Ethanol Byproduct Use for Beef Cattle & Impact on Quality€¦ · Impact on Quality G. Erickson &...
Transcript of Ethanol Byproduct Use for Beef Cattle & Impact on Quality€¦ · Impact on Quality G. Erickson &...
Ethanol Byproduct Usefor Beef Cattle &Impact on Quality
G. Erickson & T. Klopfenstein
UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics
Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein
Criteria for Trials Used• Focus on corn WDGS only• UNL Mead research• DRC, HMC, DRC:HMC diets• Individual animal carcass data
- HCW- 12th rib fat- Marbling score- Yield grade
UNL Studies UsedExperiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/TxSindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32
Materials and Methods of Trials• Diet % WDGS (DM basis)• 5-7.5 % DM roughage in diet • Calves and Yearlings
– Predominantly black crossbred steers• 34 treatment means (n= 1257 hd)• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0
• Calculated YG used (n= 873) except when LM area unknown (n= 384)
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AD
G (l
b)
Intercept
WDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4710 3.7020 3.8330 3.8740 3.8150 3.66
Predicted Values
Diet DM % WDGScov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P < 0.01
Feed Conversion
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
F:G
(lb/
lb) WDGS Level F:G
0 6.4410 6.1620 5.9530 5.8140 5.7450 5.73
Predicted Values
Diet DM % WDGSIntercept
cov. P = 0.04 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.09
12th Rib Fat Depthy = -8E-05x2 + 0.0039x + 0.4912
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
12th
Rib
Fat
(in)
WDGS Level FAT0 0.49
10 0.5220 0.5430 0.5440 0.5250 0.49
Predicted Values
Diet DM % WDGSIntercept
cov. P = 0.02 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.04
Yield Grade
y = -0.0002x2 + 0.0129x + 2.848
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Yiel
d G
rade WDGS Level YG
0 2.8510 2.9520 3.0230 3.0440 3.0150 2.94
Predicted Values
Diet DM % WDGSIntercept
cov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.06
Marbling Score
y = -0.0277x2 + 1.3078x + 517.53
0100200300400500600700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mar
blin
g Sc
ore
500 = Small0
WDGS Level Marbling 0 518
10 52820 53330 53240 52650 514
Predicted Values
Diet DM % WDGSIntercept Slope
cov. P = 0.08 cov. P = 0.09 L P = 0.05≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.05
Conclusion• Intermediate Levels of WDGS (10-40%)
DRC & HMC DietsEqual DOF
Convert more efficiently
Get fat quicker More marbling
UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics
Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein
UNL Studies UsedExperiment Year Diet DM % Sweet Bran Hd/Tx
Richards et al. 1993 0, 25 40Scott et al. 1995 0, 10, 21, 38 40Herold et al. 1996 0, 38 40Scott et al. 1999 0, 32 60Scott et al. 1999 0, 22 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Losa et al. 2005 0, 30 72
Materials and Methods of Trials• Diets 0-40 % Sweet Bran® (DM basis)• DRC, HMC, or DRC:HMC control diet• 7-7.5 % DM roughage in diet • Calves and Yearlings
– Predominantly black crossbred steers• 18 treatment means (n= 880 hd)• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0
Average Daily Gain
y = 0.0126x + 3.6689
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
AD
G (l
b)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.67
Diet DM % WCGF
Feed Conversion
y = -0.0053x + 5.9566
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50
F:G
(lb/
lb)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P = 0.03≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.48
Diet DM % WCGF
12th Rib Fat Depthy = 0.0016x + 0.4557
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50
12th
Rib
Fat
(in)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.87
Diet DM % WCGF
Marbling Score
y = 0.4917x + 491.65
0100200300400500600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mar
blin
g Sc
ore
500 = Small0
Interceptcov. P = 0.06 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.78
Diet DM % WCGF
WCGF and quality grade
Control Sweet Bran
Comparison 1 58.8 61.4
Comparison 2 57.2 56.8
a 8 university studies with steam-flaked corn; 1200+ hd Control, 2,200+hd fed Sweet Branb ~6,000 heifers fed in 21 pen replicates, commercial feedlot
WCGF and quality grade
106 10497 99
93
110101
97 9994
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
ControlWCGF
Over 2.3 million hd over 5 yrs not fed Sweet BranOver 1.4 million hd over 5 yrs fed Sweet Bran in 2002
Beef Extension Page Beef Reportshttp://beef.unl.edu
CONTACT: Galen Erickson PH: 402 [email protected] http://beef.unl.edu
Acknowledge: Abengoa Bioenergy Dakota Gold ResearchNebraska Corn Board Chief EthanolCargill Wet Milling US Bio Platte Valley