Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs....
-
Upload
augusta-pitts -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs....
![Page 1: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Vern Anderson, Ph.D.Carrington Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs
NDSU Beef CollegeFebruary 11, 2010
![Page 2: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Beef feedlot research at NDSU
– High level of collaboration• Carrington RE Center
– Growing and finishing studies– Focus on feeding in ND
• Hettinger RE Center• Dept. of Animal Sciences
– Metabolism trials– Meats research
• Central Grasslands RE Center
![Page 3: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Natural beef markets
• ND Natural Beef LLC – (Dakota Farms)– Cattle harvested at New Rockford, ND– Demand for finished beef
• Organic Beef Market - potential• Best management practices required
– Thorough vaccination program– Evaluate competitive production practices
![Page 4: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Concentrate levels for natural feedingAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
85 %Conc.
70%Conc.
55%Conc.
P Value
DMI, lb/hd/d 21.4 21.7 22.0 ns
ADG, lb/hd/d 2.93 2.51 2.26 P < .01
Feed Efficiency 7.3 8.6 9.7 P < .01
Days on Feed 154 180 210 P < .01
Yield Grade 2.77 2.58 2.70 ns
Marbling Score 481 421 421 P = .16
Percent Choice 70 59 63 ns
![Page 5: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Evaluation of natural
feeding supplements for growing and finishing calves
![Page 6: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Yeast enzyme “cocktail” in barley based dietsAnderson and Bock, 2000
• Grow-finishing study– Yea-Sacc 8417 ® and Fibrozyme ® – Alltech, Inc.
• Barley based finishing ration• Steers fed yeast/enzyme “cocktail”
– Cattle stayed on feed and gained more consistently than controls during severe weather changes during spring thaw
![Page 7: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Natural vs. conventional finishing trailAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
• 85% concentrate corn/barley finishing diets• Treatments
– Two supplements (no implants): – Natural supplement (Bovi-Sacc®, Alltech Inc.)
• Proprietary yeast and fiber digesting enzyme
– Conventional (ionophore-monensin sodium)
![Page 8: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Forage levels and supplementsAnderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
Conventional Control
Monensin sodium
NaturalAlltech
Fibrozyme
P value
DMI, lb/hd/d 21.7 21.4 ns
ADG, lb/hd/d 3.15 2.93 P<.10
Feed Eff 7.0 7.3 ns
Yield Grade 2.97 2.77 ns
Marbling score 455 481 ns
Percent Choice 75 70 ns
![Page 9: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Natural supplement evaluationsAnderson et al., 2008
– Three different research components• Replicated growing experiment – fall 2006• Replicated finishing experiment – winter 2006-7• Large pen field trial –winter 2007-8
– Treatments• Ionophore (monensin sodium)• Natural supplement = Rumatec®
(Ralco Nutrition, Marshal, MN)
![Page 10: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Why Rumatec® β Starter and Finisher?
• Newer natural supplement with multiple components and potential positive effects
• Rumatec® β Starter – Diatomaceous earth– Alpha-hydroxy proprionic acid– Cobalt carbonate– Fenugreek– Brewers yeast– Carriers – grain by-products and mineral oil
• Rumatec® Finisher add yucca extract (saponin)
![Page 11: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Growing trial protocol
• 162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club – (Turtle Lake show - 26 ranches_– Mixed breeds, colors, sizes– Blocked by weight into four groups– One pen per block to each treatment– Twelve pens, 13-14 head per pen
• 2 - 28 day weigh periods = 56 day trial• TMR fed once daily to appetite
![Page 12: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Growing Ration14.2% CP, 60 Mcal NEg
Dry matter basis• 49.1% dry rolled corn• 20.6% field peas• 11.4% corn silage• 9.2% wet dist grains• 7.6% chopped straw• 2.1% supplement with:
– ½ oz Rumatec® β Starter or– 300 mg monensin sodium or
![Page 13: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Finishing trial protocol
– Same 162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club• Started at end of growing trial
– TMR fed once daily to appetite– All steers harvested on April 28– Carcass data collected
![Page 14: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Performance of growing steers fed a natural supplement
IonophoreMonensin
sodium
Nat supplRumatec®β
Starter
StdErr
P Value
Initial wt. lb 739 740 8.76 0.37DMI, lb/hd/d 19.79 20.68 0.37 0.13ADG, lb/hd/d 3.61 3.74 0.12 0.23Feed Eff. 5.48 5.55 0.27 0.76No. hd treated 3/54 2/54 - -
![Page 15: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Finishing Ration13.8% CP, 62 Mcal NEg
Dry matter basis• 55.4% dry rolled corn• 15.6% wet dist grains• 13.8% field peas• 8.1% corn silage• 5.4% chopped straw• 1.7% supplement with:
– ½ oz Rumatec® Finisher or– 300 mg monensin sodium or
![Page 16: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Performance of finishing steers fed a natural supplement
IonophoreMonensin
sodium
Nat supplRumatec®Finisher
StdErr
P Value
Initial wt. lb 944 953 11.34 0.69Final wt. lb 1249 1239 14.56 0.38DMI, lb/hd/d 22.17 23.29 0.79 0.13ADG, lb 3.46a 3.25b 0.09 0.02Feed Eff. 6.42 7.21 0.14 0.04
![Page 17: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Carcass traits of steers fed a natural supplement
IonophoreMonensin sodium
Natural suppl
Rumatecβ®
StdErr
P Value
Dressing % 944 953 11.34 0.69Marbl Score 469 449 16.64 0.09Fat Thick, in 0.50 0.51 0.03 0.69REA,sq in 12.79 12.76 0.19 0.96Yield Grade 3.00 3.04 0.11 0.86
![Page 18: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Field trial for finishing calves with natural supplement
• Previous finishing study left questions– Steers available from CREC herd
• 70 head backgrounded steers
– Not replicated• Two pens, 35 head per pen
– Ration similar to replicated finishing experiment
– No carcass data collected
![Page 19: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Field trial – finishing performance steers fed a natural supplement
IonophoreMonensin
sodium
Natural suppl
Rumatecβ®
Initial wt. lb 937 934Final wt. lb 1344 1338DMI, lb/hd/d 21.85 22.09ADG, lb 3.59 3.60Feed Eff. 6.25 6.34
![Page 20: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Summary
– New natural supplements show promise for both growing and finishing feedlot cattle in ND
– Newer generation of multi-ingredient supplements compete well with ionophores
– Need to develop complete “best management practices” for natural beef feeding
![Page 21: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Summary
– New natural supplements show promise for both growing and finishing feedlot cattle in ND
– Newer generation of multi-ingredient supplements compete well with ionophores
– Need to develop complete “best management practices” for natural beef feeding
![Page 22: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains
Thompson et al., 2010
– Growing phase – Hettinger REC– Finishing phase - Carrington REC
• SBARE supported
– 72 head 6 head per pen, 6 pens/treatment– Two treatments
• Conventional – ionophore and implant• Natural – yeast product from Ivy Solutions
![Page 23: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Rations for natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains
Thompson et al., 2010
Percent, DM Basis Growing Finishing• Corn, dry rolled 32 58• Distillers 13 22• Mixed hay 40 -• Oat silage 9 -• Canola meal - 3• Corn silage - 7• Straw, chopped - 8• Supplement 7 2• Crude Protein, % 14.8 12.9• NE gain, Mcal/lb .53 .65
![Page 24: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Performance of growing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains
Thompson et al., 2010
IonophoreMonensin
sodium
Nat supplYeast
Ivy Solutions
SdErr
P Value
Days on feed 85 85 - -
Initial wt. lb 551 545 3.31 0.31
DMI, lb/hd/d 22.2 20.5 0.37 0.02
ADG, lb 2.65 2.87 0.04 0.02
Feed Eff. 8.33 7.14 0.003 <0.01
![Page 25: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Performance of finishing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains
Thompson et al., 2010
Nat supplYeast
Ivy Solutions
IonophoreMonensin sodium
StdErr
P Value
Days on feed 125 138 - -
Final wt. lb 1387 1299 9.92 <0.001
DMI, lb/hd/d 24.70 21.61 0.46 <0.001
ADG, lb 3.99 3.26 0.04 <0.001
Feed Eff. 6.25 6.66 0.003 0.02
Feed cost/lb, $ .59 .65 0.02 0.005
![Page 26: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Carcass traits of steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains
Thompson et al., 2010
IonophoreMonensin
sodium
Nat supplYeast
Ivy Solutions
StdErr
P Value
Dressing Percent 65.11 63.00 - -
Hot carc. Wt, lb 862 765 6.39 <0.001
Ribeye area 90.3 83.7 0.78 <0.001
KPH, % 2.42 2.63 0.07 0.04
Yield Grade 3.25 3.12 0.05 0.53
Marbling Score 487 516 7.52 0.02
Net /hd, $* (82.71) (155.36)
* Sale price of $85.65/cwt for CON and $90.09/ Natural
![Page 27: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Summary
-Some natural supplements appear to be competitive in animal performance.
-Natural production protocols do not appear to be competitive, require significantly higher sale price.
- Producers need to keep very careful records if marketing natural cattle.
![Page 28: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Thank youLivestock Technicians: Dale Burr, Tim Schroeder, and Tyler Ingebretson
![Page 29: Vern Anderson, Ph.D. Carrington Research Extension Center North Dakota State University Natural vs. Conventional Finishing Programs NDSU Beef College February.](https://reader038.fdocuments.net/reader038/viewer/2022110400/56649da65503460f94a9153c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Questions
Dr. Rob Maddock Teaching the art of grilling steaks and chops
At the NDSU BBQ Boot CampHeld at Carrington on July 17, 2008
A joint effort of Animal Science and Carrington REC