Impact of Body Weight Gain During Stocker/Backgrounding … - Stocker impact on... · M-S-25 11/23/16 Data Source: ... Initial BW, kg 291 435 0.01 ADG, kg/d 1.73 2.06 0.01 ... 1All

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

Reasons for backgrounding/stocker

programs

• Feedlots ─ daily slaughter/replacement

• Economics of backgrounding

• Feed resources

• Commodity prices

• Forage less expensive than

grains/byproducts

• Cattle size

Carcass Constraints and Issues

• Hot carcass weight

• Historically 250-431 kg base

• Increased upper limit: 454 or 477 kg

• Fatness

• Base: YG 3

• Premium 1 & 2

• Discount 4 & 5

• Base: USDA Choice- (lower 1/3)

• Premium: upper Choice and Prime

• Discount: Select, Standard, No roll

Quality Grading

•Marbling • evaluation of the quantity of intramuscular fat in the longissimus muscle

between the 12th and 13th ribs

PRIME NO ROLL SELECT CHOICE PREMIUM

CHOICE

USDA NATIONAL SUMMARY OF MEATS GRADED http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5087255

M-S-25

11/23/16

Data Source: USDA-NASS, Compiled & Analysis by LMIC

Livestock Marketing Information Center

Yield Grading

•Fat Thickness •Linear measure of backfat

•Rib eye Area •Cross-section area of longissimus muscle

•Hot Carcass Weight •Weight of the freshly dressed carcass immediately prior to

chilling

•Estimated % of KPH Fat •Subjective evaluation of weight of internal fat in relation to

carcass weight

YG1 YG2 YG3 YG4 YG5

Camera grading

Endpoints

• If you want to assess impact on quality

• Time (days fed)

• Body weight

• Carcass weight

• Equal carcass fatness

• % EBF

• Fat thickness

• Yield grade

• carcass density=composition

Weaning spring-born calves

Age 200 d 320 d 383 d 515d 540 d 636

MAY

DEC

NOV

AUG

Spring Fall

Calf-fed feedlot

Harvest

corn stalks

Short Yrl

feedlot

Harvest

183 DOF

OCT

Long Yrl

feedlot

96 DOF Harvest

Winter

MAR NOV

Spring Fall Winter Summer

MAY

grass

132 DOF

Spring Fall Winter Summer

MAY

Fall

grass

Winter

Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years)

Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years)

Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years)

Adams et al., 2008 (sorting)

Calves vs. Yearlings

Item Calf-Fed Long-Yearling P-value

No. animals (pens) 804(80) 302(18) --

Initial BW, kg 291 435 0.01

ADG, kg/d 1.73 2.06 0.01

DMI, kg/d 9.71 13.89 0.01

G:F, kg/kg 0.178 0.148 0.01

HCW, kg 367 390 0.01

Rib fat, cm 1.35 1.20 0.01

Marbling score 510 525 0.21

Rib fat adjusted traits

HCW, kg 355 422 0.01

Marbling score 503 533 0.04

Griffin et al., 2007 Prof. Anim. Scient.

Finishing performance and carcass

characteristics for calves vs yearlingsa Item Calf-fed Yearling

Initial weight, kg 244 373

Final weight, kg 501 544

Days on feed 207 108

Feed intake, kg/d 7.9 11.3

% of weight 2.1 2.5

Daily gain, kg 1.26 1.54

Gain/feed .162 .136

Fat depth, cm 1.22 .97

Choice, % 76.0 64.9 a5 years, 489 head, 48 pens

Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

Finishing performance and carcass

characteristics for calves vs yearlingsa Item Calf-fed Yearling

Initial weight, kg 244 373

Final weight, kg 501 544 (592)

Days on feed 207 108 (139)

Feed intake, kg/d 7.9 11.3

% of weight 2.1 2.5

Daily gain, kg 1.26 1.54

Gain/feed 0.162 0.136

Fat depth, cm 1.22 0.97 (1.22)

Choice, % 76.0 64.9 a5 years, 489 head, 48 pens

Sindt et al., 1991 JAS

Design Weaned calves in fall

Control (random)

1/3 calf-feds

1/3 wintered, fed in summer (short

yearlings)

1/3 wintered, grazed pasture, fed in fall

(long yearlings

Sorted

Heaviest 1/3 (calf-feds)

Lightest 2/3 Wintered

Heaviest fed summer (short yearlings)

Lightest grazed pasture

Fed in fall (long yearlings)

Adams et al., 2010 Prof. Anim. Scient.

Feedlot Initial BW, kg

294360 395

262

358421

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Calf-fed Summer

Yearling

Fall Yearling

Sorted

Unsorted

Sort * Feeding period interaction = P<0.01

D E C C B A


Gain Efficiency, Gain/ lb of feed

0.170 0.161 0.1530.179

0.1640.147

0.000

0.050

0.100

0.150

0.200

Calf-fed Summer

Yearling

Fall Yearling

Sorted

Unsorted

Sort * Feeding period interaction P = 0.02

B A C C D D


368 390 398351

389 417

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Calf-fed Summer Yearling Fall Yearlings

Sorted

Unsorted

Sort * Feeding period interaction P<0.01

D E C C B A

Hot carcass weight, kg


Growth performance - feedlot phase

Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years)

Griffin et al., 2007 (8 years); Adams et al., 2010 (sorting)







Carcass traits of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling beef steers

1Marbling score = 400, slight; 500, small; 600 modest

Item Calf-fed Long yearling SEM

12th-rib fat, mm 13.4a 10.8b 0.3

12th-rib fat rate, mm/d 0.08b 0.11a 0.002

YG 2.7 2.6 0.14

HCW, kg 367b 400a 2.4

**HCW, kg adj (12 mm) 355b 422a 2.4

Marbling score1 539a 550a 9.9

**Marbling score, adj 503b 534a 12.2

Marbling rate, points/d 1.13b 2.17a 0.10

Choice or higher, % 74a 66b 3.8 Sindt et al., 1991 (5 years); Vieselmeyer et al., 1995 (5 years)


Weaning fall-born calves

Item Calf-fed Short yearling Long yearling SEM1

Feedlot

DOF 188a 158ab 94b 22

ADG, kg 1.22 1.44 1.54 0.2

DMI, kg/d 8.58b 10.33b 12.42a 0.5

G:F 0.142 0.140 0.124 0.009

12th-rib fat gain, mm/d 0.054 0.063 0.071 18

Growth performance of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling steers

Sainz & Vernazza Paganini et al., 2004

1SEM = standard error of the mean; n = 3/group

Pens/group = 1 over 3 years

Item Calf-fed Short yearling Long yearling SEM1

12th-rib fat, mm 10.7 10.7 10.6 0.62

YG 2.94 2.88 3.10 0.14

HCW 294 315 331 15

Marbling score2 11.2 10.9 9.8 1.22

Carcass fat, % 27.7ab 29.4a 23.9b 1.49

Choice or higher, % 46 48 30

Carcass traits of calf-fed, short yearling, and long yearling steers

1SEM = standard error of the mean; n = 3/group. Pens/group = 1 over 3 years 2Marbling scores: slight, 7 to 9; small, 10 to 12; modest, 13 to 15.

Sainz & Vernazza Paganini et al., 2004

Weaning fall-born calves

Owens et al., 1995

16 studies

IBW: 143 to 416 kg

Finished weights: 356 to 571 kg

ADG: 0.67 to 1.87 kg

Empty = initial

Solid = final

If enough energy in the diet

Meta-analysis of finishing performance and carcass traits from calf-fed and yearling production systems from 10 published studies

Item Calf-fed Yearling SEM P-value

Performance

Initial BW, kg 251.3 376.5 17.5 0.01

Final BW, kg 528.5 555.2 16.4 0.01

ADG, kg/d 1.52 1.71 0.08 0.01

DMI, kg/d 8.49 11.52 0.65 0.01

Gain:Feed, kg/kg 0.178 0.157 0.005 0.01

Carcass characteristics

HCW, kg 337.1 344.5 11.9 0.10

LM area, cm2 78.78 81.16 3.19 0.09

Rib fat thickness, cm 1.38 1.20 0.06 0.01

KPH, % 2.34 2.23 0.17 0.01

Yield Grade 2.98 2.85 0.12 0.15

Marbling Score1 425 420 16.9 0.66

1Marbling grid: Slight00=300, Small00=400, Modest00=500. (Lancaster et al., 2016)

•Calf-feds •Lower DMI/d, lower ADG, better efficiency •Increased days in feedlots •Marketing flexibility limited (70% calves spring born) •Yield grade discounts an issue (too fat) •Lower carcass weights

•Yearlings •Greater DMI/d, greater ADG, poorer efficiency •Less days on feed •Overweight carcasses an issue (SORTING?) •Leaner, grade better? •More flexibility on marketing •Healthier (in the feedlot anyway)

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

Melton et al., unpublished

y = 0,6198x + 276,79 R² = 0,6859

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Tria

l-A

dju

ste

d H

CW

Initial BW

Initial BW impact on HCW


y = 0,0103x + 13,676 R² = 0,1971

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Tria

l-A

dju

ste

d D

MI

Initial BW

Initial BW impact on finishing DMI


y = -3E-06x2 + 0,0058x + 0,8491 R² = 0,0129

00,5

11,5

22,5

33,5

44,5

55,5

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Tria

l-A

dju

ste

d A

DG

Initial BW

Initial BW impact on finishing ADG


y = -5E-10x3 + 1E-06x2 - 0,0011x + 0,4789 R² = 0,089

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Tria

l-A

dju

ste

d G

:F

Initial BW

Initial BW impact on finishing G:F


Methods

Growing diet by year1 Ingredient, % Yr 1,2 Yr 3 Sweet Bran 30 30 Wheat Straw 31 31 MDGS 35 - WDGS - 35

Supplement2,3 4 4 1All values presented on a DM basis.

2Supplement includes limestone, trace minerals, and vitamin A, D, E premix

3Formulated for 200 mg/animal Rumensin daily

Loefelholz et al., Midwest ASAS 2018

Methods Finishing diet by year1

Ingredient, % Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3

HMC 50 51 51

Sweet Bran 30 30 30

Wheat Straw 5 - -

Grass Hay - 5 5

MDGS 10 10 -

WDGS - - 10

Supplement2,3 5 4 4

1All values presented on a DM basis.

2Supplement includes limestone, trace minerals, and vitamin A, D, E premix

3Formulated for 330 mg/animal of Rumensin and 90 mg/animal Tylan daily


Results

Growing performance of calves in GROW treatment GROW Growing performance

DOF 76 Initial BW, kg 266 Ending BW, kg 365 DMI, kg 8.1 ADG,, kg 1.29

G:F 0.1609


Results Effects of post-weaning management on finishing performance and carcass characteristics FINISH GROW SEM P-value Calves, n 105 104 Total DOF 196 245 Finishing performance

DOF 196 169 Initial BW, kg 265 367 7.7 <0.01 Final BW1, kg 591 626 15 <0.01 DMI 9.5 10.1 0.3 <0.01 ADG1, kg 1.67 1.53 0.04 <0.01

G:F1 0.1763 0.1512 0.0037 <0.01 Carcass Characteristics

HCW, kg 372 394 9 <0.01 LM area, cm2 34.8 35.1 0.7 0.66 12th rib fat, cm 1.37 1.52 0.08 0.06 Marbling2 423 465 12 <0.01

Calc. Yield Grade 3.2 3.4 0.1 0.04 1Calculated on a carcass-adjusted basis using a common dressing % (63%) 2Marbling score: 400 = Small, 500 = Modest, etc.


Effect of treatment on performance during the

growing period (d 1-112)

Treatment

WP SF PF SEM P-value

Initial wt, kg

253a 237b 234b 2.87 <0.001

Final wt, kg

382a 369b 377ab 3.76 <0.51

DMI, kg/d

-- 7.7a 6.1b 0.20 <0.001

ADG, kg

1.15a 1.10b 1.18a 0.02 <0.009

G:F -- 0.143a 0.198b 0.007 <0.001

abMeans without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Effect of treatment on performance during the

finishing phase

Treatment

WP SF PF CF SEM P-Value

Initial wt, kg

382a 369b 377ab 239c 3.76 <0.001

Final wt, kg

584a 581a 571ab 559b 6.22 <0.001

Days on

feed

123

104

104

196

--

--

DMI, kg/d

10.4ab 10.9a 10.1b 8.6c 0.24 <0.001

ADG, kg

1.64a 2.02b 1.85c 1.63a 0.04 <0.001

G:F 0.156a 0.186b 0.186b 0.190b 0.005 <0.001 abcMeans without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Effect of treatment on carcass characteristics

Treatment

WP SF PF CF SEM P-value

Dressing % 65.9a 65.1b 65.9a 66.3a 0.27 <0.014

HCW, kg 386a 379ab 376ab 371b 4.4 <0.12

12th-rib fat 1.35a 1.27a 1.24a 1.63b 0.048 <0.001

LM area 86.5ab 89.7a 89.0a 84.5b 1.29 <0.023

KPH, % 3.00a 3.00a 3.00a 3.09a 0.047 <0.41

Yield grade 3.19a 2.76b 2.94b 3.39a 0.076 <0.001

Marbling

score1

409a 449b 423ab 401a 9.8 <0.012

abMeans without a common superscript differ significantly (P < 0.05)

1300=Slight00, 400=Small00, 500=Modest00

Visceral fat mass (g/kg EBW) at termination of the growing and finishing phases

10

15

20

25

30

35

Initial Intermediate Final

WP SF PF

a a

a

b

c

a

Shain et al., 1998 Downs et al., 1998 Jordon et al., 1999 Shelby

slower fast slower faster slower faster slower finishing

Growing ADG 0.72 0.82 0.28 0.81 0.51 0.90 1.29

Growing G:F

Finishing DMI 12.1 11.7 13.8 13.7 14.2 14.2 10.1 9.5

Finishing ADG 1.63 1.63 2.16 1.98 2.15 2.15 1.53 1.67

Finishing G:F 0.134 0.138 0.157 0.145 0.151 0.151 0.151 0.176

HCW 394 372

fat depth 1.07 1.07 1.28 1.21 1.10 1.23 1.52 1.37

Marbling 18.7 18.7 19.5 19.1 529 517 465 423

Krehbiel Cody year 1 Cody year 2

WP SF PF finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish

Growing ADG

1.15 1.1 1.18 1.03 0.81 0.73 0.45 0.94 0.75 0.9 0.47

Growing G:F 0.143 0.198 0.129 0.125 0.122 0.118

Finishing DMI

10.4 10.9 10.1 8.6 13.9 14 14.2 14.4 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.9 11.4

Finishing ADG

1.64 2.02 1.85 1.63 1.72 1.70 1.67 1.76 2.01 1.77 1.80 1.73 1.97 1.72

Finishing G:F

0.156 0.186 0.186 0.19 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.122 0.16 0.139 0.145 0.142 0.153 0.152

HCW 386 379 376 371 449 449 439 418 426 437 473 433 434 379

fat depth 1.35 1.27 1.24 1.63 1.40 1.37 1.47 1.32 1.60 1.37 1.42 1.32 1.30 1.42

Marbling 409 449 423 401 484 514 491 492 481 488 538 483 511 442

Krehbiel Cody year 1 Cody year 2

WP SF PF finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish Hi Lo Supp NoSupp finish

Growing ADG

1.15 1.1 1.18 1.03 0.81 0.73 0.45 0.94 0.75 0.9 0.47

Growing G:F 0.143 0.198 0.129 0.125 0.122 0.118

Finishing DMI

10.4 10.9 10.1 8.6 13.9 14 14.2 14.4 12.5 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.9 11.4

Finishing ADG

1.64 2.02 1.85 1.63 1.72 1.70 1.67 1.76 2.01 1.77 1.80 1.73 1.97 1.72

Finishing G:F

0.156 0.186 0.186 0.190 0.124 0.121 0.118 0.122 0.160 0.139 0.145 0.142 0.153 0.152

HCW 386 379 376 371 449 449 439 418 426 437 473 433 434 379

fat depth 1.35 1.27 1.24 1.63 1.40 1.37 1.47 1.32 1.60 1.37 1.42 1.32 1.30 1.42

Marbling 409 449 423 401 484 514 491 492 481 488 538 483 511 442

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

0 0,5 1 1,5

Fin

ish

ing

AD

G, k

g

Summer ADG, kg

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

0 0,5 1 1,5

Fin

ish

ing

AD

G, k

g

Summer ADG, kg

shain downs jordon krehbiel cody yr 1 cody yr 2

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4

Fin

ish

ing

G:F

Summer ADG, kg

shain downs jordon krehbiel cody yr 1 cody yr 2

• Some impact, but small on subsequent ADG • If all pasture grazing, greater impact? • Is silage different?

• Same is true for G:F

• Growing makes cattle bigger at same fatness

• Slower gain, bigger at equal fatness

• Measures on a per day basis, not a big impact

• Can’t determine whether pasture & drylot behave similarly

• Certainly more points needed within studies • (almost all just 2 points)

Conclusions: BW gain on finishing

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

Documents

Impact of Body Weight Gain During Stocker/Backgrounding … - Stocker impact on... · M-S-25 11/23/16 Data Source: ... Initial BW, kg 291 435 0.01 ADG, kg/d 1.73 2.06 0.01 ... 1All