Figure 2, were also carefully constructed. Pens B1-B4 have a 50% fly ash concrete on the feeding/watering areas. Pens B9-B16 have a flowable mixture of fly ash, bottom ash, cement, and water around the feeding/watering areas.
Figure 2: Ash Treatment and Control Layout
Twelve pens were surfaced with regional ashes and four pens were left untreated for comparative purposes. See Figure 2. Over 140 tons of fly ash was placed at the CREC pens. The ash was incorporated at a 6-8” depth using two different mixing and compaction techniques based on the types of equipment expected to be available to most feedlot operators. Three fly ashes and one bottom ash were used to develop two different ash surfaces. Each of the three fly ashes was used individually as a soil
amendment in sets of four pens. The treatments placed and methods of compaction and mixing are listed in Table 2. Fly ash additions ranging from 12-28% were used in order to aid in determining the optimum level of fly ash. Table 2: Ash Placement Techniques
Pen % Ash Mixing Compaction1 12 Disk + rototiller Tractor2 12 Disk + rototiller Tractor3 18 Disk + rototiller Tractor4 25 Disk + rototiller Tractor5 0 - -6 0 - -7 0 - -8 0 - -9 12 Disk Tractor10 12 Disk Rubber-tire compactor11 16 Disk + rototiller Rubber-tire compactor12 22 Disk + rototiller Tractor13 14 Disk Rubber-tire compactor14 14 Disk Tractor15 28 Disk + rototiller Tractor16 18 Disk + rototiller Rubber-tire compactor
Results Immediately following the ash placement, nuclear density testing indicated compaction was achieved at 89% to >100% of maximum and moisture levels ranged from 5.0% to 9.5%.
After the second ash placement in Pens B13-B16, nuclear density testing indicated compaction was achieved at over 100% of maximum and moisture levels ranged from 5.0% to 9.0%. Strength tests indicated soil blended with coal ash was 3 to 6 times stronger than soil without ash. It is important to note these results are dependent on the source of ash and amounts used and this figure is an average.
The performance of treated and untreated pens appeared to be equivalent during the winter months, however, during spring thaw, the treated pens exhibited significantly improved surfaces as illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Untreated vs. Treated Soils
Pen B5, left, is a control pen containing no coal ash. Pen B4, right, contains 25% coal ash. Based on visual results, soil in the treated pen appears to perform much better than soil in the untreated pen.
Future Activities • Engineering performance tests will be performed at regular intervals over the next
two years on all ash-based surfaces. • CREC will evaluate animal performance on treated surfaces and control pens. • Economic evaluation of lignite ash-based surfaces will be performed. • Additional field placements will be conducted at commercial feedlots. • Production of a video entitled “How to Stabilize Feedlots Using Coal Ash” will
be produced along with an educational handout outlining the process in detail. • Standard feedlot surface mixtures and placement techniques will be developed.
The project team is working with the North Dakota Department of Health with the goal to develop a rule approving the use of coal ash in feedlot settings.
Progress Report: Identifying fast growing genetics; North Dakota Winter Show Steer Classic Pen Division Feedout Project 2001
Karl Hoppe, Russ Danielson, Dale Hildebrant North Dakota State University Extension Service, Carrington; NDSU Animal and Range
Sciences Department, Fargo; and North Dakota Winter Show, Valley City
Abstract To remain competitive with other livestock, cattle producers need to identify superior cattle genetics. The Performance Steer Classic - Pen Division Feedout competition was developed to identify superior beef steer calves. Cattle consigned to the feedout project averaged 688.8 pounds upon delivery to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on October 2, 2000. After a 149-day feeding period with no death loss, cattle averaged 1219.0 pounds (at plant, shrunk weight). Average daily feed intake per head, as fed, was 28.13 pounds while pounds of feed required per pound of gain were 7.90. Diet dry matter was 80%. Overall, the pen-of-three calves averaged 370.6 days of age and weighed 1241.5 pounds per head at harvest. Overall pen average daily gain was 3.68 lbs while weight per day of age was 3.36 lbs. Retail value averaged $1382.92 per head. Retail product value per day of age averaged $3.75. Exceptional average daily gain, weight per day of age, retail product value and uniformity can be found in North Dakota beef herds.
Introduction Genetic evaluation is important for remaining competitive in the meat industry. Through genetic selection, livestock species have developed genetic lines that are very efficient in converting feed to meat. To remain competitive, beef producers need to evaluate the offspring of their selection preferences. A terminal feedout project will help provide insight into the feedlot performance and carcass value. With this feedout competition, emphasis is placed on identifying calves with high yields of high value meat. Since efficiency is related to age, selection preference is also given to fast growing young calves that can be harvested with excellent carcass characteristics at 12 months of age. This feedlot feedout contest was developed for North Dakota cattle producers interested in understanding the value of their cowherd genetics. Materials and Methods In conjunction with the North Dakota Winter Show, a Performance Steer Classic - Pen Division competition was developed for multiple consignments of three or four steer calves. After a 149-day feeding period where calves were fed in a common pen, the calves were exhibited in groups of three at the ND Winter Show and then harvested for collecting carcass data. The pen-of-three were ranked based on feedlot and carcass performance.
Calves consigned to the contest were required to have a minimum of 3.0 lbs weight per day of age at delivery to the feedlot and be born between January 1 and April 30, 1999. Steers must weigh an average of 1050 pounds at the end of the feeding period on March 1, 2000, to be included in the competition. During an open house held on February 8, 2000, at the NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit, Carrington, ND, the owners selected three calves for the pen-of -three competition. Ranking in the pen competition was based on the best score obtained by the pen-of-three steers. Scores were determined by weight per day of age (25% of score), average daily gain on test (25% of score), retail product value per day of age (40% of score), and pen uniformity index based on variation within the pen for retail product value (5% of score) and carcass weight (5% of score). The ND Winter Show provided cash awards for the top five placing pens of steers. Steers were not implanted during the feedout project. However, steers may have been implanted before delivery to the feedlot. Calves were vaccinated for clostridials, 4-way vaccine including BVD, IBR, PI3 and BRSV and deparasitized with doramectin. An intranasal PI3 vaccine was also provided upon arrival to the feedyard. Calves were quickly adapted to a corn based finishing diet with 12% crude protein, rumensin and tylosin. Diet dry matter was 80%. Immediately after exhibit at the ND Winter Show, steers were shipped to, harvested and carcass information collected at IBP, Dakota City, NE. All feedlot, carcass and scoring information were provided to the consignors. An open house and exhibition at the ND Winter Show provided consignors and other cattle producers the opportunity to visually compare cattle with feeding performance information. The ND Winter Show provided $1000 as cash premiums to the top five pen-of-three entries. Results and Discussion Cattle consigned to the feedout project averaged 688.8 pounds upon delivery to the Carrington Research Extension Center Livestock Unit on October 2, 2000. After a 149-day feeding period with no death loss, cattle averaged 1219.0 pounds (at plant, shrunk weight). Average daily feed intake per head was 28.13 pounds, as fed basis, and 22.5 pounds, dry matter basis. Pounds of feed required per pound of gain were 7.90, as fed basis, and 6.32 pounds, dry matter basis. Overall feed cost per pound of gain was $0.270. Overall yardage cost per pound of gain was $0.077. Combined cost per pound of gain including feed, yardage, veterinary, trucking and other expenses except interest was $0.448. The number of cattle consigned was 20. One pen was disqualified from the contest due to individual calf weight per day of age less than 3.00 pounds at weigh in on October 2, 2000.
Carcass value per cwt was calculated by using the actual base carcass price for March 2, 2001 plus premium or discounts. Percent retail product value was calculated as 0.825 - (calculated yield grade *0.05). Retail product value was calculated as carcass weight, lb. * percent retail product *((carcass value per cwt /100)/ retail product yield) / retail product markup) where retail product yield = 0.65, and retail product markup = 0.75. Results from the calves selected for the pen-of-three competition are listed in Table 1. Overall, the calves averaged 370.6 days of age and weighed 1241.5 pounds per head at harvest. Overall pen average daily gain was 3.68 lbs while weight per day of age was 3.36 lbs. Retail value averaged $1382.92 per head. Retail product value per day of age averaged $3.75. The pen with the highest feedlot average daily gain, highest weight per day of age and highest retail product value placed first. Although uniformity (as measured by uniformity retail product value and carcass weight) is important, the pen with the highest uniformity index did not place first. Implications Cattle bred for superior feedlot performance and carcass characteristics are valuable. Comparing these cattle to contemporary groups provides more insight into calf value since cattle were fed and harvested as a group. Exceptional average daily gain, weight per day of age, retail product value and uniformity can be found in North Dakota beef herds. This feedout contest provides a forum for evaluating beef genetics where exhibitors can participate and others can observe. Affiliation of coauthors and non-CREC staff: R. Danielson, Associate Professor, NDSU Department of Animal and Range Sciences, D. Hildebrant, Manager, ND Winter Show.
Table 1. Feeding performance of fast gaining calves. Pen Pen Pen Pen Pen Pen Average Retail Average Average Feedlot Average Retail product Birth Calf weight Average Weight per Product value/day
Placing Date 3/1/00 Daily Gain, lbs Day of Age, lbs Value of age 1 9-Jan-00 1,485.10 4.56 3.57 $ 1,599.80 $ 3.85 2 27-Feb-00 1,252.77 3.07 3.42 $ 1,448.76 $ 3.96 3 15-Mar-00 1,186.33 3.62 3.39 $ 1,269.99 $ 3.63 4 12-Mar-00 1,187.05 3.37 3.36 $ 1,362.62 $ 3.86 5 8-Mar-00 1,096.51 3.80 3.08 $ 1,233.43 $ 3.46
Overall Average 25-Feb-00 1241.55 3.68 3.36 $1,382.92 $ 3.75
Standard Deviation 27.26 147.053 0.561 0.178 147.380 0.202
CALFWEB: AN INTERNET SITE FOR CALCULATING AND STORING CATTLE FEEDING BREAKEVENS AND CLOSEOUTS
Karl Hoppe, John Dhuyvetter, Greg Lardy and Dwight Aakre North Dakota State University Extension Service, Carrington; North Dakota State University Extension Service, Minot; NDSU Animal and Range Sciences Department, Fargo; and NDSU Agribusiness and Applied Economics Department, Fargo.
Abstract Cattle producers need analytical tools to calculate profit potential and breakeven prices for feeding cattle. Since cattle feeding is a very competitive, margin-orientated business, producers need to have precise information for determining profitable feeding opportunities. In addition, documenting the profitability of a pen of cattle after the feeding period allows for comparison analysis and benchmarking. The CalfWEB Internet site contains a Breakeven Calculator and Closeout Analyzer that uses producer information to calculate cost, breakeven, profitability and annualized return on equity. The site address is: www.chaps2000.com/calfweb/
Introduction Profitable cattle feeding management requires an analysis of projected costs and benefits. The breakeven calculation provides the opportunity to combine cattle prices with the costs associated with feeding. Using current feeder calf prices and projected cattle prices, the astute cattle producer can determine the level of possible profitability. Once cattle are fed out and sold, the opportunity to evaluate what actually occurred is paramount. The closeout analysis provides the evaluation, or report card, for that pen of cattle. Unfortunately, projections using the breakeven calculations may not perform the same as the closeout analysis. Consequently, routinely conducting breakeven analysis and the follow-up closeout analysis are important factors in benchmarking and identifying profitable cattle feeding. Program content An Internet based program was developed to conduct breakeven projections and closeout analysis for cattle feeding. The CalfWEB site (www.chaps2000.com/calfweb/) was constructed as a site for cattle producers with Internet connections to utilize for cattle feeding projections and closeouts. The site was developed with general public and members-only options. The members-only section has the option to archive breakeven projections and closeout reports. The CalfWEB site was designed with a home page that contains links to the Breakeven Calculator, the Closeout Analyzer, Market Links, NDSU Extension Specialists, NDSU Extension Home Page, Information Links, CHAPS Home Page, and NDSU Home Page. In addition, the site has a members-only section that is accessed via password from the Home page. To become a member, click on the ‘become a member’ button and complete
a short questionnaire. The information is confidential and is only available to the member with password access. The Breakeven Calculator requires cattle producers to input several production and economic values and then calculates the following items: projected sale date, total pounds gained, days on feed, costs including cattle, feed, yardage, veterinary, marketing, trucking, miscellaneous, interest, price protection and death loss. In addition, the Breakeven Calculator calculates cattle cost per pound, feed cost per pound, feed and yardage costs per pound, total cost per pound of gain, and, based on alternative marketing prices, calculates projected selling price, gross sales per pen, profit or loss per head or pen, and annualized return on equity. The Closeout Analyzer also requires cattle producers to input several production and economic values and then calculates: average daily gain, feed conversion, death loss, days on feed, breakeven, total pounds gained, costs including cattle, feed, yardage, feed and yardage, veterinary, marketing, trucking, miscellaneous, interest, price protection, total non-cattle costs, total costs, profit or loss, and annualized return on equity. The sites are designed for ease of use and the results are printable on one or two pages. Implications Documenting cattle feeding successes and failures will improve competitiveness in the North Dakota cattle feeding industry. Using inputs from farms, ranches, and food/feed processors produced in North Dakota, the value added cattle feeding industry has an extensive economic multiplier effect.
Figure 1. CalfWEB Home Page at www.chaps2000.com/calfweb/
Welcome to the North Dakota State University Extension Service's cattle feeding Internet site (CalfWEB). This site is designed to assist cattle feeders in evaluating the potential and actual profitability in feeding cattle.
To calculate the potential profitability of feeding cattle, the Breakeven Calculator is used before calves are placed on feed. The Closeout Analyzer is then used to calculate profitability after the cattle are sold.
You have the option to become a member at no cost. As a member, you can then save your information at this site for later review. Also, by being a member, you can benchmark your results for comparison with other cattle feeders.
This Internet site also contains links to other sites for regional and national market prices, futures market prices, informational sites, and a listing of NDSU Extension Specialists involved in beef production.
For more information or concerns, please contact Karl Hoppe NDSU Extension Area Specialist/ Livestock at 701-652-2951 or [email protected]
WHAT IS THE OPTIMUM LEVEL OF CRAMBE MEAL IN RANGE CAKE?
Vern Anderson and Eric Bock, Carrington Research Extension Center
and Chip Poland, Dickinson Research Extension Center
Abstract
Crambe meal is a new protein supplement available in limited quantities in the Northern Plains. At salvage prices, it is the lowest cost natural protein source on the market. Previous studies have proven its biological value in mixed diets for several classes of livestock. No data has been generated on palatability of crambe meal in limit fed supplements offered to grazing cows. In this study, crambe meal was included in 30% crude protein range cake formulations at 0, 25, 50, and 75% of the total feed. Four individual experiments were conducted to evaluate palatability, animal performance, digestibility, and effects on thyroid hormones at the Carrington or Dickinson Research Centers. Some preferences were observed for level of crambe meal in the supplement. Cows readily consumed the 25% supplement but the 50% supplement required a few days adaptation before total consumption. Cows gained more weight on the 25 and 50% supplements compared to 0 and 75% with no variation in consumption observed in bunk fed high forage diets. No differences were detected in digestion or thyroid hormone levels. Crambe meal can be used in range cake at up to 50% of the formulation.
Introduction Supplementing protein when low quality forages are consumed is known to increase digestion and subsequently cow performance. Grazing cattle are frequently offered a large pellet or cake that contains protein, minerals, vitamins, and energy. Crambe meal has been proven to be an economically viable and biologically useful protein supplement for several different classes of beef cattle. A major concern is that crambe meal contains certain sulfurous compounds called glucosinolates that are known to elicit a strong or sharp flavor and in some species alter thyroid activity. This family of compounds is also found in rapeseed, mustard, radish, broccoli, and cabbage. Previous work at the Carrington Research Center suggests that crambe meal can be used in totally mixed rations but cows do not relish the flavor when it is offered separately or at high concentrations in a mixed feed. A multi-component research project was developed to determine optimum levels of crambe meal in the formulation of a commercial range cake and gain more data on crambe meals effects on digestion, cow performance and thyroid hormones. Two grazing trials, trial 1 with cows and trial 2 with yearlings, were conducted at the Dickinson Center to evaluate supplement preference and palatability with increasing levels of crambe meal. The Carrington Center conducted two drylot trials (Trial 3 & 4) which evaluated differences in forage digestibility, weight gain, and thyroid hormone
levels due to level of crambe meal in the diet. At both locations, four “cake” treatments (30% protein) were compared with crambe meal included at 0, 25, 50 or 75% of the formulation. The isonitrogenous protein supplements used canola meal and wheat midds as other major ingredients (Table 1).
Trial 1 (Dickinson Center) Materials and Methods Nineteen crossbred mature beef cows were randomly allotted to one of two pastures for the 25-day supplement feeding trial. Cows were given simultaneous access to all four supplements offered in separate bunks within each pasture. Initial bunk location for each supplement was randomly assigned and bunk location of each supplement was changed weekly. Daily offering for each supplement was set at 25.0 lb per group for the first three days (over 5 pounds of supplement per head, total) and 50.0 lb for the remainder of the evaluation (over 10 pounds of supplement per head, total). Increasing the amount of feed offered provided an opportunity to observe animal preferences and the maximum intake potential. Results Total supplemental intake for cows increased as a percentage of feed offered (Figure 1) until week 3. Consumption of supplement was affected by composition as cows consumed all of the 0% and 25% supplements offered from the beginning of the evaluation. Consumption of the 50% supplement increased steadily through week 4 when all of the 50% supplement was consumed. Consumption of the 75% supplement increased through week 3 and declined slightly in week 4.
Trial 2 (Dickinson Center) Materials and Methods Twenty-four crossbred, fall-born yearling calves were blocked by sex and allocated within block (heifers and steers) to one of two predominately native range pastures. The same four treatments and protocol were used as in trial 1. Results Supplement deliveries to yearlings increased from week 1 to week 2 and fluctuated slightly during the trial based upon number of animals present as some difficulty was experienced in week 2 with maintaining yearlings in their respective pastures and some movement between pastures was observed (Figure 2). Total supplemental intake increased until week 3 and then declined in week 4. Consumption of supplement was affected by composition as yearlings consumed all of the 0%, 25%, and 50% supplements by weeks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Consumption of the 75% supplement increased until week 3 and then declined in week 4. Discussion (Trial 1 & 2) Short-term feeding studies are very useful to determine preferences and palatability and adaptation to new flavors. Cattle readily consumed control supplements containing wheat midds and canola meal and the supplement containing 25% crambe meal. However, when crambe meal constituted 75% of the formulation, supplemental intake
was reduced. Cattle adapted to the supplement containing 50% crambe meal and consumed all of it within a 4-week timeframe. It must be recognized that the test animals were consuming substantial amounts of supplement in all the pastures in order to observe preferences. No observations were made with animals offered only the 50% or 75% crambe cake so no conclusions can be draws on the palatability of those supplements alone. Anecdotal observations before this study indicated cows would consume the 50% mixture at normal supplement levels of 2-5 lbs but the 75% supplement remained in the feed bunk for several hours before being eaten. The strong flavor of crambe meal reduced intake when the level fed was greater than 50% of the supplement. At 50%, some adaptation or conditioning occurred whereby animals become more accepting of the sulfurous compounds and tolerant the flavors. Crambe meal may act something like a condiment i.e. mustard on a hotdog, where a little is good and a lot is objectionable. Two yearlings were removed from the pastures in Trial 2. Possible causes from observed symptoms included lead poisoning or polioencephalomalacia (PEM). No lead contamination was found in a thorough search of the pastures where the yearlings were grazing. Polioencephalomalacia incidence is highest in feedlot animals, but can occur in pastured animals, particularly if they are fed substantial quantities of high energy/protein supplements. Diets that are high in concentrate and high in sulfur have been implicated in PEM. There is a relatively constant amount of sulfur in naturally occurring proteins, thus diets that are high in protein would also be high in sulfur. Due to experimental protocol, cattle in this study consumed large quantities (over 8 lbs per head daily) of a high-protein supplement, which may have resulted in 2 animals experiencing PEM. No similar problems would be expected under normal range supplementation conditions when more modest amounts of protein are offered.
Trial 3 (Carrington Center) Materials and Methods Seventy-one crossbred lactating beef cows and their calves were allotted to one of the four supplement treatments described above with incremental crambe meal levels in the supplement (Table 1). Cows and their calves were assigned to one of four pens (17or18 pairs per pen) with individual animal as the experimental unit. In this trial, the supplement was top-dressed over a fixed amount of totally mixed high forage ration offered in fence-line bunks. The basal diet was formulated to require supplemental protein and consisted of straw, corn silage, alfalfa, potato co-product, and a vitamin/mineral premix. Cows and calves were weighed at the beginning and end of 56-day trial. Blood samples were drawn by venipuncture from 8 cows in each treatment. The same cows were sampled at beginning and end of the trial to test for differences in thyroid hormones. Effects on tetraiodothyronine or thyroxin (T4) and triiodothryonine (T3) are reported as change in hormones from beginning to end of the study period. Results Cows fed the 25% and 50% crambe supplements had significantly higher weight gains than those fed the 0% or 75%. Considering that feeds were offered in equal amounts to all cows, there appears to be some positive effect for modest additions of crambe meal to the protein supplement.
There also was a significant difference in the change of the thyroid hormone T4, as the 75% Crambe treatment displayed the largest numerical difference (-1.57) from the start to end of the trial. The change in T3 was only slightly different across treatments with the 0% Crambe treatment having the smallest change.
Trial 4 (Carrington Center) Materials and Methods Four cows were used to evaluate the effects of feeding different range cake formulations at limited amounts (4 lb/hd daily) on intake and digestibility of low quality forages. Daily intake of forage was measured in a 4 x 4 Latin square design trial with treatments consisting of the same crambe meal levels in the supplement as described previously (Table 1). Forage intake was measured daily by offering weighed amounts of forage fed to individual cows and orts (feed not consumed) weighed back prior to subsequent days feeding. Diet ingredients and fecal samples from each cow were collected for each day during respective 7-day collection periods. Fecal samples were dried, ground, and a 50g sub sample contributed to the respective animal, period, diet, and sample. These consolidated fecal samples were submitted for analysis along with samples of feeds offered for the same period. Analysis was conducted for crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Apparent digestibility was determined by comparing analysis of feeds consumed with fecal samples.
Results There were no apparent significant differences (P>.05) in dry matter intake, crude protein digestibility, acid detergent fiber digestibility, neutral detergent fiber digestibility, or in-vitro dry matter digestibility (Table 3). Without evidence of a linear or quadratic effect on these variables, crambe meal use in range cake seems practical at whatever level is observed satisfactory according to palatability and animal performance criteria. Discussion (Trial 3 & 4) It appears that satisfactory performance is obtained when crambe meal is fed at 25% or 50% of the supplement. The lactating cows fed these levels had higher weight gains and had less change in thyroxine (T4) levels. Increased weight gain for the 25 and 50% supplements may be partially due to the relatively rapid and thorough rumen degradability of crambe meal, estimated at 70 to 78% degradable leaving only 22 to 30% as escape or by-pass protein. The increased ruminal nitrogen release may enhance forage digestion. However, this theory is not supported by digestion data in Trial 4. Nonetheless, crambe meal produced a positive effect at the 25 and 50% level of protein supplement. Conclusions and Implications Crambe meal is available in North Dakota from two commercial organizations. It has been marketed at salvage prices in spite of recent research data demonstrating its usefulness as a protein supplement in mixed cattle diets (Anderson, 2000). The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) currently restricts the use of crambe meal to a maximum of 4.2% of diet dry matter for only feedlot cattle. However, this trial provides further
evidence that crambe meal can be used effectively at up to 50% of a protein supplement for beef cows without concern for palatability, digestion, performance or hormone effects. Including crambe meal in supplements can lower cost of production compared to other protein sources.
Table 1. Supplement formulation with stepped levels of crambe meal in range cake Treatment, % Crambe Meal Item 0% 25% 50% 75% Percent, As fed basis Crambe meal 0 25 50 75 Wheat midds 40 27 13 0 Canola meal 60 48 37 25 Crude Protein 30.0 29.9 29.9 29.8
Table 2. Performance of lactating mature cows fed forage based diets with protein supplement containing 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% crambe meal. Item 0% Crambe 25% Crambe 50% Crambe 75% Crambe SE
---------------------------------------Performance-------------------------------------- DMI, lbs. 26.71 26.14 26.15 26.15 N/A ADG, lbs. -0.70a 0.08b 0.43b -0.67a .16 --------------------------Change in thyroid hormone levels-------------------------- Change in T4 -0.83ac -0.08b -0.58ab -1.57c .26 Change in T3 -24.67 -29.75 -30.09 -30.40 8.01 Table 3. Intake and digestibility of forages by mature cows fed protein supplement with 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% crambe meal. ---------------------------------------Performance---------------------------------
Figure 1. Intake of range cake with increasing levels of crambe meal
Figure 2. Intake of range cake with increasing levels of crambe meal (as a percent offered)
fed to yearling steers and heifers.
ALTERING DIETARY ENERGY IN PREGNANT BEEF HEIFERS
A. M. Encinias*, H. B. Encinias, A. E. Radunz, T. D. Klein, M. L. Bauer, C. S. Park, and G. P. Lardy
Department of Animal and Range Sciences North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
Abstract
A large proportion of costs on a cow-calf operation are associated with the development of replacement heifers. Two studies were conducted to determine growth and maternal responses of pregnant beef heifers developed on a nutritional model that imposes an energy restriction followed by an energy realimentation until calving. Twenty-four (Experiment 1) and 36 (Experiment II) Angus and Angus-crossbred heifers were grouped by AI date into 6 pens. Treatments were imposed 200 days before calving. In each experiment, heifers were fed 1 of 2 dietary energy treatments: constant (CON) or weight-cycle (WC). Energy level in CON heifers was maintained to achieve a constant rate of gain (1.2 lb/day) through calving. Whereas, WC heifers were fed an energy restricted diets (65% of CON) for 90 (Experiment 1) or 120 (Experiment II) days followed by a diet that contained 125 or 130% of energy in CON diets until calving. During imposed restriction in both experiments, diet was formulated to elicit no gain (minus fetus) in WC heifers. By design in both studies, WC had lower ADG and decreased BCS during restriction period. However WC heifers were able to compensate to achieve a similar BCS by calving in Experiment I and II. Calving ease was not influenced by dietary energy level in both experiments. In experiment I, neither lactation nor calf performance were adversely affected by induced pre-calving energy restriction. Weight-cycled heifers, in Experiment I, had increased conception rates (100 vs 73 %; P = 0.06) over CON in the first 45 d of breeding season. Data from the current studies suggest that using dietary energy to weight cycle pregnant beef heifers does not alter growth or maternal performance and may enhance reproductive efficiency compared with conventional constant gain models.
Introduction First-calf heifers are the most difficult and expensive age group to nutritionally manage in a cow-calf operation. In most circumstances, decisions on a nutritional program for this age group will influence future productivity as a mature cow. Conventional nutritional programs for pregnant beef heifers usually provide continuous levels of energy throughout pregnancy. In many cases, energy is continuously fed in excess to assure adequate body condition by calving. This practice, however, further increases costs associated with feeding pregnant heifers, and may decrease lifetime production efficiency the heifer possesses as a mature cow.
Past research with mature beef cows has shown that imposing a moderate restriction during the second trimester of pregnancy, followed by energy realimentation 100 days prior to calving did not influence cow performance, lactation, calf growth, or rebreeding performance. These effects are most likely the result of achieving an adequate body condition by calving (BCS 5 in mature cows). In mature cows, decreased maintenance requirements permit reestablishing body condition with relative ease. Energy restriction and realimentation has also been investigated in developing heifers. A more complex scientific model using three energy restriction and realimentation periods in dairy heifers has proven to increase growth efficiency and functional mammary gland development during hormone sensitive periods that occur during the developmental stage. Similar responses have been observed in many species using this nutritional model, thus it is well accepted in the scientific literature. However defining a more producer friendly model that elicits similar effects may provide beef producers an applicable alternative to conventional development systems.
Materials and Methods Our objectives were to evaluate calf and maternal performance of pregnant beef heifers supplied restricted energy for 90 or 120 days, beginning at 90 days of pregnancy, followed by energy realimentation until calving. Twenty-four (Experiment 1) and 36 (Experiment II) Angus and Angus-crossbred heifers were grouped by AI date into 6 pens (Experiment I: 4 heifers/pen; Experiment II: 6 heifers/pen). Treatments were imposed 200 days before calving. In each experiment, heifers were assigned randomly to 1 of 2 dietary energy treatments: constant (CON) or weight-cycled (WC). In experiment I, CON heifers were fed 20.4 Mcal ME/day from day 90 to 180 of gestation and 24.2 Mcal ME/day from day 181 to 270 to achieve 1.0 lbs maternal (minus fetus) ADG (Table 1). Whereas, WC heifers were fed 13.3 Mcal ME/day (65% of control) from day 90 to 180 (restriction) and 30.3 Mcal ME/day (125% of control) from day 181 to 270 (realimentation). In experiment II, CON heifers were fed 20.4 Mcal ME/day from day 90 to 210 of gestation and 23.0 Mcal ME/day from day 211 to 270 to achieve 1.2 lbs maternal (minus fetus) ADG (Table 2). Stair-step compensatory growth heifers were fed 13.3 Mcal ME/day (65% of control) from d 90 to d 210 (restriction) and 29.9 Mcal ME/day (130% of control) from day 211 to 270 (realimentation). During imposed energy restriction of WC heifers in both experiments, diet was formulated to provide similar protein, vitamin, and mineral nutrition, but elicit no gain (minus fetus). Four (Experiment I) and 3 (Experiment II) day averages were used to measure initial and final BW during feeding periods. Initial and final body condition for each feeding period were visually estimated using a 9-point BCS system (1 = emaciated; 9 = obese). Calving ease was assigned a score (1 = no assistance, normal presentation; 5 = breech birth, abnormal presentation). Daily milk production was estimated at points representing peak, mid, and late stages of lactation, using a 6-hour sampling with a portable milking machine. Daily milk production was calculated (multiplied by 4) to estimate
24-hour production. Reported calf weaning weights, are an average of 3 consecutive day averages and are adjusted to 205 d.
Results Experiment I Through limit-feeding diets we were able to accurately manage daily ration intake and, in theory should have resulted in control of ADG for both CON and WC. In the first 2 weeks of the restriction period we did observe BW loss or no gain in WC heifers. However, overall restriction period ADG (Table 3) exceeded calculated gains in WC group. This may have been a result of WC heifers becoming more efficient throughout the restriction period. Body condition score change over the restriction period suggested that WC heifers were indeed affected by decreased energy intake, as BCS decreased (BCS change - 0.6) to 5.1, which was still within optimum BCS range (5-6) for heifers’ stage of growth and production. Heifers in CON group achieved calculated gains, which resulted in maintaining BCS (5.7) during the same period. During energy realimentation, a minimal compensatory response was observed and overall realimentation ADG were not different (2.7 vs 2.9 0.05; P = 0.33) between CON and WC. However, upon calving WC heifers did achieve a similar and optimum ending BCS (6.1 vs 6.0; P = 0.85). Length of pregnancy tended to be 10-d shorter (280 vs 290 d; P = 0.13) in WC (Table 4). This was, however, not a result of increased dystocia, as both calving ease (1.0 vs 1.2 0.1; P = 0.35) and calf birth weight (70.1 vs. 71.2 3.5; P = 0.82) were not different between WC and CON. Lactation was not affected by treatment in the current study (P = 0.52). As a result, calf performance was not adversely affected. Interestingly, 17% more WC heifers responded to artificial insemination, and all were verified pregnant within the first 45 d of breeding season vs 73% of CON.
Experiment II Data collection for Experiment II is currently ongoing. However, data has been analyzed through calving. In the current study a 30 day extended restriction period resulted in WC heifers decreasing 1.5 scores in body condition in Experiment II (Table 5). As in Experiment I, calculated gains for CON were very similar to actual gains, whereas, it became increasing difficult to maintain WC heifers to zero gain throughout the restriction period. In the realimentation period, a pronounced compensatory response (6.12 lbs ADG) was observed for WC heifers through 28 d. Moreover, this resulted in WC heifers being more energetically efficient (kg ADG:Mcal ME) than CON. Weight-cycled heifers gained 3.3 lbs per day over the entire realimentation period. The observed compensatory response in WC heifers resulted in similar BCS (6.1) between both dietary treatments by calving. Neither calving ease (1.4 vs 1.7) nor calf birth weight (80.0 vs 82.8) was affected by dam=s pre-calving treatment (Table 6).
Conclusion The presented studies were designed using more applicable versions of a complex scientific nutritional model. Added growth efficiency was observed during the feeding period in heifers that had a prolonged restriction (30 d) and 4% higher dietary energy during realimentation. Excessive fleshing was avoided in both constant and weight-cycled heifers through a limit-fed and target weight system. In the current studies this management may have minimized negative associative effects (high birth weights, dystocia, and/or lactation suppression) that occur when feeding heifers energy in excess of requirements during late gestation. Implications Limit-fed energy dense diets (125-130% of NRC requirements) can be used to increase and achieve adequate body condition (6.0) by calving in pregnant heifers that have been energy restricted for 90 to 120 days, without limiting heifer growth or maternal performance.
Table 1. Calculated nutrients and diet composition for gestating beef heifers in Experiment I.a
Restriction
Realimentation
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
Constant
Weight-cycled
Crude protein, %
12.0
18.1
12.0
12.0
Metabolizable energy, Mcal/d
20.4
13.3
24.2
30.3
Feedstuff, % DM
Brome hay
70.8
68.6
69.2
34.7
Dry rolled corn
15.3
2.2
17.0
42.7
Soybean meal
7.9
23.2
7.8
2.4
CSBb
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Sunflower oil seeds
-
-
-
14.2
Vitamin and trace mineral premix
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a restriction feeding period = 90 days; realimentation feeding period = 90 days b concentrated separator byproduct; de-sugared molasses
Table 2. Calculated nutrients and diet composition for gestating beef heifers in Experiment II.a
Restriction
Realimentation
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
Constant
Weight-cycled
Crude protein, %
14.0
17.0
14.0
14.0
Metabolizable energy, Mcal/d
20.4
13.3
23.0
29.9
Feedstuff, % DM
Alfalfa
46.9
66.8
52.2
20.0
Dry rolled corn
44.5
20.0
40.0
59.4
Soybean meal
3.2
7.8
2.5
2.5
CSBb
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Sunflower oil seeds
-
-
-
12.5
Vitamin and trace mineral premix
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.6
a restriction feeding period = 120 days; realimentation feeding period = 55 days b concentrated separator byproduct; de-sugared molasses Table 3. Growth performance of gestating beef heifers exposed to a 90 day energy restriction and 90 day
energy realimentation.
Treatment
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
SEM
Probabilitya
Initial BW, lbs
933.7
928.6
4.2
0.44
Initial BCS
5.7
5.7
0.2
0.98
Restricted period (90 days)
DMI, lbs/d
19.0
12.4
0.2
0.01
BW, lbs
1019.7
985.7
13.3
0.15
ADG, lbs
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.08
BCS
5.7
5.1
0.2
0.01
Energetic efficiencyb
49
45
4
0.32
Realimentation period (90 days)
DMI, lbs/d
20.1
23.2
0.2
0.04
BW, lbs
1262.6
1244.9
13.5
0.41
ADG, lbs
2.7
2.9
0.2
0.33
BCS
6.1
6.0
0.2
0.85
Energetic efficiencyb
112
96
10
0.32
aprobability of a significant F-statistic b lbs gain:kcal ME
Table 4. Maternal and calf performance of gestating beef heifers exposed to a 90 day energy restriction followed by 90 day energy realimentation.
Treatment
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
SEM
Probabilitya
Gestation length,d
290
280
4.7
0.13
Calving ease
1.0
1.2
0.1
0.35
Calf Birth weight, lbs
71
70
3.5
0.82
Weaning weight, lbs.
444
457
21.4
0.71
Milk production, lbs
15.0
13.7
1.3
0.52
aprobability of a significant F-statistic Table 5. Growth performance of gestating beef heifers exposed to a 120 day energy restriction and 55 day energy realimentation.
Treatment
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
SEM
Probabilitya
Initial BW, lbs
1014
1040
20.2
0.72
Initial BCS
6.1
6.1
0.1
0.81
Restricted period (120 days)
DMI, lbs/d
18.5
14.8
0.8
0.03
BW , lbs
1201
1079
5.7
0.21
ADG, lbs
1.5
0.3
0.2
0.004
BCS
6.2
4.7
0.1
0.0001
Energetic efficiencyb
75
24
8
0.01
Realimentation period (55 days)
DMI, lbs/d
19.7
29.1
0.9
0.01
BW, lbs
1259
1260
10.7
0.95
ADG, lbs
1.1
3.3
0.1
0.0001
BCS
6.2
6.1
0.2
0.70
Energetic efficiencyb
47
110
4
0.001
aprobability of a significant F-statistic
b lbs gain:kcal ME Table 6. Maternal and calf performance of pregnant beef heifers exposed to a 120 day energy restriction followed by 55 day energy realimentation.
Treatment
Item
Constant
Weight-cycled
SEM
Probabilitya
Gestation length,d
283
284
2.2
0.68
Calving ease
1.4
1.7
0.1
0.48
Calf Birth weight, lbs
80
83
2.4
0.62
aprobability of a significant F-statistic
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF MINOR OILSEED MEALS FOR LIVESTOCK
Vern Anderson and Marsha Kapphahn Carrington Research Extension Center and Animal and Range Sciences Dept, NDSU
Introduction Minor oilseed crops are of interest for potential high value niche markets. Each oilseed has unique properties that create market interest as human food (neutraceuticals), cosmetics, industrial, or other uses. Granted, there may not be large amounts of residual meal but knowledge of the nutrient content will be useful in determining economic worth of these meals. The true nutritional value of any potential feedstuff is revealed when comparative feeding studies are conducted, however, in the early stages of exploring new crops, laboratory analysis must suffice. The oil from borage, camelina, and calendula may be extracted by either cold press expeller or conventional solvent (hexane) methods. The residual meals from most commercially grown oilseeds are widely accepted as protein sources for livestock, especially ruminants. Expeller extraction typically increases the escape or undegraded proportion of the crude protein present, making these meals more valuable in dairy rations or for high producing beef cattle. Meals with higher ruminally undegraded percentages are particularly suited to feeding with grains that are highly rumen degradable such as barley or wheat. Residual oils also contribute energy to rations. Depending on the oil extraction process, oil seed meals may contribute additional energy from the oil remaining in the meal. Higher oil levels in protein meals improve hair coats in horses and enhance reproduction in bovines when fed during late pregnancy and post-partum prior to breeding. Laboratory analysis of minor oilseed meals yields information useful in balancing livestock rations. There are no known significant anti-nutritional factors in these meals for ruminants; however, non-ruminants may be sensitive to flavors or other factors. Laboratory nutritional values are presented in Table 1. The respective meals were analyzed at the NDSU Animal and Range Sciences Nutrition Laboratory using standardized AOAC protocols for each of the nutrients. Values are presented for whole seeds and for residual meal using calculations that assume total oil removal. These analyses were conducted with one sample. Nutrients may vary based on variety, weather, soil conditions, commercial processing methods, and other factors. Granted, commercially processed meals will retain some oil regardless of the extraction process. Common amounts of residual oil from expeller extraction are 5-6% while solvent extraction leaves less than 1%. Camelina is highest in crude protein with 42.39% based on total oil removal, followed by borage at 36.51% and calendula at 18.23%. Borage apparently has a higher percentage oil or ether extract, which is a measure of the total lipid fraction that also includes waxes. Camelina has the lowest fiber levels of the three oilseeds investigated. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) is indicative of the indigestible fiber fraction while neutral detergent fiber (NDF) includes the hemi-cellulose or digestible fiber fraction. Borage meal appears to be
a particularly good source of phosphorous and calcium. Calendula appears to have the highest ADF and NDF levels and combined with modest protein levels would bring the lowest price as a protein source. Implications Practical feeding recommendations for new feedstuffs require experience and knowledge of the nutritional profile. The oilseeds discussed have some value and should be considered when available. Pricing of unusual feeds may be at salvage levels making them attractive alternatives. Producers having access to these or other minor oilseed meals are encouraged to submit a sample for analysis. As with any other new or untested feed, add the ingredient in small increments to livestock diets. Table 1. Laboratory analysis of minor oilseed meals, dry matter basis Crude
Protein %
Ash %
Ether Extract
%
ADF
%
NDF
%
Ca %
P %
Camelina Seed
27.82
3.89
34.37
14.06
23.20
.28
.66 Camelina Meal*
42.39
5.93
--.--
21.42
35.35
.43
1.00 Borage Seed
22.27
11.5
39.01
27.05
25.39
1.45
.79 Borage Meal*
36.51
18.9
--.--
44.35
41.63
2.38
1.30 Borage Meal Defatted**
32.06
--.--
38.04
33.88
Calendula Seed
15.73
5.31
13.72
46.58
57.96
.59
.51 Calendula Meal*
18.23
6.15
--.--
53.99
67.18
.68
.59 * Based on dilution calculations to 0% residual oil
** From laboratory analysis of seed sample after ether extract procedure
FIELD PEAS IN BEEF CATTLE DIETS A SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Vern Anderson
Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University
Summary Field peas have been successfully used in several beef cattle diets with equal or better performance observed compared to control rations. Peas are highly digestible in the rumen, but slower than soybean meal to degrade. Peas are very palatable, with increased intake observed in most diets with peas. Processing peas does not appear to be critical based on available data. This nutrient dense, low fiber, high protein and energy grain legume is best utilized as a portion of the concentrate in rations for beef cattle. Creep feeds should contain no more than ~67% peas for optimum return. Growing and finishing steers can utilize peas as a protein and energy source, replacing more concentrated protein supplements and adding energy. Animals can utilize high levels of peas in the concentrate but economics suggest usage in accordance with protein supplementation needs, generally no more than 20 to 30% of the ration. In every case, the price must be competitive with other energy and protein sources and the supply must be adequate to justify inclusion in balanced rations.
Introduction Peas have not been widely used in beef diets in the US because of availability and price. Acreage continues to increase for this annual grain legume, which is an excellent protein and energy source in certain beef rations. Beef cattle will be a salvage market for peas. Field peas are well accepted for ruminants in Europe as a protein source in silage based diets. . Palatability, animal performance, and net return are the ultimate tests of the worth of a feed. Field peas may best be utilized in scenarios where nutrient density is important. Examples include diets where voluntary intake is limited, such as creep feed, or receiving rations, or where limited amounts of feed are fed, such as range cake. There is substantial positive anecdotal experience in feeding field peas to beef cattle. Research trials quantify comparative animal performance and determine optimum levels of use in specific diets. This paper summarizes beef research and recommendations for feeding field peas to beef cattle. Data and recommendations are derived from experiments with creep feeds, growing, and finishing feedlot beef rations, and as supplements for beef cows. Palatability Field peas have been observed to be highly palatable in most feeding trials. Feed intake has generally increased for diets with peas compared to diets without peas in several North Dakota trials and studies in Europe. In a feedlot finishing experiment (Anderson, 1999), peas were fed at a very high percentage of the diet dry matter (76%) to determine
if there were any palatability or anti-nutritional concerns. Intake was greater for the pea treatment suggesting no inhibitory factors were present. In a series of silage based feeding studies in Europe (Weiss and Raymond, 1989), diets with peas were consumed at 102% of diets with soybean meal. However, in a Colorado State Univ study (Flatt and Stanton, 2000) where stepped levels of peas (0, 5, 10, and 20% of ration dry matter) were included in finishing diets, a linear decrease in intake was observed but gains were similar and feed efficiency improved with increasing proportion of peas. Rumen Degradability Peas are known to contain highly degradable protein estimated at 78% to 94% digested in the rumen (NRC, 1989, Aufrere et al. 1994) leaving modest amounts as by-pass or escape protein. However, the disappearance rate (1.6% per hour) is slower during the first six hours (Lindberg, 1981) for peas than soybean meal (4.5% per hour) but increases in rate thereafter. A more sustained release nitrogen fraction found in peas should be beneficial for growth of rumen microbes and be a positive influence on rumen ph and feed efficiency. Processing Field Peas A trial with field peas in growing cattle diets was conducted using individually fed steers in a Calan headgate facility at NDSU (Bock, 2000). Seven steers were assigned to each of three treatments. Treatments were whole peas, rolled peas, or ground peas fed as 40% of the totally mixed diet. No differences in intake, gain, or feed efficiency were apparent. The SDSU finishing trial (Birkelo et al., 2000) included a whole pea and rolled pea treatment, with peas included at 10% of the dry matter intake. No statistical differences were detected due to processing method. Considering these trials, it appears that processing field peas is not necessary but additional work may be warranted. Effect of Variety Variation in protein content exists between varieties. A trial comparing Profi vs. Integra, (24% crude protein vs. 17%) (Bock and Anderson, 2001) suggests that there are animal performance differences due to varieties, potentially partially related to protein level. Choose high protein, high yielding varieties to grow, or if purchasing or selling peas, determine fair market value based on protein and energy levels in relation to other feeds available. Creep Feed Research In a two year study (Anderson, 1998) with 128 cow/calf pairs, wheat midds and field peas were offered in four different combinations as creep feeds to determine optimum level of peas. Treatments were reciprocal amounts of dry rolled peas and pelleted midds at 0-100%, 33-67%, 67-33%, and 100-0%, respectively. Peas were coarsely rolled and wheat midds were fed as ¼ inch diameter pellets. Nutrients in peas and wheat midds (Table 1) were not identical but the protein content of each exceeded recommended levels for creep feed (14-16%). Feed intake increased consistently with increasing level
of field peas in the diet. Calves offered 100% midds consumed 5.89 lbs of creep feed per day compared to 8.72 for calves offered 100% field peas during the 56-day study period. Calf gains increased from 2.82 pounds per day at 100% midds to 3.17 lb at 67 and 100% peas. Gains from 33% peas averaged 3.11 pounds per day. Feed efficiency decreased, however, with increasing pea levels. Feed cost per pound of gain was similar ($.065 per pound) at 0 and 33% field peas using $60/ton for midds and $2.20 for peas, but decreased efficiency caused an increase to over $.10 per pound for the 100% peas treatment. . Field peas appear to be a very palatable feed and can be used effectively in creep rations. This study suggests it is economically profitable to feed up to 67% peas in a creep feed ration. The added value from additional weight gain exceeds added feed cost at higher pea levels, however the optimum level in this study was 67% peas. When weaned calves sell for $90/cwt, peas added to creep rations at 33, 67, and 100%, respectively, will produce added profit to a wheat midds creep ration when purchased or valued at less than $5.20, $8.06, and $3.38 /bushel. Field peas prices vary depending on the season, export contract price, supply, and human food demand. This study indicates peas are a very palatable feed for creep fed calves, calves gained well on diets with peas, and the price of peas is highly favorable in terms of returns when compared with other possible creep feeds. In another creep feed study in North Dakota, field peas were fed in limited intake creep feeds to calves grazing short grass prairie with their dams (Landblom, 1998). Creep feeds act as a supplement to intake of grazed forage and may be more economical when limit fed. Eighty cow/calf pairs were used to compare four treatments including 1) no creep feed; 2) 33% peas; 3) 67% peas, and 4) 100% peas. Wheat midds were used in the diet in reciprocal amounts with peas. Salt was added to limit intake at a rate of 8% during the first 28 days and 16% during the last 49 days of the trial period. Intake was approximately 3 lbs per head daily for all creep rations. Gains were greater for all creep feed treatments vs. no creep feed. No differences were observed due to level of peas but the 67% pea diet provided numerically superior gains. Greatest economic return was observed in the 67% field pea diet with a net of $1.00 for each dollar spent on creep feed, essentially a 100% return on investment. Additional creep feed research with field peas is planned. Field Peas in Feedlot Diets The greatest potential volume for use of field peas in the region is in beef cattle diets. However, field peas will have to compete economically with other feeds such as barley and wheat midds based on relative cost of nutrients. Feeders considering field peas should make breakeven calculations based on nutrient profiles for respective feeds (Table 1). Peas should be used in balanced diets based on nutrient requirements (NRC, 1996) and performance goals. The relatively high protein content of peas and available energy make this feedstuff most useful a low to modest levels. This section reports research using field peas in diets for growing heifers and steers and for finishing steers.
Growing Experiments Wean crossbred steer calves were fed three 60% concentrate diets treatments with peas in one of the rations. Treatments were: 1) barley with protein levels recommended by NRC (1996); 2) barley with canola meal added to equalize the crude protein level of the field pea diet; and 3) field peas as the primary grain source. The protein level in the field pea diet exceeded NRC (1996) recommended nutrient requirements. Growing diets with peas tended to increase dry matter intake above the control (12.3%) and barley plus canola meal (9.3%). Similarly, gains tended to increase with peas over the barley treatment (16.8%) and barley plus canola meal (7%). Feed efficiency improved with peas in the diet over the barley (5.8%) and barley-canola (3.4%) treatments. The breakeven price for a bushel of peas is approximately 170% of the price of a bushel of barley for growing diets (Anderson, 1999). . Replacement heifers were fed 5 pounds of field peas or wheat midds in a limit fed forage based wintering diet. Similar gains and feed efficiency were observed but feed costs were greater for peas (Anderson, 1998). Growing calves were fed field peas as a replacement for barley and soybean meal with no effect on performance. Intake and efficiency were similar to the control diet. In another study, performance was similar but intake decreased in the pea diet, tending to improve feed efficiency. (Poland and Landblom, 1998) Peas were an excellent protein source compared to soybean meal in silage-based diets with several trials reported by Wiess and Raymond, 1989). (Table 2, adapted from Weiss and Raymond, 1989). In five trials in Europe, intake averaged 102% of control diets that fed soybean meal. Gain averaged 102% of controls and feed conversion was equal. Feeding peas in the receiving ration after weaning may have some benefits. The nutrient density and palatability may contribute to increased intake of energy and high quality protein. There may be potential for enhanced immune response and greater weather stress tolerance. Studies are planned to address this use of peas with animal performance, morbidity, and mortality monitored.
Finishing Experiments Steers were fed totally mixed finishing diets with dry rolled barley or peas as the grain source. TMR diets were fed to appetite once daily in fenceline bunks. This trial started in early December and concluded when steers went to market in April. Feed intake tended to be greater for peas (4.7%) than barley in the finishing diets. Daily gain increased 5.5% (.20 lb/hd/d) for peas over barley. Feed efficiency was nearly identical. Carcass traits were similar except marbling scores and the percent choice were greater for steers fed peas. While actual feed costs were greater for steers fed peas, gains tended to be greater and offset some of the higher feed costs. Feed cost per pound of gain would be
equal with peas at $2.03 per 60 lb bushel compared to barley at $1.50, therefore, peas are worth 135% the price of a bushel of barley in finishing diets. Peas have been used as a protein supplement at 10% of the diet with positive results in a South Dakota State University finishing study (Birkelo et al., 1993). Flatt and Stanton fed peas at 0, 5, 10 and 20% of finishing diets to steers and heifers substituting for soybean meal. The Profi peas in their trial were 20% protein. Increasing levels of peas decreased intake but did not affect gain, thereby improving feed efficiency linearly. Carcass traits were not affected. A finishing study with peas at 10% of the diet was conducted by Birkelo et al., (2000) at South Dakota State University. No overall differences were observed in the corn based rations for intake, gain, or feed efficiency, however, the first 56 day period produced improved gains and feed conversion for the pea diets. Beef Cow Supplementation Research There is very little research on feeding peas to beef cows. Schaefer et al., (2000) substituted stepped levels of field peas for a barley-canola meal protein supplement in diets for gestating cows consuming grass hay. No differences were observed in cow gain, condition score General Feeding Recommendations The major factor in considering using field peas in beef diets is the comparative cost of nutrients, protein and energy. This can be done with a spreadsheet listing all feeds under consideration; nutrients by percent dry matter (actual analysis or estimate from published values), and a cost to deliver to the animals. Develop formulas for comparison and make your use/sale/ or purchase decisions with numerical comparisons. All trials with beef cattle report equal or better performance compared to other experimental diets. Nutrient density (combination of protein and energy) is greater in field peas than most other feedstuffs so including peas in limit fed applications such as range cake can reduce off farm/ranch purchases of protein and energy supplements, lower transportation costs and increase net returns to the integrated crop/livestock operation. Processing peas does not appear to be essential for satisfactory performance with the few comparisons made to date. Implications Biologically, peas have proven to be a useful feedgrain for creep feed, for growing and finishing steers, and for beef cows. The amount of peas in a ration is an economics issue related to protein costs and competitive feedgrains. Peas appear to be a very palatable and may offer unique advantages over other grains in some beef cattle diets because of the nutrient density.
Literature Cited
Anderson, V. L. 1999. Field peas in creep feed for beef calves. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 22. Pp 1-4.
Anderson, V.L. 1998. Field peas in diets for growing heifers, and backgrounding and
finishing steer calves (Progress Report). NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 21. Pp 33-39.
Anderson, V. L. 1999. Field peas in diets for growing and finishing steer calves. NDSU
Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 22. Pp 9-15.
Aguilera, J.F., M. Bustos, and E. Moline. 1992. The degradability of legume seed meals
in the rumen: effect of heat treatment. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 36:101-112. Aufrere, J., D. Graviou, and B. Michalet-Doreau. 1994. Degradation in the rumen of
proteins of 2 legumes: soybean meal and field pea. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development, Vol. 34:5, p483-490.
Birkelo, C.P., B. J. Johnson, and B.D. Rops. 2000. Field peas in finishing cattle diets
and the effect of processing. http://www.abs.sdstate. edu/ars/beeftext/ BeefReports/2000. Bock, Eric. 2000. Effects of processing field peas in steer grower diets. NDSU
Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 23. Pp 29-31.
Bock, Eric, and V. L. Anderson. 2001. Profi vs. Integra field pea for post-weaning
growing diets. NDSU Carrington Research Extension Center Beef and Bison Field Day Proceedings. Vol. 24
Flatt, W.R. and T.L. Stanton. 2000. Effects of Profi Peas, Pisum arvense, on growth,
performance, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle. Colorado State University Animal Science Department Report.
Landblom, D.G., W.W. Poland, and G.P. Lardy. 2000. Application of salt-limited
pea/wheat midd creep diets in Southwestern North Dakota. North Dakota Cow/Calf Conference and Beef Cattle Range and Research Report. Pp 8-12.
Lindberg, J.E. 1981. The effect of basal diet on the ruminal degradation of dry matter,
nitrogenous compounds and cell walls in nylon bags. Swedish J. Agric. Res. 11:159-169. NRC. 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th Revised Edition. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. NRC. 1989. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. 6th Revised Edition. National
Poland, W. W. and D. Landblom. 1998. Feeding value of field pea and hull-less oat in growing calf diets. http:www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndagres/summer98/ ar20898/Lardy
2000. Influence of field pea supplementation on intake and performance of gestating beef cows fed grass hay diets. North Dakota Cow/Calf Conference and Beef Cattle Range and Research Report. Pp 52-53.
Weiss, P., and F. Raymond. 1989. Utilisation du pois par les taurillons. Atout Pois. ITCF
Feedlot Bedding vs no bedding for winter growing and finishing Bedding is expensive to procure or harvest and adds nutrients to the soil when left in the field. However, the comfort and performance of feeder cattle is enhanced when bedding is offered during severe winter weather and inclement spring conditions. This project proposes to compare three treatments replicated at university facilities and at a commercial feedyard. They are 1) no bedding, 2) minimal bedding, and 3) liberal bedding. Animal performance, bedding costs and labor, and manure composition including composting changes will be considered. Peas in receiving diets for stressed calves Previous research suggests field peas are highly palatable when fed to all ages of beef calves. Weaned calves are stressed and this nutrient dense grain legume fed as part or all of the concentrate portion of the receiving diet may be beneficial by starting calves on feed sooner, lowering morbidity and mortality, and returning more net dollars to the feeder. Increased availability of field peas and a commercially successful pelleted feed with modest levels of peas contributed to developing this study. Starch vs digestible fiber in ruminant diets – applicability to beef and bison Rumen microbes adapt to either high starch diets or high fiber diets with kind of a no-mans-land environment when rations are relatively even. Some co-products contain digestible fiber levels that may outperform or complement starch sources when fed at intermediate levels. This project will be conducted in both beef and bison to determine animal performance, digestion parameters, and economics of feeding soybean hulls and barley in 4 reciprocal increments. Altering N-3 fatty acids to improve health and flavor of beef Observations indicate beef fed supplements containing omega-3 fatty acids (flax and fish meal) may be healthier and more flavorful. Research trials are proposed to determine effect from amount and length of feeding supplements for optimum effect. Approximately one bushel of flax will be used for each steer fed this supplement. Competition feeding: Commercial feedyard challenges NDSU Carrington livestock researchers New cutting edge supplementation methods (micro-machine) and other commercial scale feeding practices will be tested against the best feeding methods NDSU-Carrington livestock researchers can employ. One source of cattle (60 to 80 head) will be evenly divided between the two organizations and fed until slaughter. Dependent variables will include feed intake, gain, feed efficiency, carcass traits, and most importantly, net profit. The start of the no-holds barred competition has not been determined.
Feedmill enhancements funded by North Dakota Legislature Due primarily to lobbying efforts of the ND Stockmen’s Association, the ND Legislature appropriated funds to renovate and enhance the modest and dated feedmill at the Livestock Unit in order to expand feedlot research, increase efficiency, and improve accuracy. More research with barley, co-products, and genetics of ND feeder calves is proposed. The facility will provide more grain storage and increased numbers of concentrates that can be used in research. The renovation will improve accuracy and options for milling grains and precision in mixing and delivering diets to cattle in experiments. Some pens will be added to increase replications for greater statistical confidence in results of research trials. Cow/Calf Cow/calf production systems for intensively cropped regions. Three treatments will be explored in a multi-year beef cow/calf production systems trial:
1) “Scavenger cows” These cows will be fed in drylot or graze aftermath. These cows will be offered any feeds available that contribute nutritionally to requirements and are least cost.
2) “Cropland to grassland” Cows in this treatment will graze cropland deliberately returned to perennial grasses with cool season, and warm season plantings for respective times of the year. Supplemental feeding will be minimized by using swath grazing and stockpiled forages in the field.
3) “Conventional drylot” Cow will be managed in pen year round offered forages deliberately grown on cropland including silages, hays, and concentrates. Aftermath grazing will be utilized.
Salvaging co-products with beef cows. Sunflower screenings, potato waste, breeds, etc etc etc. Note: Research priorities occasionally change due to a number of factors. Input is sought from all who work in the beef industry. Please contact the Research Center if you have suggestions or comments on past, current, or future research and extension programs.
