Feedlot management and Nutrition

1
Feedlot management and Nutrition

• Objective when cattle reach the feedlot need to
  achieve the most rapid gain possible
• High capital investment time is money so must
  maximize gain

2
What can go wrong in the feedlot

• ACIDOSIS
• BLOAT
• AIP
• PERITONITIS
• FAST PNEUMONIA
• BLACKLEG

3
(No Transcript)
4
Feedlot Energy

• Most of what can go wrong in the feedlot
  (previous slides) has to do with energy
  management
• Energy is usually what limits gain in finishing
  diet
• Want to maximize energy and not get digestive
  problems

5
Feedlot Energy type of forage/roughage

• Set a minimum energy level (.62 Mcal of NEm and
  .92 Mcal of NEg per lb)
• Set a minimum level of roughage (8 to 12)
• Set a minimum level of NDF (gt15)
• Curtis for example was 18-19)

6
Feedlot Energy type of forage/roughage

• Evaluate fiber from byproducts and from barley
• Just having fiber isnt enough must have
  effective fiber
• Find what works and does not produce acidosis
  get the cattle on a tight rope

7
Feedlot Energy type of forage/roughage

• Forage quality is not an issue very little fiber
  digestion on finishing diets
• Feeder quality alfalfa rather than premium
  quality
• Why not straw??
• Silages and haylages are very popular at feedlots
• What about effective fiber?

8
Feedlot Energy ingredients

• Abundant choices in the PNW want to manage for
• Fermentability (grain type and processing)
• Moisture content (would like to have 45 to 50
  DM)
• Fat content (5 to 6)
• Management of energy ingredients is essential for
  staying out of digestives problems

9
Feedlot Acidosis and other digestives

• Acute
• Laminitis, founder
• Hopelessly off-feed
• Sell immediately
• Chronic or subacute
• A little of feed, poor doers

• Long term effect
• Rumenitis more problems as we have longer fed
  cattle calf-feds, Holsteins, Japanese
• Probably bigger problem in the PNW with barley,
  wheat and potato feeding
• Best symptom is liver abscesses!

Its all about bunk management!!
10
Liver Abscess Classification
A -
O
A
A
11
ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH LIVER ABSCESS SLAUGHTER CHECK

• 1999 Slaughter Checks
• 17,303 total lots 2,0 million head
• 1,100,000 steers
• 700,000 heifers
• 60,000 Holsteins
• 160,000 mixed sex lots

sbl 00
12
A Liver Abscesses, 1990 to 1999
sbl 00
13
Total Abscesses by Month, 1990 - 1999Tylan Fed
Steers, All Districts
sbl 00
14
Total Liver Abscesses, 1999
sbl 00
15
EFFECT OF RUMENSIN PLUS TYLAN ON LIVER ABSCESS
INCIDENCE
CONTROL
RUMENSIN TYLAN
NO. HEAD
976
1937
A-
7.7
5.4
A
8.4a
3.5b
A
20.1a
3.5b
TOTAL
36.2a
12.4b
LAUDERT, 1990, 4 TRIAL SUMMARY ab(Plt.02)
16
Feedlot Management of disorders

• Step-up diets
• Usually three steps then the final ration
• Manage DM intake as well as level of grain
• Pay attention!

• Manage feed intake and bunk management
• Fermentability of carbohydrate feeds
• Limit intake programs
• Program feeding

17
Implants/Growth Promotants
18
Anabolic Implants

• Over 90 of feedlot cattle receive some type of
  anabolic implant during the finishing phase
• Increase average daily gain, feed intakes and
  improve feed efficiency
• Currently 22 implant products on the market
• Used for calves, stocker cattle, and finishing
  cattle
• Reduce beef production costs by 7

19
How to Implant
1) Load Implant Gun with implant cartridge 2)
Insert needle between skin and cartilage in
middle third of the ear 3) Pull trigger and
retract needle 4) Check implant site with
thumb 5) Disinfect needle
1) Load Implant Gun with implant cartridge 2)
Insert needle between skin and cartilage in
middle third of the ear 3) Pull trigger and
retract needle 4) Check implant site with
thumb 5) Disinfect needle
20
Hormones approved for use in growth promoting
implants

• 3 Natural HormonesEstradiolProgesteroneTestost
  erone
• 2 Synthetic hormonesZeranolTrenbolone acetate
  (TBA)

21
Mode of Action

• Estrogenic (Estradiol and Zeranol
  implants)enhance muscle growth through
  increased production of growth hormone
• Androgenic (TBA and testosterone
  implants)enhance muscle growth by inhibiting
  the release of hormones that cause muscle
  degradation
• Combination (Estrogenic and Androgenic
  implants)additive effects

22
Implant Products Available
Trade name Approval Hormone, mg Anabolic effect,
d Synovex-C calves 10E/100Prog 120 Calf-oid calves
120 Component E-C calves NA Ralgro all 36Z 7
0 Compudose-200 all 24E17b 168 Compudose-400 all 4
8E17b 336
Eestradiol, E17bestradiol 17-beta,
Progprogesterone, TBAtrenbolone acetate,
Testtestosterone, Zzeranol
23
Implant Products Available
Trade name Approval Hormone, mg Anabolic effect,
d Synovex-S steersgt400 20E/200Prog 120 Implus-S st
eersgt400 120 Component E-S steersgt400 120 Syn
ovex-H heifgt400 20E/200Test 120 Implus-H heifgt400
120 Component E-H heifgt400 120 Revalor-G past
ure hs 8E17b/40TBA 120
Eestradiol, E17bestradiol 17-beta,
Progprogesterone, TBAtrenbolone acetate,
Testtestosterone, Zzeranol
24
Implant Products Available
Trade name Approval Hormone, mg Anabolic effect,
d Magnum conf. steers 72 Z NA Finaplix-S 140
TBA 105 Component T-S NA Revalor-S 24
E17b/120TBA 120 Component TE-S NA Finaplix-H
conf. Heif. 200 TBA 105 Component T-H
NA Revalor-H 14E17b/140TBA 120 Synovex-Plu
s conf. HS 28E/200TBA 120
Eestradiol, E17bestradiol 17-beta,
Progprogesterone, TBAtrenbolone acetate,
Testtestosterone, Zzeranol
25
Effect of implants on Heifer Pregnancy Rates
One implant given at 2 mo or weaning has small
effectIncreased pelvic area at 1 yr of age but
not at calving
26
Stocker Cattle
improvement in ADG over non-implanted cattle
(steers 1.43 lb/d heifers 1.50 lb/d)94 d
grazing season
27
Stocker Cattle
Implant Added wt Value/hd Cost/hd Return Steers S
ynovex-S 14 9.50 .95 8.55 Ralgro 19 12.90
.95 11.95 Revalor-G 22 15 2.50 12.50 Heifer
s Ralgro 15 9.45 .95 8.50 Revalor-G 22 14
2.50 11.50
28
Stocker Cattle
Implant response depends on forage availability
and genetic potential of the animals
29
Summary-Growing Cattle

• Suckling calves Ralgro or Synovex-CSteers
  17/headHeifers 18/headReplacements--reduces
  pregnancy ratesCan implant once at 2 mo of age
  or at weaning without dramatic effect
• Stocker RalgroSteers 12.50/headHeifers
  11.50/head
• Influenced by forage availability, genetic
  potential, creep feeding

30
Feedlot Steers
improvement over non-implanted steers
31
Feedlot Steers
No effect on dressing percent, fat thickness,
KPH, or Yield grade
32
Implant Types Steers
33
Implant Types Steers