feeding strategies for winter finishing iga2010 (siobhan kavanagh v1)

7/28/2019 Feeding Strategies for Winter Finishing IGA2010 (Siobhan Kavanagh v1)

1/24


2/24

Animal Targets

Animal Selection

It is important to set realistic targets with regard to the start and finish weight,sale date and the length of the finishing period. These need to be considered inrelation to your feed options and production costs.

Use animals with a high rate of carcass gain relative to live weight gain. These arethe more high growth rate beef cattle that divert a higher proportion of feedintake towards carcass gain. In this regard, young bulls of the continental breedsare at the top of the league and heifers of traditional breeds are at the other endof the scale, since they fatten at a relatively low weight. Suitable finishing weightdepends on the breed and type of animal. For continental steers it can range

from 660 kg to 720 kg, non-continental steers from 580 kg to 650 kg, continentalheifers from 540 kg to 600 kg.

For bulls, optimum slaughter weight will be dictated by the demands of themarketplace. A bull finishing system should not be entered into without priorknowledge of the demands of the processor in terms of carcass size. A study byAFBI, Hillsborough examined a range of finishing weights (500 to 800 kg) forbulls from the suckler herd. Increasing slaughter weight increased feed intakebut daily gain and carcass gain remained constant at 1.4 kg and 0.9 kg / day,respectively. Consequently, feed efficiency (kg feed DM per kg carcass gain)declined but was still excellent at 9.6 kg feed Dm per kg carcass gain at a

slaughter weight of 800 kg live weight (LW). Increasing slaughter weight from500 kg to 800 kg improved carcass conformation by a grade and resulted in agreater proportion of carcasses grading as fat class 3 rather than 2. However,there was a tendency for some carcasses grading as fat class 4H at the heavierweights.

Initial weight and target slaughter date/ weight will dictate the most appropriatefeeding system. For example, light heifers (400 kg) with a target slaughter weightof 570 kg LW are not suitable for high concentrate feeding. The pattern ofconcentrate supplementation for these animals should be such that the animalsare offered a growing diet (forage & concentrate) until they reach 470 kg and then

offered a high concentrate diet.


3/24

Target Weight Gain

Table 1 outlines guidelines for live weight gain (LWG) on different classes offinishing animal. At best, this is a guideline to target gains as gain will bedictated by a number of factors including the previous history of the animal,weight for age, diet type, feeding management, husbandry etc.

There is increased interest in finishing bulls from the suckler herd. This system isattractive because of the potentially high rates of live weight gain and good feedconversion efficiency. Research to Steen in Hillsborough showed that whenanimals are slaughtered at a constant age, bulls had increased carcass weights of43 kg and 69 kg, relative to steers and heifers, respectively.

The scope for compensatory growth depends on the previous nutritional history

of the animal. Lifetime performance to the start of the finishing period will havea major bearing on animal performance over the finishing period. The lighter ananimals weight for age, the greater the animals potential for compensation.Differences in compensatory growth potential can result in big variations inresponse to concentrates. Animals with little compensatory growth tend to havepoorer performance and efficiency.

Table 1. Suggested Target Weight Gains for Finishing Cattle for DifferentProportions of Concentrates

Proportion of Concentrate : Forage50:50* 90 : 10

LWG kg / day LWG kg/day Steers

Friesian 0.9 1.20Continental Cross 1.0 1.30

HeifersContinental Cross 0.9 1.2

Bulls

Friesian 1.1 1.35Continental Cross 1.2 1.5

*Assumed silage quality of 72 DMD plus 4-5 kg meals for steers and heifers, for bulls it is assumedthat silage is constituting 35% of the total DM content with the remainder as concentrates.

Carcass Fatness

Given the introduction of the quality payment scheme, carcass fatness hasbecome an important issue. Factors affecting carcass fatness include breed type,finishing system and slaughter weight with slaughter weight and breed having the


4/24

biggest effect. Carcass weight at a constant level of fatness varies from 340 kgcarcass for limousines to 410 kg carcass for Belgian Blues. The level of carcassfatness increases with increasing slaughter / carcass weight. High concentratediets tend to reduce fat score by approximately 1/ 2 score, compared to theconventional grass silage + concentrates based system. The effect of individualingredients in the diet on fat score is limited. While claims are made thatingredients like maize meal will affect carcass fat, the scientific literature wouldnot support this.

Studies on the effect of protein level in the diet on carcass fatness show variedresults. Some suggest that increasing protein level will increase carcass fatnesswhile others suggest that increasing protein level has no effect on carcass fatness.

Finishing heavier cattle has the advantage of more saleable meat, better

conformation and better kill out but fat deposition will increase and the costassociated with fat deposition is high. Work by Keane at Teagasc Grange showedthat a change in fat score from 3 to 4L can increase the cost of carcass gain by upto 0.70 per kg. If slaughter date needs to be delayed, keep cattle on a low- costgrowing diet and then go for a short finishing period which will give a highercarcass weight without a change in fat score. Send cattle for slaughter whenacceptably finished.

Duration of Finishing

It is often assumed that the rate of gain is constant over the finishing period. Thisis not the case. High rates of gain are achievable at the start of the finishingperiod but this decreases with time. Gain decreases over time for a number ofreasons including increased gut fill, static intake, increased fat content in thegain. The energy cost associated with increased fat content in the gain reducesfeed efficiency at a fixed energy intake.

The effect of duration of the finishing period is particularly evident with highconcentrate feeding systems. Table 2 outlines the performance of CharolaisCross steers on a high concentrate feeding system for 12 weeks or 23 weeks. Alive weight gain of 1.42kg / day was recorded for the first 84 days but declined by

19% over the next 77 days. Consequently, c. 40% more concentrates was requiredto produce each kg of carcass gain during weeks 12 to 23 than the first 12 weeks.


5/24

Table 2. Effect of Feeding Period on Live Weight / Carcass Gain andEfficiency

Finishing Period Start to 12 weeks 12 to 23 weeksLive weight gain (g/day) 1424 1158Carcass gain (g/day) 1036 840Concentrate intake (kg DM / day) 10.2 11.4

Feed Efficiency*(Concentrate DMI to gain)

Live weight 7.16 9.85Carcass 9.85 13.57

Source: Teagasc Grange *Silage not included

This data clearly indicates that where high concentrate feeding is practiced thefeeding period should be kept as short as possible. Thus, steers and heifersshould be within 100kg to 120kg of final slaughter weight, when fed on a highconcentrate diet.

Unlike steers, where performance starts to decline after 80-90 days on ad-libmeals, young bulls have been successfully fed for up to 240 days, achieving ratesof gain. However, the duration of the meal feeding period will be dictated by thestart weight, carcass weight required, level of fatness and other factors such aslameness, particularly for bulls on slats. A maximum feeding period of 170-180

days is preferable. Starting weight for high concentrate feeding of bulls will bedictated by target slaughter weight but assuming a live weight gain of 1.5 kg / day,animals should be within 260 kg of slaughter, when high concentrate feedingbegins.

Pattern of Concentrate SupplementationAltering the pattern of concentrate supplementation throughout the finishingperiod has been shown to have no effect on performance or efficiency of feedutilization in finishing steers, while total concentrate input is the same. Thusanimals could be fed a fixed concentrate allowance over the entire finishingperiod or they could be fed all the concentrates towards the end of the finishing

period. This might be used where animals may not be targeted for sale until latespring. It might also facilitate some control over the fatness of animals atslaughter. Work from both Grange and Hillsborough showed that animalsoffered silage only for the first part of the finishing period and high concentrateinput thereafter had a lower fat classification than cattle offered a fixed quantityof concentrates throughout the finishing period.


6/24

Feeding Systems

While there are many permutations of feedstuffs used in diets for finishing cattlein this country, there are just 5 basic feeding systems:

1. Grass silage plus concentrates. Meal feeding level will be dictated by silagequality but there is no role for bad silage (less than 70 DMD) in finishingsystems. On silage based diets, the silage digestibility and the preservationboth affect intake. It is difficult to consistently harvest good quality grasssilage, making alternative options more attractive.

2. Forage maize plus concentrates. High dry matter yields of forage maize(12-13 t DM / ha, without plastic) and good quality (28-30% DM, 25%starch) are essential elements of this system. It is a forage, not a

concentrate and must be adequately supplemented with concentrates.There is a potential concentrate saving effect of 1.5-2 kg per animal perday.

3. Whole crop cereal silage (WCCS) plus concentrates. Again, high drymatter yields of WCCS (12-13 t DM / ha) and good quality (28-30% DM,25% starch) are essential elements of this system. Whole crop cereal silageis not a concentrate and must be adequately supplemented withconcentrates. There is a potential concentrate saving effect of 1.5-2 kg peranimal per day. Feed efficiency is slightly poorer with WCCS, relative to aforage maize based system.

4. Grass silage plus fodder beet plus concentrates. It is a high energy feed(UFV = 1.12 kg / DM) which is comparable to other concentrate feeds, butnot superior. Fodder beet is a replacement for concentrates. Fodder beetis an attractive crop for many farmers due to its high yield and energycontent. However, labour associated with harvesting, handling and feedingfodder beet can often mitigate against the economical production of beet.Fodder beet is primarily fed as a conserved crop (although it can also begrazed in-situ).

Recorded performance on diets based on fodder beet have not always beengood. Buckley et al. reported on an on-farm study of feeding practices and

performance on 10 specialised winter finisher units in 1998. 80% of thefarms used 15-25 kg of fodder / sugar beet. Across the 10 farms, anaverage daily gain of 0.90 kg was recorded, with a range of 0.73 1.06.Considerable variation in feed intake and animal growth was observed.Daily gains were similar to that recorded on conventional grass silage +concentrates based diets.

5. High concentrate diet, with minimal roughage. The high concentratefeeding system offers the advantage of shorter finishing periods,eliminating poor quality silage from finishing diets, more predictableperformance, gives better kill-out %, lower carcass fat and because of


7/24

earlier finishing reduces labour, interest charges and slurry storage /handling requirements. This system is suitable for steers, heifers andbulls. Heifers have less potential to benefit from high concentrate feedingbut heifers of high growth potential (continentals and animals withpotential for compensatory growth) can be economically finished on highconcentrate diets

The feed costs associated with 120 kg live weight gain (80 kg carcass gain)on eachof the feeding systems, with finishing continental steers is presented in Table 3.The traditional system of good quality grass silage plus concentrates basedsystem is approximately 7% more expensive than other systems. At a concentrateprice of200 / t, there are relatively small differences in the feed cost of finishingcattle on a high concentrate diet, a mixed diet of grass silage, fodder beet andprotein balancer or a based on forage maize and concentrates.

A system based on WCCS and concentrates is slightly more expensive because ofthe higher cost of whole crop cereal silage and poorer feed efficiency.

The conclusions drawn on this systems comparison are based on the assumptionsused. Any change in forage costs, concentrate price or animal performance willalter these conclusions. Forage costings used include storage losses as well as afeeding out costs.


8/24

Table 3. Feed Costs Associated with 120 kg live weight or 80 kg carcass gainfor finishing continental steers at a concentrate price of200 / t

Forage 72 DMDGrassSilage

ForageMaize

WholeCrop

Cereal

Silage

GrassSilage +Fodder

beet

Ad LibMeals

Initial weight, kg 550 550 550 550 550Live weight gain, kg / day 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.35

Concentrate fed, kg/day 5 5 5 2.3 11.5Fodder beet input, kg/day 20

Total Energy Intake, UFV 9.8 10.6 10.8 11.4 12.4

Days of finish 125 100 100 100 85

Carcass gain, kg / day 0.64 0.8 0.8 0.84 0.95Feed costs, per kg carcass gain 2.91 2.65 2.78 2.72 2.70

Relative cost of feeding 1 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.93Includes a land charge for all forages (300 / ha); Storage losses & feeding out costs are

included; Grass silage = 140 / t DM (28 / t fresh); Forage maize = 133 / t DM (37 / fresh);Whole crop cereal silage 144 / t DM (58 / t fresh); Fodder beet = 217 / t DM (41 / t fresh)

Nutritional Targets

IntakePerformance is driven by intake. High intakes of high digestibility forage and / orconcentrate feeds are essential to achieve high levels of performance in winterfinishing.

Unlike the dairy farmer, the beef finisher does not have the luxury of a bulk tankreading to gauge animal performance. In many cases, he / she must rely on ameasure of intake, observation of the animals and in some cases weighing ofstock into and out of the sheds. It is critically important that intake is recorded

on a weekly basis in a finishing unit to illuminate any issues around intake andperformance. If possible, animals should be weighed on a regular basis, or at thevery least at the beginning and the end of the finishing period. This can providevery useful information on the productivity of the unit.

Typical intake on grass silage based diet for finishing steers and heifers is 1.6-1.8% of live weight (LW). For example, a finishing steer on grass silage +concentrates at 600 kg LW might be expected to consume 10.2 kg DM:

1.7% of LW: 600 * 0.017 = 10.2 kg DM


9/24

If grass silage is used as a component of a finishing diet, then it must be highdigestibility high dry matter material. Grange research has shown that silageintake declines by 25-30% as silage DMD goes from 75 to 60%.

The inclusion of alternative forages such as forage maize or whole crop cerealsilage will increase intake by 10-15%, while ad lib meal feeding will raise intakefurther (Table 4).

Table 4. Guideline Intakes for Various Classes of Stock, expressed as a % oflive weight (LW)

Intake as a % LW

Finishing Steers & Heifers

Grass silage + concentrates 1.7 (1.6-1.8)

Maize silage + concentrates 1.85 (1.7-1.95)

High concentrate diet 1.9 (1.8-2.0)

Finishing bulls (high concentrate diets) 2.0 (1.9-2.1)

EnergyEnergy is the most limiting nutrient for a finishing animal.

Table 5 outlines the energy costs associated with maintaining the animal at twolevels of gain 0.5 and 1.0 kg live weight gain (LWG). Maintenance costs are asignificant proportion of the feed costs of an animal, particularly at low tomoderate production levels. For example, for a 600 kg animal growing at 0.5 kgLWG, energy for maintenance constitutes 80% of the energy requirements of theanimal, while the same animal growing at 1.0 kg LWG, energy for maintenancemakes up 59% of the energy requirement of the animal. Feed efficiency is highestat the high level of gain.

In real terms, for an animal growing at 0.5 kg LWG per day, the energy costassociated with 100 kg will be 1,360 UFV or 1.43 tonnes of concentrates (UFV =0.95). While at a growth rate of 1.0 kg per day, the cost will be 920 UFV or 0.97tonnes of concentrates. Assuming a price for concentrates of200 / t, the costdifference is 102 / animal.


10/24

Table 5. Energy Requirements of Beef Cattle at Two Levels of Gain

Energy for

MaintenanceUFV

Total Energy

RequirementUFV

% energy used

for maintenance

Total Energy

Requirements for100 kg gain - UFV

LWG kg/d 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0Live Weight

400 kg 4.0 5.0 6.6 80% 61% 1,000 660600 kg 5.4 6.8 9.2 80% 59% 1,360 920

No. of days 200 100

The energy (UFV) requirements of a beef animal will be dictated primarily by

gender, breed, live weight and live weight gain (LWG) (Table 6). Energy isrequired for maintenance and live weight gain, both of which change over time asthe animal live weight increases and tissue deposition changes from lean to fat.

To use these tables, select sex of the animal, live weight, target live weight gainand diet type to get an estimate of the energy requirements of the specifiedanimal.

For example, finishing continental cross heifers at 500 kg live weight on a highconcentrate diet (90: 10, concentrates : forage) with a target gain of 1.2 kg LWG,the energy requirements will be approximately 9.6 UFV.

Table 6. Energy Requirements of Bulls, Heifers and Steers At DifferentProportions of Concentrate, Breed and Live weight

HEIFERS Average Continental Cross Continental CrossDaily Live weight Gain

kg50:50

Concentrates : Forage90:10

Concentrates : Forage

400 kg 0.8 6 6.31 6.6 6.9

1.2 7.3 7.71.4 8 8.5

500 kg 0.8 7.3 7.71 8.3 8.51.2 9.2 9.61.4 10.2 10.7

600 kg 0.8 9.3 9.61 10.6 11

1.2 12.1 12.5


11/24

STEERS Average Friesian FriesianContinental

CrossContinental

Cross

Daily LiveWeightGain kg

50:50Concentrates

: Forage

90:10Concentrates

: Forage

50:50Concentrates

: Forage

90:10Concentrate

s : Forage

500 kg 1 8.4 8.8 7.8 8.11.2 9.4 9.8 8.5 91.4 10.6 10.9 9.3 9.8

600 kg 1 10.5 10.9 9.2 9.71.2 12.3 12.5 10.3 10.91.4 - 14.5 - 12.3

700 kg 1 14.0 14.4 11.6 11.91.2 - - 13.4 141.4 - - 15.5 16

BULLS Average Friesian Continental CrossDaily

Live Weight Gain, kg90:10

Concentrates : Forage90:10

Concentrates : Forage

400 kg 1 7 6.51.2 7.3 71.4 8.3 7.71.6 9 8.6

1.8 10 9.2500 kg 1 7.9 7.51.2 8.9 81.4 9.8 91.6 11.1 10

600 kg 1 9.2 8.61.2 10.5 9.61.4 11.8 10.71.6 - 11.8

700 kg 1 10.8 10.11.2 13 11.5

1.4 14.5 131.6 - 14.7


12/24

ProteinThe protein requirements of bulls are higher than steers, which in turn are higherthan heifers. This is because of the greater lean meat deposition in bulls thansteers and heifers. The specifications defined in Table 6 below relate to thecomplete diet specification i.e. forage + concentrates.

Table 6. Dietary Protein Requirements for bulls, steers and heifers

Category Crude protein % / kg diet DMBulls (growing) 14-15Bulls (finishing) 12-13Heifers 11-12Steers 11-12

MineralsCattle need minerals to maintain good health. It is recommended that mineralsbe fed to all finishing animals. Feeding rate will vary from supplier to supplierbut as a rule of thumb finishing animals should be offered 20g minerals per 100kg LW i.e. 500 kg animal will need 20 * 5 = 100 grams of mineral per day.

Particular attention to minerals is needed in a number of areas:1. Feeding high levels of straights such as barley, which is low in calcium2. Feeding alternative forages such as forage maize and whole crop cereal

silage mineral content is low3. High concentrate feeding It is important that a standard beef ration is

not used for high concentrate feeding as the mineral specification will bein excess of requirements and may lead to poor performance and the riskof toxicity and severe diarrhea.

4. High moisture grains are low in vitamin E

Starch & sugarThe finishing animal has a requirement for energy, but there is no specificrequirement for starch and sugar in the diet. Energy supply is important, not

source of energy i.e. starch or digestible fibre. However, most high energy feedsare based on starch or sugar or readily digestible fibre or a combination of allthree.

Type of starch will have an impact on the risk of digestive upsets in finishinganimals. Starch in maize is broken down more slowly than barley which is moreslowly than wheat in the rumen. Starch in forage maize is slowly digested. Whilethe sugar in fodder / sugar beet is more rapidly digested. A combination ofsources reduces the risk of digestive upset but this is no substitute for goodfeeding management.


13/24

In terms of reducing the risk of digestive upsets, feeding management is moreimportant than the level or type of starch in the diet.

FibreBeef cattle are ruminant animals and as such require a fibre source to sustainhealthy rumen function. The minimum roughage requirement of a finishinganimal is 10-15% of total dry matter intake. On a conventional diet of grass silage+ 5.5. kg meals, forage intake is 50% of total dry matter intake (TDMI). On a highconcentrate diet, 10-15% of TDMI must be supplied as a roughage source.

Grass silage, hay, straw, maize silage and whole crop cereal silage are all suitablesources of fibre. For ad lib concentrate diets, hay, haylage or straw are mostsuitable but care should be taken that animals dont over-consume high qualityhay / haylage as this will limit animal performance. Opinion differs as to whether

the roughage source should be mixed with the concentrate in a total mixed ration(TMR) or fed separately. Offering the roughage source separately allows theanimal to gauge their requirement for roughage (Table 7).

Table 7. Effect of Offering Straw Separately or Mixed in Ad Lib Diets onAnimal Performance

Straw Offered SeparatelyYes No

Live weight gain kg / d 1.38 1.26

Concentrate intake kg /d 6.31 6.18Feed efficiency kg feed / kg gain 4.48 4.88


14/24

Proportion of forageThe breakeven point on concentrate : forage ratio is based on concentrate price,cost of forage production, carcass gain and carcass price (Table 8). At aconcentrate price of220 / t, the feed costs associated with 1 kg of carcass gainfor finishing steer ranges from 2.95 to 3.06, depending on the proportion ofconcentrates utilized, with the high concentrate system being most economical.Grass silage at 140 / t DM is shifting the economics towards high concentrateinput, even at relatively high prices for concentrate feeds. But as concentrateprice increases the benefit of the high concentrate system delines.

Table 8. The effect of concentrate supplementation rate on the feed costs ()associated every kg of carcass gain, at a range of concentrate costs(/t)

Concentrate Price, / tonne

Concentrate(kg/day)

160 180 200 220 240

5 2.59 2.75 2.91 3.06 3.2211.5 2.22 2.46 2.70 2.95 3.19

*Grass silage 140 / t DM (28 / t fresh)

While the general principles for bull finishing systems are similar to those ofother cattle systems, it is more important to achieve a high rate of gain with bullsin order to achieve suitably finished animals. Because of the high potentialgrowth rate of bulls compared to other animals, a good response to additionalconcentrates can be expected. The traditional system for finishing suckler bullshas been an intensive system where animals are offered high concentrates withminimum forage to maintain rumen function. But is there a role for high qualityforages in bull diets?

Keady & Kilpatrick (2006) evaluated a high concentrate diet compared to a dietof 50:50 high quality grass silage (D-value = 70) and concentrates. Replacing50% of the high concentrate diet with high quality grass silage had little impacton live weight gain, carcass conformation or fat classification.

Similar work by Patterson in 2000 showed that carcass gain was optimized at aconcentrate to forage ratio of 68:32, assuming high forage quality but feedefficiency was higher at 55:45 (Table 9).


15/24

Table 9. The Effect of Concentrate : Forage Ratio on Efficiency in FinishingBulls

Ratio of Concentrate : Forage25:75 40:60 55:45 68:32 75:25

Daily carcass gain kg 0.60 0.83 0.91 0.98 0.99Carcass weight kg 382 389 384 380 385Dry matter intake per kg carcass gain 12.8 9.7 9.5 10.1 9.4Source: Patterson et al. 2000

Concentrate Feeds

Energy Feeds

There are three primary sources of energy in beef diets starch, sugar anddigestible fibre. Many practical feeding trials suggest that carbohydratecomposition has little effect on growth rate or feed efficiency.

Work by MeGee et al. 2006 showed no difference in performance or efficiency ofanimals fed cereal based or digestible fibre based diets that differed greatly instarch and digestible fibre concentrations (Table 10).

Table 10. Effect of concentrate Energy Source on Performance of FinishingBulls

Concentrate TypeRFS SFS RFS+F Fibre Significance

IntakeSilage 3.8 4.0 3.8 3.6 nsConcentrates 6.5 6.5 6.9 6.5 ns

Total 10.3 10.5 10.7 10.1 ns

CarcassGain g/day 582 570 584 520 nsKill out % 537 514 540 539 nsFat 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5 ns

FCEg carcass / kg DMI 56.8 54.6 55.6 52.0 ns

Source: McGee et al. 2006

*RFS = Rapidly fermentable starch e.g. barley, wheat,**SFS = Slowly fermentable starch e.g. maize meal;

***F = Fibre e.g. citrus pulp, beet pulp


16/24

Barley, wheat and maize grain rarely show differences in feed intake, animalperformance or feed efficiency of beef animals fed high concentrate diets. Asummary of a number of experiments from Teagasc Grange support the view thatthere is no difference in animal performance on wheat or barley based diets.Similarly Steen (1993) concluded that as a supplement to grass silage based dietsfor finishing cattle, the feeding value of wheat was proportionally 0.98 that ofbarley.

Experiments from AFBI Hillsborough show that the feeding value of maize meal,when included as a component of high concentrate diets for beef cattle, is onaverage 5% above that of barley and wheat. Cereal beef production experimentsfrom Teagasc Grange suggest no differences in performance between barley andmaize based diets. Anecdotal experience would suggest that maize meal is goodto put fat cover on bulls. Much of the research would not support this theory.

The high content of rapidly digested starch in wheat increases the risk of digestiveupsets. Consequently, wheat should be introduced slowly and it is preferable toused rolled rather than ground wheat.

Digestible Fibre SourcesThe three primary digestible fibre sources available on the market are beet pulp,citrus pulp and soya hulls (Table 11). These are commonly used as energy sourcesand as sources of fibre to maintain a healthy rumen and reduce the risk ofdigestive upsets. Beet pulp and citrus pulp have very similar energy values at0.92 and 0.91, respectively. Beet pulp has the advantage of slightly higher

protein.

Soya hulls is a good source of digestible fibre but its energy value is limited forfinishing cattle and therefore its inclusion should be limited so as to retain a highenergy density in the diet. Soya hulls has the advantage of relatively high crudeprotein. Soya hulls is a suitable ingredients in diets with high levels of cereal and/ or beet.

Table 11. Sources of Digestible Fibre for Beef Cattle

EnergyUFV Crude Protein %Beet pulp 0.92 8.8Citrus pulp 0.91 6.0Soya hulls 0.87 10.5

In terms of monetary value, beet pulp is worth 5% more than either citrus pulp orsoya hulls. Citrus pulp and soya hulls are attributed similar monetary valuebecause of the high protein in soya hulls.


17/24

There has been some interest in using oats as a digestible fibre source. Theenergy content of oats is 0.86 UFV. Oats have the same crude fibre (13%), higherNDF (34 vs 16%) and lower ADF (16 vs 23%) to citrus pulp. As with soya hulls,high inclusion levels should be avoided. Oats, where competitive, may have a roleto play in replacing a proportion of other digestible fibre sources, but not all dueto their high starch content.

Protein FeedsThe requirement of finishing beef cattle for protein is easily satisfied. Howeverthere are situations where extra protein is necessary such as when feeding lowprotein feeds and feeding growing bulls.

Soyabean meal is the Rolls Royce of protein feeds but the finishing animal doesnot have a requirement for a high quality protein. Soya should only be used if it

is cost effective relative to other protein feeds (See Table 15 below). It is not themost suitable protein feed to balance fodder beet because of the lack of fibre in it.Rapeseed meal is a more suitable protein feed for fodder beet based diets.

Cereal by-products (corn gluten and maize distillers grains) are characterized byprotein levels between 20-25%. Its inclusion level should be based on itsmonetary value and required energy density of the diet. Maize distillers shouldbe restricted to 30-33% of the diet due to the high oil content (8.6% oil), less ifother high oil feeds are being used. Corn gluten is relatively low in energy and itsinclusion should be limited.

Rapeseed meal is a good and reasonably priced protein source but is relativelylow in energy (UFV = 0.85), so that inclusion should be limited. All rapeseedmeal now used in this country is double zero so that the risk of anti-nutritionalfactors associated with it are limited but there can be palatability issues. Itsinclusion should be limited to 2 kg per head per day.

Urea may be used as a protein source when low protein feeds are being fed butextreme caution is advised in using it there is a risk of poisoning and rapiddeath, if used incorrectly. It is best used with rapidly degradable energy sourcessuch as fodder / sugar beet. Under new DAF regulations, urea is viewed as a feedadditive and approval is needed for its use at farm level.

Home-grown peas and beans and rapeseed cake are available in some parts ofthe country and are a good source of energy and protein. Utilisation should bebased on price relative to other protein feeds.

Co-ProductsThere is a lot of interest in co-products from the food industry, particularlysurplus vegetables, confectionary including bread. It is important that theseingredients are valued correctly.

Questions that should be asked in relation to these ingredients include:


18/24

Is the supplier licensed to sell this product for animal feed What is the DM of the feed? What is the nutritive value & how variable is this? What particular nutrients is it high / low in e.g. starch or oils How much, when and where is the feed available? Is the material palatable? How is it stored? What extra handling and storage facilities are needed on

the farm? Are there large storage losses associated with it? Does it contain chemical residues or other banned compounds? E.g. waste

oil from chippers

Processing

High Moisture GrainsThe on-farm preservation and storage of grains has become increasingly popularand provides an opportunity to reduce feed costs. These options includecrimping & ensiling, organic acid treatment & rolling, urea treatment & rolling aswell as alkali treatment (soda grain).

Research from AFBI Hillsborough compared the performance of finishing beefcattle offered grain processed by alternative means propionic acid, ureatreatment and crimping (Table 12). The results of this trial suggest that urea

treated grain increased forage intake by 14% but tended to decrease carcass gainby 8% due to increased grain loss in the faeces (grain was not rolled prior tofeeding). Crimped grain did not alter feed intake or carcass gain, relative topropionic acid treated grain.

Table 12. The Effect of Grain Processing Method on Feed Intake and AnimalPerformance

Processing MethodPropionic

acid

Urea Crimped Significance

Feed Intake (kg DM / day)Forage 4.2 4.7 4.4 **Total 8.9 9.4 9.0 **

Animal PerformanceFinal live weight kg 625 618 625 nsLive weight gain kg/day 1.04 0.98 1.04 nsCarcass gain kg/day 0.6 0.55 0.61 P=0.09

Source: Keady et al. 2008


19/24

The potential savings with preserved grains is dependent on a number of factorsincluding cost of the grain, preservation and processing costs, ensiling costs, costof working capital, storage costs and losses in storage. In many cases thedifference in cost between buying dried rolled grain as required and storing grainon-farm is marginal (Table 13). For the producer using 50 tonne of feed where50% of that is cereal, the potential cost saving could as little as 250 / year overpurchased cereal. However, for a winter finisher using large quantities of feed,10 / t saving may be significant. Home stored grains are a storage option, whichoffers feed security particularly when there is volatility in the feed market, as wellas control over the diets fed. In a year when grain prices rise after the harvest,there may be a cost saving but the cost of storage and wastage should not beignored.

Home mixing of raw materials has the potential to reduce overall feed costs butonly if the raw materials can be purchased competitively. Costs includingtransport, labour, machinery costs as well as storage and storage losses are oftenignored when examining the cost of home mixing.

Table 13. Costs Associated with Treating Grain (Crimping), Relative toBuying Rolled Grain

Crimping Grain Buying Rolled GrainCosts / t

Grain @ 35% MC* 109 185 / t @ 18% MCAdditive 5Crimping 15Ensiling 0.3Working capital 2.5Storage losses 6

Total Costs@ 35% moisture 138@ 18% moisture 174 185@ 0% moisture (/t DM) 212 225

*Compared to green grain price at

135 / t @ 20% moisture

GrindingHigh feeding levels of ground cereal increase the risk of digestive upsets in highconcentrate diets. Limiting the level of rapidly digestive starch and maintainingfibre levels will help alleviate this problem. Pelleted rations are generallymanufactured with ground cereals and should not be fed in high concentratefeeding systems.


20/24

Coarse vs pelletWork by Keady et al. (2004) showed that when the same feed ingredients areincluded in a concentrate mix, similar levels of performance are obtained whenthe concentrate mix is fed either as a pelted or coarse mix (Table 14). Purchasinga coarse mix has the potential to reduce the cost per tonne of ration by10 15 /tonne.


21/24

Table 14. Effect of Concentrate Form on Animal Performance

Concentrate FormPellet Coarse

Feeding rate kg/day 4.5 4.5Carcass gain kg / day 0.5 0.52

Source: Keady et al. 2004

Complete Diet FeedingThe effects of mixing the forage with concentrates in a mixer wagon (TMR) hasbeen examined in a number of studies. The most recent data from TeagascGrange suggest that where concentrate levels were up to 75% of daily dry matterintake are offered, there was no animal production advantage to TMR over

separate feeding of the dietary constituents. In 2 experiments from Hillsborough,feeding a complete diet rather than feeding concentrates once per day had littleeffect on animal performance at moderate feeding rates (2.5- 3.5kg) but at higherfeeding rates (6 7 kg) silage intake increased and carcass gain increased by 15%.It is noteworthy that concentrates were only offered once daily in thisexperiment.

Valuing Feed Ingredients

The economic value of the different ingredients can be determined relative to

barley and soyabean meal using, for example, the programme available toTeagasc clients on the Teagasc client web site (Relative Value of Feeds @www.client.teagasc.ie). Because the dry matter content of most of these feeds aresimilar, generally between 85 and 89 %, their relative value doesnt change muchwhether expressed on an as-fed or dry matter basis.

If barley is costing 185 / t, then wheat is worth the same (Table 15). Maize mealis worth 4-5% more than barley, while beet pulp and citrus pulp are worth 10-15%less than barley. Soya hulls is a good source of digestible fibre but its energyvalue is 13% less than barley for finishing cattle and is valued at 15% less thanbarley.

Assuming a price of340 for soyabean meal, rapeseed meal is worth 25% less. Itis a relatively low energy feed but high in protein. It works well in finishingrations, particularly where high levels of high starch / sugar ingredients are used.The value of distillers grains is similar, even though hits protein is lower but itsenergy value is higher than rapeseed meal.


22/24

Table 15. The Value of Feed Ingredients Relative to Barley (185 /t) andSoyabean Meal (340 / t)

EnergyUFV as fed

Crude Protein% as fed

Value / tonne

Barley 1.00 9.8 185Soya 1.02 48 340Wheat 1.00 9.7 185Oats 0.86 9.7 164Maize 1.04 8.7 188Unmolassed beet pulp 0.92 8.8 169Molasses, cane 0.73 4.5 125Citrus pulp 0.91 6.0 158Soya hulls 0.82 10.5 161

Maize gluten feed 0.85 20.3 202Distillers grains 1.01 26.6 249Rapeseed meal 0.85 33.8 252Beans 1.01 24.6 243Peas 1.03 21.1 232

The relative values of alternative forages and fodder beet are assessed, relative towhat a high energy concentrate mix (UFV=0.96+, CP=13%) can be purchased for(Table 16). In the case of these feeds their energy, protein, DM content and likelylosses to be suffered during storage must be taken into account.

If buying a standing crop an estimate of quality may have to be assumed but anestimate of harvested yield should be made either by taking cuts in representativeareas of the crop or by weighing the trailers as delivered. In this case in-silo losseswill have to be taken into account when calculating the purchase value.

Table 16 presents the value of forage maize, whole crop cereal silage and fodderbeet, relative to a concentrate mix at 190 or 210 per tonne. This is thebreakeven price for these wet feeds. Above these prices, the high concentratefeeding system is more cost effective. Below these prices, there may be somecompetitive advantage from using alternatives but the additional labour,

handling equipment, storage losses all need to be considered.

Table 16. Value of Wet Feeds and Forages, Relative to High EnergyConcentrates

190 210Maize silage 36 40Whole crop wheat silage 51 56Fodder beet 30 36

*Maize silage = 28% DM, Whole crop cereal silage = 40% DM, fodder beet = 19% DM.


23/24

Choosing a Concentrate TypeAny compound feed is best defined by its energy, (UFV), protein, mineral andfibre content. Once these criteria are being met in a concentrate feed, ingredientcontent is of little consequence.

Is there a difference between concentrate types i.e. standard beef mixes,specials (i.e. ingredient content specified) and home-mixed concentrates. Thenutrient content of the compound feed is more critical than the individualingredients that make up the compound feed, provided low quality ingredientsare not included at high levels.

Typically, concentrate feeds in this country are purchased solely on the basis ofcrude protein content which is incorrect unless a protein balancer is required.Energy is the most limiting nutrient when finishing cattle. Always ask for the

energy content of the ration. Target energy density of concentrate mixes shouldbe 0.94+ UFV / kg as fed, for finishing cattle. For finishing steers and heifers,11% crude protein in the ration is adequate. For growing and finishing bulls, 14%and 12% crude protein in the concentrate mix, respectively, is adequate.

It is important to specify the basis on which these nutrients are defined by yourfeed supplier i.e. fresh weight or DM basis. Energy (UFV), expressed on a DMbasis, is considerably higher but can be misleading. For example, a beef rationwith a UFV of 1.07 / kg DM is actually 0.93 UFV / kg as fed. A ration with a UFVof 0.93 has an energy value of 93% of the value of barley.

Raw material prices are inflated right now and it is difficult to predict the future.Given the volatility in ingredient prices right now, producers should shop around.There will be variation in price between suppliers as some are well covered forraw materials while others are less well covered. If raw materials are traditionallypurchased for home mixing, consider the cost of buying straights in comparisonto buying a standard mix or a special.

Rations 1 and 2 is suitable for finishing steers and heifers as well as finishingbulls. Ration 2 is suitable for growing bulls because of the higher crude proteincontent. If purchasing these rations, minerals and molasses will be added whichwill drop the energy content by approximately 0.02 UFL.

Table 16. Sample Rations

Ration 1 Ration 2 Ration 3Barley 50 50 40Citrus pulp 30 15 15Maize meal 15 15Distillers Grains 20 20 30

Energy (UFV / kg as fed) 0.97 0.99 0.99Crude Protein % 12.0 12.4 14.0


24/24

feeding strategies for winter finishing iga2010 (siobhan kavanagh v1)

Documents