I

HUM-“gi-

I‘(
‘I11'. ml” I;-
‘I It. ‘I I._
:IIIIIII: 1’1?“ ‘1'?” ‘13:.“ I“ “53':
‘ h‘ h“.
III ”HI“ '1 IVII'IIII'IIII 1“"‘3
‘I I13 ‘I‘I‘IIIEII I‘L‘II
I' lII
HIM ““13 If. MEI!

. .3 ‘111
”III W13 XIII?
..,.» I‘-\I..IIII1*.§ “‘11!

MI
I}, ‘ It“: \ II. I I
‘I‘IIIII13.‘.i; I“ ”3“ 5‘11

’1', WM
II
I IIII I‘I'IIII’ ‘I'

. “IZIII;

I11“ $1.! LII‘I
I “(I
I‘fidg‘fi“ I ”I?“ {I‘m

1‘“: i: “m. II§ .
@3111“ III-III}:
III 136% '1'ij
ML.” I I111 “31%;;
IIIQII

“$11!. 1‘
I‘m-31,1,

fighbfltfiu- M'Ii. .5141?
r‘ IF I“. :ha‘Izh

“Ham; ‘5:

‘1 I‘dzw‘fi'. ' -' 2”" ‘M I‘M.
‘ II!
#- ¥1fimftfi

«III'I

ANNIE" 2‘3“ :1. 3.! £225”; ‘11“:le fi‘fi}. figs?
,III‘E

Lg
mg
415’—

5"”???ng

. art

Ifirgxwgg; .‘
III: III. .‘ ’ I.

3}}! W
”.II.‘
III

ygéxr:
3‘1" -

:51-

2.4:"; H.275;

4 324g
1:337?“

:L "at"

4 .
J 2 . .
mart: ‘-

'xfi‘rtr.
‘5

...3

”7‘4:

4:. .. a
717;.”

‘2.
c...-
.4‘

'47—" .2:

$3,}.
.332 1—37 *r":
. {.1 .-‘ 1::
if r’ :1 3; Jeff:
.._:,m _ a
4‘ ;‘:. “-zr‘

we:

-...?.5a:.—

1:.

M

I

:3; :3. ‘-

‘fi. . “:u‘} ‘I
:III'I (gay:

.“C—E
.r«
"‘52:

m2; -
7.3;” ”‘

““‘<=‘:2~5.~, _
- .32?”

”mt-7::

-—~".-._

., IE‘II ‘ '
. IIII‘I.

' .I: I 4‘.“
‘qu‘

5.-

v... A, 4-
‘ I V ‘ ér‘ -
‘1 ..-"'.f.’£{-:?‘_ J-
.J‘ - .-
—'-‘L“ ‘7’ t. J
;»»~¢&(“

.3“

2r ’, '
' 127:7.._:

Up.

I

‘ III In
“‘1' i I
'II'II‘X

IfiH‘I'

I v w II‘I
‘IEI‘I II'I’II it}:

IIIIH‘ I III,

“1.111

~14 :2“ "‘

.....:I

'13:?!

4

‘u‘

.252:

272..--

W

‘3‘ . A: "-,.‘.
51:: 72.12?-

$132.7; '-

“1.“:
“vi: MI I‘ '1
{I‘H‘Hv Lug“
I‘IIII 3‘6“." .‘I‘I: . .IjL mm.
LI ».

II. h?)

.. , 11%
115.1.“ div; ‘I‘I'fi'é‘. “I; “I?“ QI‘II 11‘ EV“.
“IMP. II\'1“§I:'“‘3. ".11 “I ‘3 . 1‘
{I .ka‘. I‘Mfig‘k WW}? I.“ III“.
‘I I ‘1‘“

Iz§

‘7‘. K.

42?:
J‘
h

at" “‘ “f.
‘ ~ 2332.234.
,..

’ ‘F‘L‘.
-J
a

".21-:
. .49:

‘ 135453 12“,.”
c........i:';°r -A,

fit. «was
.,..
Egg

‘
\I , ‘01
k

'1 . -.' l‘. .,
VQELI “III! 2‘ Iii;
. .2‘. ;
IL;

.I

I
fig. I,

Ira

t 1 a};
Iim‘» "IL-Rik
' LL ‘1."
1'? 1' Ig'fivk 3’5}.ng
I “In. 1.
:1‘.I,‘I. ,L; (5“ ~ g“
I “III. ‘III‘II > 5%? 6Q.
I“; III; In .
' ‘l ‘w‘. If”

I.

1.x I, If;

I,“ ‘3'
($1.22
I ' 11:1‘ ~$ \‘fbfl‘; It}; \1“
1 I ‘ £3“: 1““. “"1? If" “tn.“
III." I.

II.

.1.” MN
‘I

I" ' 111.11%“ a
I. 11.11”}. 1‘
3.1.13.

" jigs. -

" 44-

 

.E’I‘lg‘
131. wk “‘1‘“ \ K

“41%.

If??? 29., ;.
if?» I ,f‘"

E“;
v

"Kfi
"Va
«5

.- 1’?
’-‘ V C
Wu-

‘.

x...» <
W..-

.
2%;

.-

‘5 -,‘ 'j '
I". '1.‘ .
'34:“

J;

.4

.1

i.
1:}..-

fig?!
- .5991}. _ ,r

, I"
44‘". “4;.-
- ’ "- ‘ .I"
57...?) ,r;.-:..zj.1‘ ‘.

q

133:?

, WI]. wr-
74%;}?

w.
.. - :33?!-

9.?

.. “'ij‘.‘

a!

m

,_ -o—.—
. . ~

   
  

  
 

n :w a w «er
1;1€3£ig;“.3
I ‘ . h A
Micnzgan brat-3
U
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effect of Feeding System on the Performance and
Carcass Characteristics of Yearling Steers,
Steer Calves and Heifer Calves

presented by

Myron Lindle Danner

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

degree inAnimal Husbandry

 

 

 

l/Jélaw firms

Major professor

 

[hue November 9, 1978

0-7 639

 

 

 

   

a...
‘
'
g4."
\

.
MSU

$59234 goon.

-‘w; h .r-.. .. 1.1.1

 

THE EFFECT OF FEEDING SYSTEM ON THE PERFORMANCE AND
CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF YEARLING STEERS,
STEER CALVES AND HEIFER CALVES

By

Myron Lindle Danner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Animal Husbandry

I978

670860 7”

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF FEEDING SYSTEM ON THE PERFORMANCE AND

CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF YEARLING STEERS,
STEER CALVES AND HEIFER CALVES

By

Myron Lindle Danner

Three trials were conducted to study and compare the effect of
feeding system on performance, feed efficiency, economics of production
and carcass composition. Trial 1 included 100 Angus x Hereford yearling
steers (391 kg) while Trial 2 utilized 78 Charolais crossbred steer
calves (263 kg). Feeding programs for Trials l and 2 included: 85%
concentrates, 15% corn silage; 40% concentrates, 60% corn silage; all
silage, then switched to 85% concentrates, 15% silage when approximately
one-half of the expected gain was reached; all silage, then switched to
85% concentrates, 15% silage when approximately two-thirds of the
expected gain had been reached; and all corn silage continuously.

In Trial 3, 180 Hereford heifer calves (190 kg) were used in a 3 x 3
factorial design to test the effects of 3 protein levels and 3 energy
levels. Energy levels were: 100% corn silage (100% CS); 68% corn
silage, 32% concentrates (68% CS); and 100% concentrates (100% Gone).
Ration crude protein percentages within each energy level were: 100% CS
(7.7, 10.9, 13.7), 68% CS (8.6, 10.9, 14.0) and 100% Gone (10.4, 11.7,
13.8). Soybean meal was used to provide supplemental nitrogen and

monensin was added at 30 g/T of ration DM.

Myron Lindle Danner

In Trials 1 and 2, performance was as expected from energy level
fed except 100% silage cattle in Trial 2 performed better than expected.
In Trial 3, average daily gain and feed efficiency were improved by
increasing the energy content of the ration with the greatest response
at the low protein level. An improved response occurred from the
addition of protein to the 100% CS and 68% CS rations; however, cattle
on 100% Conc rations showed no benefit from added protein.

There was a definite effect of ration on carcass composition.
In Trials 1 and 3, energy level had little effect on marbling score or
quality grade while increasing energy level did significantly increase
fat thickness and yield grade while reducing rib eye area and per-
centage of retail product. In Trial 2, energy level had no effect
on external fat thickness or muscling, but 100% CS rations produced
carcasses with lower marbling scores and quality grades than other
rations. Protein level had no effect on carcass characteristics in
Trial 3.

In Trial 1, differences between treatments in metabolizable
energy (ME) required/kg retail beef were small, except those fed on
the mid switch program tended to be the most efficient. In Trial 2,
those fed the 85% concentrate ration continuously required the least
amount of ME/kg retail beef produced. Considering only adequately
supplemented rations in Trial 3, those heifers fed 68% CS rations
were the most efficient, followed by those fed 100% CS rations, while
those fed 100% Gone rations were the least efficient.

The dry matter efficiencies and ration net energy values

determined in Trial 3 indicate that the heifers performed better

Myron Lindle Danner

when fed a mixture of corn and corn silage than when each ingredient
was fed separately.

In Trials 1 and 2, steers made the most economical gains when
high concentrate rations were fed. In Trial 3, heifers produced the

lowest cost gains on adequately supplemented high silage rations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation is expressed to the author's major
professor, Dr. Dan G. Fox, for his guidance and counseling during
the graduate program. The knowledge and friendship gained from this
association will long be remembered.

Gratitude is expressed to the Animal Husbandry Department of
Michigan State University, Dr. Ronald H. Nelson, Chairman, for providing
facilities and research animals with which to work. The excellence of
both facilities and cattle enhance the value of this thesis.

The author is grateful to the other members of his Graduate
Committee: Dr. Harlan 0. Ritchie, Animal Husbandry Department; Dr. J.
Roy Black, Agricultural Economics Department; and Dr. John T. Huber,
Dairy Science Department. Their assistance in analysis of the data
and critique of this thesis is deeply appreciated.

Appreciation is extended to Elaine Fink for laboratory analysis,
to the graduate students of the Animal Husbandry Department for assis-
tance in data collection, to the personnel of the Beef Cattle Research
Center for care of experimental animals and to Mrs. Grace Rutherford
for her excellent typing of this manuscript.

Sincere thanks are expressed to the author's wife, Kathy, for
her help and support throughout the graduate program. Special gratitude

is also extended to the author's parents.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES .......................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................... vii
INTRODUCTION ........................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................ 2
Introduction ........................ 2
Performance and Carcass Characteristics .......... 5
Cattle Type and Sex .................... 12
Associative Effects .................... l9
Monensin .......................... 23
Protein Requirements .................... 27
Conclusions ........................ 29
OBJECTIVES ..... . . . .................... 32
MATERIALS AND METHODS .................. . . . . 33
Experimental Animals . . . ................. 33
Description of Feedlot ................... 33
Experimental Design and Rations .............. 34
Preliminary Treatment and Allotment Procedures ....... 37
Feeding, Weighing and Management Procedures . ...... . 41
Initial Slaughter ..................... 42
Termination of Experiments ................. 43
Carcass Data Collection .................. 43
Cost Summary ........................ 44
Data Calculations and Statistical Analysis ....... . . 46
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Feedlot Performance . . . . ................ 47
Carcass Characteristics .................. 58
Energetic Efficiency .................... 66
Associative Effects .................... 69
Ration Net Energy Values ................. . 70
Cost Summary ........................ 73

Page

CONCLUSIONS ........................... 78
APPENDIX ............................. 8O
LITERATURE CITED ......................... 94

iv

Table

ll
12
l3
l4
A.l
A.2

A.3

LIST OF TABLES

Ration Ingredients and Approximate Composition (DM Basis)

(Trials 1 and 2) .....................

Protein-Mineral Supplements (DM Basis) (Trials 1 and 2) . .

Ration Ingredients and Approximate Composition (DM

Basis) (Trial 3) .....................

Protein-Mineral Supplements (Trial 3) ...........

Feedlot Performance (Trial 1) .............

Feedlot Performance (Trial 2) .............

Feedlot Performance (Trial 3) ...............

Carcass Characteristics by Treatment (Trials 1 and 2) . . .

Carcass Characteristics by Treatment (Trial 3)

Carcass Characteristics Summarized by Protein and

Energy Level (Trial 3) ..................
Energetic Efficiency ...................
Net Energy Values for Rations (Trial 3) ..........
Cost Summary (Trials 1 and 2) ...............
Cost Summary (Trial 3) . . . . ..............

Total Feed Consumption (as fed/cwt. gain) .........

Weight and Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle

(Trial 3) .........................

Calculation of Net Energy Values of Rations Fed to

Hereford Heifers (Trial 3) . . . . . . . .........

Page

35
35

39
40
48
49
53
59
62

63
67
7T
75
76
80

80

Bl

Table
A.4

A.5

A.6

A.7

Individual Shrunk Weights, ADG and Carcass Data for
Angus x Hereford Yearling Steers (Trial 1) ........

Individual Shrunk Weights, ADG and Carcass Data for
Charolais Cross Steer Calves (Trial 2) ..........

Individual Shrunk Weights, ADG and Carcass Data for
Hereford Heifer Calves (Trial 3) .............

Trial Numbers, Pen Numbers and Corresponding Rations

vi

Page

82

85

88
93

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Experimental Design for Trials 1 and 2 ...... . . . . 36
2. Experimental Design for Trial 3 ....... . . . . . . 38

3. Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency with Regression
Lines for Trial 1 . . . ............. . . . . 51

4. Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency with Regression
Lines for Trial 2 .................... 52

5. Effect of Energy Level on Low, Intermediate and
High Protein Rations for Trial 3 ........ . . . . . 55

6. Effect of Protein Level on 100% Silage, 68% Silage
and 100% Concentrate Rations for Trial 3 ......... 56

7. Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 1 ........ 60

8. Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 2 ..... . . . 61

9. Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 3 . . . . . . . . 65

10. Comparison of NRC to Observed Net Energy Values ..... 72

vii

INTRODUCTION

The last five years has been a period of continual and
sometimes drastic change in the cattle feeding industry. Corn prices
have increased from $1.50 per bushel to $4.00 and then back to $2.00.
Soybean meal prices have gone from $80 per ton to $400 and back to $200.
Fuel costs for raising crops and drying corn have increased dramatically.
Placement of cattle in feedlots has moved up and down in an erratic
manner. Demand by consumers for leaner beef has prompted the USDA to
lower its quality grading standards and make yield grading mandatory.

We have also witnessed the development, approval and implementation
of monensin, a highly successful feed additive.

With all of these changes, the trend has been to produce leaner
cattle by feeding them rations higher in roughage with a large percent-
age of the ration in the form of fermented feeds. Fox §t_al, (1977)
have suggested the need for research on the impact of fermentation on
protein quality. They have proposed a net protein system for predicting
protein requirements and feed protein values.

As leaner cattle are produced, it is of importance to define
the amount of grain required to properly finish cattle and the impact
which decreasing grain in the diet has on carcass composition. 0f
further importance is studying the "protein sparing” effect which

monensin has been suggested to have.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

 

Attempts at determining the most profitable feeding system
are not new to cattle feeding research. Over the years, numerous
experiments have been conducted to find the advantages and disadvan-
tages of a wide array of systems. As is the way with much research,
the results of these experiments have been often variable and occa-
sionally conflicting. Due to the variety of results obtained, defining
precise effects of different feeding systems across a variety of con-
ditions would be dangerous and misleading. However careful study of
past research can reveal general trends. The purpose of this review
will be to establish those general trends.

Before attempting to review past research data, it is
imperative to consider some of the revolutionary changes in designing
and interpreting feedlot trials that have occurred since much of the
data was collected. The following points should be kept in mind
before attempting to apply past conclusions to current situations.

1. Calculating average daily gain (ADG) based on live weights
can be deceiving since cattle on different types of rations will have
different dressing percentages. Typically cattle on high roughage
rations have more ”fill" than cattle on high concentrate rations due

to a decreased rate of flow through the gastro-intestinal tract. This

can result in an inaccurate measure of actual performance. To get a
precise comparison of rate of gain, one should compare carcass ADG or
adjust live weight ADG to a constant dressing percentage.

2. Dry matter (DM) required per unit of gain does not give a
totally accurate measure of efficiency. It fails to take into account
the variation in energy density of the ration. Therefore a better
evaluation of efficiency would be to look at energy intake per unit
of gain by using either metabolizable energy (ME) or total digestible
nutrients (TDN) to measure energy intake. Another satisfactory method
would be to compare costs per unit of gain where cost would reflect
the differences in the ration energy density. One must also be sure
that the composition of gain from different rations is similar.

3. Research has demonstrated that 0M intake can be under-
estimated by up to 10% when determined by oven drying, due to loss
of energy containing volatiles (Fox and Fenderson, 1976; Goodrich and
Meiske, 1971; Larsen and Jones, 1973). The common tendency is to
underestimate dry matter consumption of cattle fed fermented feeds.
Thus, adjustments in dry matter intake should be made to correct for
this. However, caution must be used when computing efficiency based
on adjusted dry matter intakes. If efficiency is calculated as DM per
unit gain using adjusted dry matter intakes, then care should be taken
in comparing these “corrected" efficiencies to uncorrected efficiencies
from other experiments. Further care should be taken if efficiency is
computed using the ME system since ME values reported by NRC (1976)

were likely based on oven DM values. Using these ME values from

uncorrected DM samples in conjunction with corrected 0M intakes would
lead to erroneous conclusions. Discretion should always be exerted in
making comparisons across experiments when adjusted values are involved.

4. If cattle of a similar type are slaughtered at different
weights, then one can logically expect carcass traits to differ due to
differences in physiological maturity. This situation makes it diffi-
cult to determine the effect which ration had on carcass traits. One
method currently being used to overcome this problem is to adjust all
carcass traits to a constant weight using covariance analysis. However,
earlier work was reported without this adjustment and consequently
caution should be used in examining the effects which ration has on
carcass composition from these data.

5. Prior to February of 1976, all cattle were graded under the
”old” grading system. This system had higher marbling requirements and
included compensation for conformation. Undoubtedly many cattle graded
under the ”old" system would be graded differently today. It remains
to be determined whether the relative differences in carcass composition
due to the ration fed will vary from the ”old" grading system to the
“new” grading system.

6. Monensin was given FDA approval in December of 1975. Since
that time it has gained tremendously in popularity among cattle feeders
and investigators and is now being routinely included in many research
trials. Monensin is known to have an effect on the energy value of
feeds and it has been suggested to affect the protein value as well.
These facts should be considered in evaluating data collected without

the use of monensin.

All of these modifications in cattle feeding research will
undoubtedly change the applicability of past data. Whenever necessary,
caution will be employed in this discussion.

The review will examine the effects and interactions which
feeding systems have on the following parameters:

. Performance and carcass characteristics;
. Cattle type and sex;

. Associative effects;

. Monensin; and

. Protein requirements.

Performance and Carcass Characteristics

 

Published reports comparing rations of different roughage to
concentrate ratios can be found dating back to the early 19505. These
early trials centered primarily on determining the corn to alfalfa hay
ratio that would maximize performance. In a review of five experiments,
Dowe et_al, (1955) noted that in most of the feeding experiments the
steers fed the ration containing the highest level of concentrate did
not in all cases produce the fastest gains. Generally, the cattle fed
rations containing two or three parts concentrate to one part roughage
made the greatest gains.

Using ground ear corn, Dilley §t_al, (1959) fed yearling beef
steers on three levels of nutrition to a constant slaughter weight.
Most notable of his results was the fact that cattle on the most

limited intake level produced carcasses with the least separable fat

and fat cover but greatest marbling, indicating that level of nutrition
could affect carcass composition.

Hendrickson gt__l, (1959) reached a similar conclusion when
they individually fed steer calves to make gains either (a) rapidly,
(b) moderately, (c) rapidly for 200 lbs and then moderately for 200 lbs,
or (d) moderately for 200 lbs and then rapidly. Even though calves fed
to gain moderately required about 60 days longer to reach final weight,
no differences in efficiency were found. Moderate gaining calves graded
lower, had less external fat and marbling, and contained about 6% more
lean.

The use of corn silage has been a well-established practice
since the late 18005. However previous to 1960 little had been done
comparing different systems of feeding silage to feedlot cattle. Prior
to that time many people had believed that silage did not contain suf-
ficient energy to be used to fatten beef cattle. However, technology
in varieties, fertilization, harvesting and storing had continually
improved until it was realized that cattle could be fattened on rations
containing a high proportion of high quality silage.

The work of Perry gt_al, (1961, 1962) and Neuman §t_al, (1962)
demonstrated that acceptable rates of gain could be obtained in steer
calves and yearling steers full fed corn silage with small amounts
(0.7 to 1.6 kg) of concentrates.

Hammes et_al, (1964) used yearlings and 2 year old steers to
study the nutritive value of high-forage rations for fattening beef

cattle. The forages used were corn silage and alfalfa-orchard grass

silage. When fed alone, grass silages produced poor feedlot
performance. Rates of gain for the steers fed high corn silage

rations were lower than for those fed a conventional high-grain
fattening ration, but this was attributed partly to a low protein
intake. Feed efficiency, expressed as pounds of dry matter or TDN

per pound of gain was best for the high corn silage rations. Cattle
fed the high corn silage rations produced carcasses grading high good
to low choice; these grades were not significantly different from those
of the carcasses from cattle fed a conventional high—grain fattening
ration.

Using corn silage based rations, Young gt a1. (1962) compared
the effects of feeding similar amounts of ground shelled corn per head
by either limit-feeding on the basis of body weight continuously after
weaning, or full-fed after a growing period. Differences in TDN per
cwt gain were small as were differences in carcass composition.

Klosterman §t_al, (1965) fed either ear corn or corn silage
rations during different parts of the feeding period. Cattle fed the
ear corn ration gained significantly faster than those fed the silage
ration. No significant differences were noted in carcass traits.
Trends were similar whether cattle were fed for a time constant
or a weight constant basis.

Pinney gt a1. (1966) also found no differences in carcass
grade when they fed ground shelled corn at the rates of 0.5, 1.0 and
1.5% of body weight plus corn silage ad libitum. Further, they observed

only small differences in rate of gain.

Over a period of four years Utley gt_al, (1975) used 32
crossbred calves and 36 crossbred yearlings in a series of trials to
study high energy y§_a11 forage diets. Their calculated returns to
capital, land, labor and management were $9.66 and -$18.63 per head,
respectively, for calves and yearlings fed the high energy diet com—
pared with $55.19 and $23.97 per head, respectively, for calves and
yearlings fed the all-forage diet. They also observed all-forage fed
steers had less marbling, lower yield grades and less fat covering
over the rib eye than steers fed the high energy diet. However
carcasses for high energy cattle averaged 21 kg heavier and no
corrections were made to adjust for this. Thus differences could
reflect variation in physiological maturity rather than ration effect.

Perry and Beeson (1976) summarized five experiments they had
conducted to compare various ratios of corn and corn silage for fin-
ishing steers. Hereford and Shorthorn steer calves and yearlings were
fed corn, in addition to corn silage and supplement, in amounts ranging
from 0.9 kg per head daily to 86% of the total ration dry matter.

Daily gains were as expected for the energy level fed except for one
experiment in which calves fed either one-third or two—thirds of a full
feed of corn gained as rapidly as those fed a full feed of corn. Effi-
ciency, expressed in TDN per unit gain, revealed that cattle fed the
higher silage diets were as efficient converters of available energy

to gain as were those fed the higher levels of corn in two of the
experiments. In the other three, cattle on higher silage diets

required less calculated TDN per pound of gain than those on the

higher corn diets. When quality grades were examined, the authors
concluded that calves or yearlings fed high silage diets graded
similarly to those fed higher corn diets.

Guenther gt_§l, (1965) used 36 half-sib Hereford steer
calves to determine the effect of plane of nutrition on the growth
and development of beef calves from weaning to slaughter weight. The
experimental design permitted comparison of data on both an age and
weight-constant basis. The high energy level ration contained 59% corn
and 15% cottonseed hulls while the moderate energy level contained 17%
corn and 55% cottonseed hulls. This experiment demonstrates two points:
(1) the importance of looking at energetic efficiency rather than feed
per unit of gain and (2) the importance of comparing treatments on a
weight-constant basis. High plane calves required 22% less feed per
kilogram of lean than the moderate plane calves when slaughtered at the
same age. On a TON basis, efficiency of lean production also favored
the high-level steers over the age-constant moderate steers. However
when comparisons were made on a TON basis at a constant weight, no
difference was noted. On a weight-constant basis, no significant
difference was noted in the lean or fat composition of the carcasses.

Theuninck §t_al, (1978) observed no effect of ration on carcass
characteristics when they fed four corn silage-corn grain feeding pro-
grams. However the range in energy values of the four programs was not
vastly different and did not approach the extremes provided by all
silage or all concentrate which had been reported in many studies.

Henderson and Britt (1974) summarized 12 experiments completed

comparing the economic efficiency of an all silage ration with a ration

lO

comprised of 40% shelled corn and 60% corn silage on a DM basis.
Daily gain was reduced 14%, daily DM consumption was reduced 10%,
DM consumed per unit gain was increased 4%, no change in carcass grade,
fat thickness over the 13th rib was reduced 0.28 cm and beef produced
per acre of corn grown and fed increased 61% for the all silage ration.

Young and Kauffman (1978) used 42 yearling Hereford steers to
study performance and organoleptic characteristics of the beef after
they had been fed high forage diets to attain a similar carcass com-
position as grain fed controls. Rations included (1) 70% corn, 30%
corn silage, (2) corn silage with supplement and (3) 50% corn silage,
50% haylage. Metabolizable energy (ME) intake per kilogram of carcass
weight indicated that steers fed the haylage-corn silage diet were 70%
as efficient in converting ME to carcass weight as steers fed grain.
Expressed on a live body weight basis, forage fed steers were 92% as
efficient in ME conversion due to differences in rumen fill. This
agrees well with the work of Oltjen gt_al, (1971) who observed that
steers fed only an all-forage diet consumed 95% the amount of metab-
olizable energy and were 86% as efficient in converting it to body
weight as were steers fed the all-concentrate diet.

Considering the effect of ration on carcass characteristics,
Young and Kauffman (1978) noted that grain fed steers had higher
dressing percentages and backfat than the other two groups. Intra-
muscular fat estimated as marbling or percentage ether extract in the
longissimus muscle was similar for all groups. With regard to organo-

leptic evaluation of steaks and roasts, the authors concluded that when

ll

steers are fed to a similar carcass composition, palatability of
meat is comparable whether the diet is grain or forage.

Preston et_§l, (1975) compared all corn silage to high
concentrate rations for Angus and Charolais steers. Cattle fed
high concentrate gained 0.36 kg faster daily and required 122 units
less DM per unit gained than cattle fed all corn silage. The authors
concluded that steers could be finished satisfactorily on a corn silage
ration but that a longer time on feed would be required. When the
carcass data were adjusted to the mean hot carcass weight within breed,
all silage fed cattle had leaner carcasses with somewhat lower marbling
than high concentrate fed cattle. This suggested that ration energy
level does affect carcass composition. Gill gt El. (1976) and Buchanan-
Smith and Alhassan (1975) also demonstrated that ration energy level
influences carcass composition.

By feeding three levels of ration energy Judge et_al, (1978)
also noted an effect on carcass characteristics when cattle that were
lighter in weight and consequently were on feed longer had higher
marbling scores and quality grades. Earlier work by Ewing §t_al,

(1961) also supports this. Feeding cattle to a constant finish at
different energy levels, they observed that cattle on feed for longer
periods of time had increased marbling scores and quality grades.

Similar conclusions were also reached by Dikeman gt al. (1976)
when they fed four combinations of low, moderate and high energy rations
to growing and finishing steers. All cattle were slaughtered at similar

weights with carcass merit being similar for carcasses from the

 

12

different treatments. They concluded that since steers on lower energy
rations were fed longer, this affected carcass traits more than ration
energy did.

Byers (1978) studied the effect of energy level on composition
of growth of cattle by feeding rations §g_lib_or 70% of ag_lib_level of
intake. Rates of protein deposition averaged 85.4 and 73.9 g/day for
3g lib and limit fed cattle, for a 13.6% decrease. Rates of fat depo-
sition averaged 386.3 and 231.2 g/day for ag_ljb_and limit fed groups
for a 40.1% reduction with limit feeding. Thus, the restriction in
energy depressed fat deposition far more than protein deposition and
at approximately equal empty body weight (358 y§_350 kg) the ag_lib.
fed cattle were 15.9% fatter (30.87 y§_25.97% empty body fat) than limit
fed steers. These data suggest an upper limit for protein deposition,
and that intake of additional energy over the requirement for protein
is deposited as fat.

Byers'(1978) experiment is in direct conflict with the work of
Topel _t__j, (1973). They also compared ag_ljb_feeding with restricted
energy which was designed to give approximately two-thirds the average
daily gain of the ag_lib. A growing ration was fed to 363 kg and a
finishing ration to 499 kg. Feed restriction had no significant effect

on muscle, bone and fat content of the carcass when compared at a

constant carcass weight.

Cattle Type and Sex
Using rations of corn silage, ground ear corn and a combination

of the two, Klosterman and Parker (1976) determined the net energy

 

 

13

values of the rations for both steers and heifers in each of two years.
There was little difference between the sexes in amount of dry matter
required per unit of live weight gain when fed to similar quality
grades. However, heifers had fatter carcasses which tended to give
them higher net energy values than steers. There was an interaction
among rations in this regard. The net energy value of the corn silage
ration averaged 16% higher when fed to heifers than when fed to steers.
There was little difference in net energy value of the ear corn ration
when fed to either steers or heifers. This indicated that heifers are
especially well adapted to the use of a corn silage ration.

Klosterman and Parker (1976) also compared Angus and Charolais
steers when fed either corn silage or corn grain rations to a similar
slaughter condition. Concentrate fed cattle averaged .36 kg higher ADG
and 1.2 kg less dry matter per kg gain. When fed to equal weights,
there was no difference in carcass grade between Angus steers fed
silage or grain. However, Charolais steers fed silage graded two-
thirds of a grade lower than those fed grain. Total carcass fat, as
determined by specific gravity, was higher for both breeds when fed
the concentrate ration.

Considering both sex and size together, Klosterman and Parker
(1976) concluded that there were definite interactions among types of
cattle and rations or feeding systems. Lower energy rations or deferred
systems were best utilized by early maturing types which consume more

feed per unit of weight.

l4

Newland (1976) fed Angus steers and heifers on either corn
silage or whole shelled corn. Both steers and heifers adequately
finished to choice grade on all corn silage. 0n the all concentrates,
the heifers and steers finished at the same time. On all silage,
heifers required 27 days less than steers suggesting that corn silage
may be more suitable for finishing heifers. Steers fed all concentrates
gained 0.27 kg per day faster than all silage. Heifers fed all concen-
trate gained 0.23 kg per day faster. Carcass composition was similar
between all silage and all concentrate rations although data were not
adjusted to a constant final weight. Kilograms of beef produced per
acre were 726 kg with all silage and 499 kg with all concentrate. The
economics favored the all silage program which returned $40 more per
head than all concentrates.

In contrast, Harpster (1978) compared steers and heifers of
four genetic types (Unselected Hereford, Selected Hereford, Angus x
Hereford x Charolais crossbred, and Angus x Hereford x Holstein cross-
bred) fed high silage rations and found that steers gained 19% faster
than heifers and tended to be more efficient, although feed/gain
differences were small when adjusted to similar carcass fat. However,
the heifers were those rejected as herd replacements and no comparisons
were made at other energy levels.

Anderson and Dinkel (1977) fed Limousin and Charolais crossbred
steers on either high concentrate (83% corn) or all forage (three parts
corn silage, one part alfalfa hay) rations. Steers gained 0.41 kg per

day and heifers 0.36 kg per day faster on all concentrate than all

15

forage. Forage-fed steers required 53% more TDN per kg of retail
cuts than concentrate-fed steers while forage-fed heifers required
46% more TDN per kg of retail cuts than concentrate-fed heifers.
Although cattle were not carried to choice quality grades, total
costs per kg of retail cut favored all forage rations for both
steers and heifers.

Byers et_al. (1976) classified steers into large or small
mature size and fed them either whole shelled corn or corn silage.
Rate of gain and feed efficiencies were similar between large and
small types fed corn or fed silage. The large size cattle, however,
were not nearly as fat when terminated. Had the large size cattle been
fed to a degree of fatness similar to the small size cattle, feed
efficiency and rate of gain would have been lower than observed. When
adjusted to similar carcass fat percentage within size class and between
diets, small size cattle had 17% heavier carcasses and large size cattle
had 34% heavier carcasses when fed corn silage than when fed corn grain
diets. The authors concluded that there was a very definite effect of
plane of nutrition. Large size cattle changed more markedly in compo-
sition of growth than did small size cattle when fed different energy
levels. The smaller mature size cattle fattened much easier on corn
silage than the larger cattle, indicating that small cattle are likely
better suited for fattening on lower energy diets.

Prior et_al. (1977) conducted a trial, using two types of
cattle (Angus x Hereford crossbreds, small type; and three~fourths

or seven-eighths Charolais and Chianina Hereford or Chianina Angus

 

16

crossbreds, large type), to evaluate their response to three dietary
energy densities and three dietary levels of crude protein. The
rations consisted of the following ratios of corn silage to corn
plus supplement: low energy (LE), 43:57; medium energy (ME), 25:75;
and high energy (HE), 11:89. Crude protein levels were LP = 10.0,
MP = 11.5 and HP = 13.0% of ration dry matter.

Increasing energy intake increased ADG in both types of
cattle with HE > LE. Energetic efficiency was expressed as Mcal
of metabolizable energy required per kg of retail product gained.
In small type cattle a more efficient utilization of energy for pro-
duction of carcass retail product was obtained with the low energy
ration. However, large type cattle showed only very small differences
in efficiency. Carcass data were adjusted to a constant weight within
type. In small type cattle quality grade, yield grade and percentage
carcass fat increased as energy intake increased (LE< ME= HE). This
effect was not seen in large type cattle.

Smith §t_al, (1977) measured growth, feed efficiency and
slaughter data on 387 steers to study the effects of biological type
(small y§_large) and five feeding regimes: A = winter growing ration

(2.18 Mcal ME/kg); summer grazing, 60% forage finishing ration (2.84

Mcal ME/kg); B same as A, except 20% forage finishing ration (3.11

Mcal ME/kg); c 96.6% forage ration (2.40 Mcal ME/kg); 0 = 96.6%
forage ration switched to 60% forage ration; E = 60% forage ration.
Live weight gains were as expected from the energy density

of the rations with steers receiving the highest energy rations gaining

17

the fastest. However, feed efficiency expressed in Mcal of
metabolizable energy per kg gain did not differ among rations or
types. This was in contrast to the previously discussed experiment
of Prior §t_al, (1977). For both types of cattle, composition of gain
was markedly altered by regime which was readily evident when compar-
isons were made at equal weights. For both cattle types a similar
pattern of regime effects were found for all measures of fatness

(A= B< C= D< E). This ranking aligns with the major differences

in ME density of the rations. The steers on the deferred-feeding
regimes were leanest, followed by those on the all forage rations.
Except for the lack of a difference between regime E and regimes C
and 0, regime effects on marbling score (A= B<IC= D= E) were similar
to those on measures of composition.

In another series of experiments utilizing steers of different
biological types, Ferrell §t_al, (1978) studied the effects of differing
energy levels on growth rate, feed efficiency and carcass character-
istics. Unlike Prior _t.al, (1977) they observed no energy or protein
level interactions with breed type which is consistent with the data
of Smith et a1. (1977). Steers having genetic potential for larger
mature size grew at faster rates. However, feed intake was also higher
for the larger steers; thus similar or less efficient gains resulted.

Ferrel et_al, (1978) was in agreement with Prior §t_al, (1977)
and Smith et_al, (1977) in reporting that energy density of the ration
did affect carcass composition in that carcasses from steers receiving

the higher energy diets were heavier than carcasses from steers which

 

 

18

received the lower energy diets and contained greater amounts of
fat but similar or less protein.

Byers (1977) discussed plane of nutrition as it affects
different types of cattle. He noted that at any selected weight or
age, large sized cattle will be depositing more protein and muscle and
a lesser percentage fat than smaller sized cattle. Since requirements
for protein and energy are directly related to the animal's tissue needs
for maintenance and growth, the dietary levels provided must reflect the
kind of and amount of growth which is occurring. Byers (1977) further
noted that while the maximum potential for protein and muscle growth is
genetically set, the expression of this potential is regulated by avail-
able energy and that energy above needs for protein deposition is stored
as fat.

Hoffman gt a1. (1977) looked at the effect of varying ratios
of corn silage and corn grain upon the feedlot performance of yearling
steers. The percentage silage and grain in the ration was 93:7, 74:26,
56:44, 37:63, 19:81 and 0:100. When cattle were fed to a constant
slaughter weight, the two treatments receiving either 37 or 19 percent
of their energy from whole plant corn silage and the remainder from
grain tended to gain the most rapidly and were more efficient in their
utilization of dry matter.

In agreement with this work are Larson et a1. (1976) who also
looked at the influence of corn silage level on the performance and
economic returns of yearling steers. The following levels of corn

silage (expressed as percentage corn silage dry matter in the ration

 

 

19

dry matter) were fed: 0, 16.2, 29.4, 41.6, 53.8, 65.4, 76.5, 85.7 and
86.2%. Cattle fed a ration with 29.4% corn silage gained faster and
had lower feed costs than Cattle in other treatments.

Neuman gt_al, (1972) observed that yearling steers fed shelled
corn rations containing 9.1 kg of corn silage daily made their gains at
lower costs than those fed shelled corn rations containing 2.3 kg of
corn silage.

Self and Hoffman (1977) fed three ratios of corn and corn
silage to yearling steers in confinement. The percentage TDN from
grain in the rations was as follows: 25, 55 and 85. When total costs,
including feed costs and non-feed costs, were analyzed, cattle fed the
55% TDN from grain produced the most economical gains. Utilizing out-
side lots in a second trial, they again compared the 55 and 85% TDN
from grain rations fed to yearling steers. The results were similar
with cattle fed the 55% TDN from grain producing the most economical

gains.

Associative Effects

 

The energy value of a ration is generally assumed to be the
sum of the energy values of the dietary ingredients. However, several
investigators have suggested that the energy value of an ingredient is
not constant but is dependent upon the interaction with other ingredi-
ents in the ration. If this is true then the energy value of feedstuffs
ought to be different when fed by themselves than when fed in a mixed

ration.

20

One explanation for this interaction, as proposed by Kromann
(1977), is that the micro-organisms in the rumen use the most readily
available carbohydrate as an energy source. Thus when a ration con-
sisting of both high fiber and high carbohydrate sources is fed, the
high fiber portion is utilized less efficiently.

Support for this theory is provided by Vance §t_gl, (1972)
who fed increasing amounts of corn grain in corn and corn silage diets.
They found that ration NEm value increased linearly, indicating that
the NEm value of each feed was constant. However, ration NEg value
increased curvilinearly with the greatest change found when 61% to
83% corn grain (DM basis) was fed. They concluded that NEg value
will vary depending upon the proportion of the feed in the total
ration.

However, in subsequent work at the same station, Preston
(1975) summarized three experiments and determined the NEg values
for individual feeds were additive and did not depend on the relative
proportions of grain and silage.

Byers gt al, (1975a; 1975b) made energy determinations of
corn silage and whole corn rations fed separately or in mixtures of
two-thirds corn silage, one-third whole corn and one-third corn silage,
two-thirds whole corn. Using the NEm and NEg values determined for corn
silage and whole corn when each was fed separately, they predicted the
NEm and NEg values for differing proportions of corn and corn silage.
To do this they assumed a linear relationship. The observed NEm and

NEg values, however, were depressed 4 to 15% below the predicted

 

21

values indicating marked feed interaction. They noted the greatest
changes in digestion and metabolism of corn energy when corn was fed
at levels between 50% and 90% of the diet, while for corn silage the
most marked changes occurred when fed at very small amounts with the
degree of change decreasing as level of silage fed increased.

Dexheimer gt_al. (1971) compared corn and corn silage rations
fed in a constant daily amount in a two—phase system in two separate
trials. Total corn silage and supplement consumption was nearly equal
during the entire feeding period for both systems while those cattle
fed on the two-phase system consumed 10% less shelled corn. Average
daily gain was identical for the two systems while cattle fed on the
two-phase system required 7% less feed per unit gain than those fed
the constant amount which was a significant difference.

The work of Woody gt a1. (1978) agrees well with that of
Dexheimer gt a1. (1971). Woody et a1. (1978) observed that steers
fed all corn silage during the growing phase and switched to an all
concentrate ration had similar gains but improved in feed efficiency
by 6.5% when compared to steers fed silage plus a constant amount of
added grain throughout the entire feeding period.

However, the improvement in feed efficiency noted by Dexheimer
_t__l, (1971) and Woody gt_al, (1978) for the two-phase system versus
a continuous amount of added grain, cannot be entirely attributed to
associative effects. As suggested by Fox and Black (1975) this
improvement in feed efficiency could be due to compensatory gain

made by cattle backgrounded on silage after they are switched to

22

a high grain ration. Furthermore, cattle on two-phase systems would
have somewhat reduced maintenance requirements since gains would have
been fastest when the cattle were the heaviest.

To further complicate this subject, Goodrich et_gl. (1974) did
a statistical and economic analysis of 17 university experiments to
determine the influence of corn silage level on the performance of
steer calves. They reported that the amount of feed per unit of gain
increased linearly as the amount of corn silage increased. Twenty-six
kilograms more feed was required per 100 kg of gain for each 10% units
increase in the amount of silage dry matter in the ration.

Asplund and Harris (1971) compared differing combinations of
alfalfa hay and beet pulp fed to lambs. Their data indicated that
associative effects did occur, but they concluded that the magnitude
was relatively small and would be of minor importance in the assessment
of the value of feeds.

In another trial with lambs, Kromann gt_al, (1975) fed 21 diets
consisting of varying proportions of dehydrated alfalfa and corn. They
found no associative effects for DE, ME and NE m+-p values with the
various ratios of concentrate to roughage. A linear relationship
between energy (DE, ME and NE ml-p) and ration composition indicated
that the energy values of corn and dehydrated alfalfa were additive
and that no interactional effects were evident with the change in
ration composition.

The extent to which associative effects occur is very difficult

to define since there is much disagreement between trials. The work of

23

Byers gt_al. (1975a, 1975b) demonstrates their occurrence and is
supported in part by the efforts of Dexheimer gt_al. (1971) and
Woody gt_al, (1978). However the results of Preston (1975) and
Goodrich et_al, (1974) would argue that the impact of associative

effects is not significant.

Monensin

Research with monensin fed to growing and finishing cattle
has been very active during the past three to four years. Results
of numerous experiments under both laboratory and feedlot conditions
have been reported. The effects from feeding monensin have been very
consistent in showing an increase in the amount of propionic acid,
decreases in acetic and butyric but with essentially no change in
total VFA production. Because acetate is used less efficiently as
a source of metabolizable energy than propionate, cattle fed rations
which contain monensin should gain more efficiently than cattle fed
rations without monensin (Thonney, 1977).

Goodrich et_al. (1976) summarized data collected from 29
university experiments involving 3,042 cattle in which monensin was
fed at various levels to steers and heifers. Both calves as well as
yearlings were represented. Levels of monensin fed included 5, 10,
20, 25, 30 or 40 g per ton. Daily gains of cattle fed diets that
contained monensin were about equal to or greater than gains of cattle
fed diets without monensin. The single exception was for cattle fed
40 g of monensin per ton of ration. These cattle had lower daily

gains than those fed the control rations or any other level of monensin.

24

Dry matter intakes declined as the level of monensin in the diet
increased. All levels of monensin required less feed per unit of

gain than control cattle. Percentage improvements in feed efficiency
were 6.5, 6.1, 7.4, 10.3, 8.4 and 8.5 for cattle fed rations that con-
tained 5, 10, 20, 25, 30 and 40 g of monensin per ton. Maximum reduc-
tion in total cost (both feed and nonfeed) occurred with the addition
of 25 g/ton and resulted in savings of $23 for each 272 kg gain.

' Carcass traits were not significantly influenced by the feeding

of monensin.

In a review of six experiments, Embry (1976) summarized
results by both growing periods and finishing periods. During the
growing phase there was only a small effect of monensin on weight gain
of the cattle in the six experiments. Weight gain was at least equal
to the control group up to the 30 g/ton level. Those fed the 40 g/ton
level gained at a slightly lower rate. Lowest feed requirements were
obtained at the 30 g/ton level. The improvement over controls at this
level amounted to 9.0% which was similar to the reduction in feed
intake (9.6%) from controls. During the finishing phase, similar
benefits from monensin were seen. Again the 30 g/ton level was the
most efficient.

Brown et_§lg (1974) compiled data on quality grade and
calculated cutability from 1,147 cattle fed various levels of monensin.
The data showed little if any effect of monensin on carcass quality
grade or percentage of cutability. Thonney (1977) in his review also
concluded that monensin had no apparent consistent effect on carcass

characteristics.

 

25

Since the action of monensin occurs within the rumen, the
effect of growth promotants which act elsewhere may be additive to the
effect of monensin. Woody and Fox (1977) observed a 5.8% improvement
in feed efficiency for heifers fed monensin at the rate of 30 g/ton.

A further increase of 11.5% and 6.5% in average daily gain and feed
efficiency, respectively, was seen when heifers were fed monensin and
implanted with Synovex H. In a review of six trials comparing various
implants with and without 30 g/ton of monensin, Embry (1976) determined
that the response to monensin and implants could be expected to be
additive. Burroughs et_al, (1976) also concluded there was an additive
response to monensin and implant treatments. Legally, monensin cannot
be mixed into a ration with another feed additive. Therefore, growth
promotants must be implanted when used in conjunction with monensin.

An area presently under investigation concerns a possible
protein sparing effect of monensin. Gates and Embry (1976) fed a
corn silage ration to Hereford steer calves from 227 to 363 kg. The
rations were also supplemented with protein from soybean meal or urea
with all comparisons being made with and without monensin. Their
results indicated that monensin improved protein utilization when
fed in rations slightly deficient in protein and that it resulted
in improvement in utilization of nonprotein nitrogen from urea.

In a subsequent trial reported by Gates and Embry (1977) they
compared two protein levels in high concentrate rations. The protein
levels were 10.4% for the unsupplemented rations and 12.7% for the

rations containing soybean meal. The improvement in feed efficiency

 

26

due to monensin was observed to be greater when fed with soybean meal
supplement (13.5%) than with no supplement (7.1%).

In an jg_yitrg_trial conducted to determine the effect of
monensin on dry matter disappearance and proteolytic activity, Tolbert
§t_al, (1977) determined that monensin depressed the free ammonia of
sorghum plus soybean meal or sorghum plus urea. Free amino acid levels
were decreased on sorghum plus soybean meal but increased on the sorghum
plus urea. They concluded that monensin may exert an inhibitory effect
on deamination by the rumen microflora.

Using shelled corn rations, Gill _t__l. (1977) fed various
protein rations with and without monensin to yearling steers. An
interaction of monensin and protein level was apparent, with monensin
improving feed efficiency and rate of gain, most at the lower protein
levels.

Hanson and Klopfenstein (1977) showed similar results when
they fed corn silage rations supplemented with brewers' dried grains
or urea. The largest response to monensin in feed efficiency occurred
at the lower natural protein levels.

However, Gates gt__l. (1977) determined that monensin improved
feed efficiency but that the effect was more pronounced with rations
supplemented with soybean meal.

In summation, monensin improves feed efficiency in feedlot
cattle without affecting average daily gain. Maximum improvements

of 8 to 10% can be expected when monensin is fed at levels of 25 or

30 g/ton. Monensin improves feed efficiency without changing carcass

27

characteristics and the effect is additive with the effect of growth
promotants. Less clear is the effect which monensin has on protein
requirements. Evidence exists to suggest that it reduces protein
requirements; however, more research is needed in this area before

general recommendations can be made.

Protein Requirements

 

Using crossbred steer calves, Hatfield et_al, (1971) demon—
strated that in high concentrate rations, calves responded to levels
of protein above 11%. Maximum ADG and feed efficiency were observed
at levels of 13 to 15%. However, in high corn silage rations, optimum
responses were seen at the 11% level. Yearling steers fed high-
concentrate rations showed no differences in ADG or feed efficiency
at 10% or 12% levels.

In agreement with this, Peterson gt_al, (1973) fed 9, 11, 13
and 15% crude protein in rations with four different energy levels
and observed no increase in rates of gain when protein was increased
for cattle fed high corn silage rations (86% corn silage). However,
a response to increased protein was observed with the higher energy
rations (43, 71 and 100% concentrate). Both of these trials suggest
that energy may have been limiting in the high silage ration, whereas
the higher grain rations supplied sufficient energy to allow utilization
of the additional protein for growth.

Further support for this is provided by Crickenberger (1977)
when he demonstrated a significant protein by energy level interaction.

In his trial he used two protein systems, two energy levels and four

28

cattle types. Cattle fed high grain rations had similar daily gains
regardless of protein supplementation system. However steers fed high
silage gained considerably faster when supplemented according to NRC
when the crude protein level of the ration did not fall below 9.4%.

In the other system ration crude protein levels fell as low as 7.4%.
The author suggested that the protein quality of high grain rations
was higher than of high silage rations. He further concluded that,

in practice, corn silage levels should never fall below 10 to 10.5%
crude protein in the latter part of the feeding period, with higher
levels required at lighter weights.

In an attempt to look at the relationship of corn silage or
grain diets fed during the growing phase to protein requirements
during growing and finishing, Byers and Preston (1976) observed that
during the finishing period cattle grown on corn silage and then fed
supplemental protein during finishing gained faster than cattle grown
on corn or silage and not fed supplemental protein during finishing.
They concluded that urea—limestone silage averaging 13.4% crude protein
may not meet protein requirements of growing calves and level of forage
fed during growing or backgrounding may affect protein requirements
during finishing.

Cmarik gt_al, (1975) observed an improvement in ADG and feed
efficiency when soybean meal was added to a high concentrate ration
for finishing yearling heifers. The unsupplemented ration contained

10.8% protein while the supplemented ration contained 12.2% protein.

29

Prior__t__l. (1977) in an experiment described previously, fed
three dietary levels of crude protein (LP= 10, MP= 11.5 or HP==13% of
dry matter) with three energy levels to large and small type cattle.

Up to about 325 kg live weight, small type cattle increased ADG and
feed efficiency with no advantage for the HP compared to MP, ADG and
feed efficiency increased up to 348 kg live weight in large type cattle
with the HP intake compared to the LP ration. They indicated that for
maximum efficiency and rate of gain at lighter live weights, small type
cattle should receive at least 0.77 kg of crude protein per head per
day up to approximately 325 kg of body weight; but for maximum per-
formance large type cattle should be fed 0.93 kg of crude protein per
head per day up to 348 kg of body weight.

Increasing the percentage of protein in the ration did not
significantly alter carcass quality or compositional traits in small
type cattle. This agrees with the findings of Epley gt_al, (1971) and
Crickenberger (1977). However the large type cattle fed the highest
crude protein ration had a higher percentage of dressed yield, fat

thickness over the 12th rib and yield grade compared to those fed

the LP or MP rations.

Conclusions

 

As was pointed out in the introduction, one must be careful
in drawing conclusions because the literature on a given subject will
often be conflicting. The most obvious conclusion is that as more grain

is added to a corn—corn silage ration, ADG is increased and the time

 

30

required to reach slaughter condition is reduced. What is less

clear is the effect that increasing grain content of a ration has

on efficiency. On a dry matter basis cattle are more efficient when

fed a high grain ration, but on an energetic basis this advantage is

not nearly as great. Interpreting past research data on efficiency is
confounded by recent findings that oven drying procedures are inaccurate
in determining DM content of feeds. In general, when an economic
analysis was included in the feeding trials, high silage rations were
favored over high concentrate rations.

It appears, with limited supporting evidence, that heifers and
smaller framed cattle are better suited to high silage than high grain
rations. However other evidence exists to indicate that there is no
interaction between cattle type and ration, particularly in steers.

Data on the effect of ration on carcass composition have also
been divergent. Prior to 1974, most research indicated that ration did
not affect carcass characteristics. However since that time, an in-
creasing number of trials have shown that when rations with extreme
ranges in energy content are compared, an effect on carcass composition
will be observed. At a constant weight, cattle on all silage rations
will be leaner but with nearly equal quality grades to cattle on all
concentrate rations. The protein content of rations has been shown
to have little effect on carcass composition.

The magnitude of the impact on efficiency due to the asso—
ciative effects of feeds is not well defined. The work of Byers gt_al.

(1975a, 1975b), which clearly demonstrated associative effects, has not

31

been well supported by other workers. More clear is the fact that
a two-phase system is more efficient than feeding a continuous ration
when both utilize the same total amount of energy.

It has been well documented that monensin will improve feed
efficiency 8 to 10% with no effect on ADG or carcass characteristics.
Less obvious is the effect which monensin has on protein requirements.
This area needs further research along with the impact which fermen-

tation has on protein quality.

OBJECTIVES

To study and compare the effect of feeding system on
perfonnance, feed efficiency and economics of production

of yearling steers, steer calves and heifer calves.

To determine the influence of ration on carcass composition

and grade determined under the new grading standards when
cattle receiving different rations are fed to a constant final
weight.

To estimate crude protein requirements of average frame British
breed heifers fed monensin supplemented rations of differing

energy densities.

32

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Animals

 

Trial 1 consisted of 100 Angus x Hereford crossbred yearling
steers purchased in North Dakota which arrived at the Beef Cattle
Research Center (B.C.R.C.) in mid-December 1975. They were a very
unifonn group in their type, frame and condition. Eighty steer calves
purchased in Montana were used in Trial 2 which appeared to be a mixture
of typical Charolais x Angus and Charolais x Hereford crosses. There
was some variation in frame and type of this group of calves, but all
were in similar condition. These calves arrived in late November 1975.
Trial 3 consisted of 180 Hereford heifers purchased in feeder calf
sales in Northern Michigan. They were extremely uniform in type,

frame and condition and arrived at the B.C.R.C. in mid-October 1976.

Description of Feedlot

 

All three trials were conducted in open dirt lots with no
windbreaks or shelter. Dirt mounds were provided which were bedded
during adverse weather. Cattle were fed in a concrete fenceline
feedbunk with a 10 ft concrete apron located behind it. Automatic

waterers were located near the feedbunk.

33

34

Experimental Design and Rations

 

Trials 1 and 2 utilized three basic rations which were fed
in five different systems to compare the impact of each system on
performance and carcass data. Ration l was an all corn silage ration
while ration 2 was corn silage with approximately 34% high moisture
corn added. Ration 3 consisted of 78% high moisture corn with the
remainder being supplement and silage. All rations were properly
supplemented for protein, minerals and vitamins using the system
outlined by Fox and Black (1976). Ration and supplement compositions
are shown in Tables 1 and 2. This system is based upon a declining need
for protein by the animal as it matures and fattens. Thus ration crude
protein levels were not held constant for the entire feeding period but
were adjusted each time the animals gained 45.4 kg. Protein was
supplemented with soybean meal and monensin was flgt fed.

The feeding systems (shown in Figure 1) included: 85% con-
centrates, 15% corn silage; 40% concentrates, 60% corn silage; all
corn silage, then switched to 85% concentrates, 15% corn silage when
approximately one—half of the expected feedlot gain was reached; all
corn silage, then switched to 85% concentrates, 15% corn silage when
approximately two-thirds of the expected feedlot gain had been reached;
and all corn silage continuously.

Trial 3 utilized a 3 x 3 factorial design in which three
protein levels were factored over three energy levels for a total
of nine treatments with no replicates. The three energy levels were:

100% corn silage (100% CS); 68% corn silage, 32% concentrates (68% CS);

35

Table 1. Ration Ingredients and Approximate Composition (0M Basis)
(Trials 1 and 2)

 

 

 

 

Ration
Ingredient 1 2 3
Corn silage, % 92.5 59.0 16.0
High moisture shelled corn, % 0 34.0 78.0
Supplement, % 7.5 7.0 6.0
NEg (Mcal/kg 11M)a 0.99 1.17 1.36
Dry matter 34.0 41.0 59.0

 

aBased on NRC (1976) values.

Table 2. Protein—Mineral Supplements (DM Basis) (Trials 1 and 2)

 

 

 

 

Rationa

Ingredient l 2 3a 3b
Soybean meal (49%) 89.1 88.7 80.1 62.6
Deflorinated phosphate 4.2 1.0 0 0
Limestone 1.9 5.7 15.0 26.4
Trace mineral salt 4.6 4.3 4.7 10.5
Vitamin Ab 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.27
Vitamin DC 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.27

 

aSupplement 3a was used for cattle in ration 3 that were under
800 lbs; supplement 3b was used for cattle on ration 3 that were
over 800 lbs.

bVitamin A contained 30,000 I.U. per gram.

CVitamin 0 contained 3,000 I.U. per gram.

36

 

 

 

 

.N new — mfimwce cow :mwmmo Fmpcwewcmaxm

6854.09 -m
Seam 93 .9
Beam. Es. - o

.680 $9. .. m.

6:00 axomw - <

 

  

 

 

 

 

._ mcsmwd

noon. co 9» on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

200m CON 00F Om
..LI . .m
_ m . .... P _o m...
1 - w
.1 , m P .o u
_ .a. .m
. _ _ m I:
m# . .
.m
“dasm 1 _. _
- - - ,. l
I .m.0 _ m _ F Mo w.
n. ...osz —1 m _ F .o H
.223 ...... .0. a 1 -
3.84%! . .
436ml _ . a .a
. m <
5.....‘3. 86.6.6

37

and 100% concentrates (100% Conc). These rations are shown graphically
in Figure 2 along with the crude protein levels for each. Table 3
contains the exact ration composition.

All rations were balanced for mineral and vitamin requirements
as outlined by Fox and Black (1976). Protein-mineral-vitamin supple-
ments are shown in Table 4. One hundred percent Conc pens were started
on 30% concentrate and then increased 5% concentrate each day for 10
days. At that point they were increased 5% concentrate every other
day until they reached the 100% level. All pens received monensin,
supplemented at a level of 30 g/T of ration DM.

Preliminary Treatment and Allotment
Procedures

 

 

Upon arrival, all cattle were weighed, tattooed, ear-tagged,
vaccinated for IBR, BVD, P13 and injected with Vitamins A and D.
A pour-on treatment for grubs and lice was given subject to the
recommended cut-off dates. Following arrival cattle were involved
in trials to study different rations for starting cattle on feed.
These starting experiments lasted from 28 to 43 days. The cattle
were then placed on an all corn silage ration properly supplemented
with soybean meal and minerals for approximately 14 days. Throughout
this period of time following arrival, the cattle were observed for
sickness and any abnormal cattle were removed. When the main experi-
ments started, all cattle utilized were healthy and consuming normal
amounts of dry matter. Prior to allotment, cattle were half-fed the

previous day and removed from water for 16 hrs prior to weighing.

38

.m mech Lot cmwmmo Pmpcwswcmaxm .N mismwm

noon :o 230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

....nrlllili m
_- .1 n
. w
w 16136de
- m 16%
|1[ Fahd”...
0.9. NS. v.9. 0.3 mdw 0d he QOF ...N ads.
6. .... .... a a. as;
. w s «a. - s .. .
\ ...\ \.\ . .
u... . H M. We“
o m v

M” NH —. gnu“:

39

.mm:_w> AonFV umz co vmmmmm

 

m.PN m.o~ v.0m
mv.P me.. me.—

m.m ¢.¢ m._

_.Fm m.mm m.wm

m.m¢ N.w¢ m.m¢
m_._ N—.F NF.—
m.m_ P.© F._
N._N N.cm ¢.mm

¢.mo m.no m.m©

o.m¢ m.m¢ m.~¢ & .Lopme Xgo

_o._ _o.. aa.o aAZQ ax\_aaz. amz
N.a. S.A _._ s .pcasalaasm

& .ccoo
vachm mcaumwoe no.1

o o o

w.mm «.mm m.wm & .omm—wm :Lou

 

&w.m_ &N.F~ &¢.op

xe.v_ &m.o~ &w.w

xm.m~ xm.o~ &u.m Fo>mp Cwmuoca

 

 

 

 

mpmcpcwocou xoo_

Aocouumuv mmumm

coapam

mmmem :cou soc. Pm>w~ Smcmcm

 

 

Am mechv Amwmmm so. cowpvmoasou momswxogaa< cam mpcwwvwcmcH cowpmm .m mFDmH

40

we: cowpmc one

coupes Ace soc. :0 ago umpcoawc mwgsmwd

.Emcm Log .2.. ooo.om vmcwmpcoo < :wEmpw>

.prpms Ace cowpmc Facet to cop can u om to cowpwmoasou m :wmuno op cmpmpzacow
.xwewca to a. can cwmcw53m to m om emcwmpcoo new oocmpm Bose umczooca

U

.Emcm can .2.. ooo.m casewpcoo o cwsmuw>o

n
.mwmmn

..azaaz cowpuseoaa caam seaweoaz as“ .6 Nao_ paagm

pond :w vczom mcmwwm; m. om~ cow mucmemcwzcmc ago no women cope—:oFmo mew: mpcmsm_aa:mw

 

<r<rm

lr—OOO
@0303
.1—000

GNP—F?
“DOOM

d-moo
(\lr—m
COLON)
MNI—

cxwemca cwmcmszm

oo ewsmpw>

n< swampw>

Hme .mcmcwe munch
ovate—so Ezwmmmpoa
accommew.

mumsgm05a umpmchOFCmo
Asme. Fame :mmnzom

 

&m.mp

Fw>mp :wmpoca

 

 

 

 

mpmgucwocou & oo.

wmmem :coo & oo. Pw>mp Smcocm

Aocounmu. Nmuwm

coapam

 

 

mAm wacev mpcmemrgazm .mcwcwzicvmpoca

41

In Trials 2 and 3, numbers of animals were such that several extremely
heavy and light cattle could be removed thus making the groups more
uniform in weight and giving equal numbers of animals for each treat-
ment. Animals were blocked based on their initial weights and then
allotted randomly. Twenty animals per treatment were used in Trials 1
and 3 while 16 animals per treatment were used in Trial 2. Starting
dates were January 14, 1976 for Trials 1 and 2 and November 22, 1976
for Trial 3.

Feeding, Weighing and Management
Procedures

 

The corn silage fed had been stored in either a bunker silo
or an upright concrete stave silo. High moisture corn was stored in
Harvestore silos. Supplements were mixed at the M.S.U. feedmill,
bagged and then stored at the B.C.R.C. Rations were mixed immediately
prior to feeding in a horizontal batch mixer and transported to the
feedbunks with a feedtruck. The complete ration was fed once daily
and supplied in amounts so that bunks were nearly cleaned up at feeding
time. Daily feed consumption was recorded and periodically, unconsumed
feed was removed, weighed and the amount recorded. Those cattle on
high concentrate rations were started on 30% concentrate and gradually
increased over periods ranging from 10 to 18 days until they reached
their designated levels. The same procedure was used when cattle were
switched from high silage to high concentrate rations.

Cattle in Trials 1 and 2 were implanted initially with Synovex

S while those in Trial 3 received Ralgro. Cattle in Trials 2 and 3

42

were subsequently reimplanted at recommended intervals subject to
withdrawal requirements.

Initial and final weights for all cattle were obtained after
receiving one-half of normal feed the previous day and being held for
16 hrs without water. Intermediate weights were taken every 28 days
after a 16 hr shrink without water. All cattle were weighed
individually.

Two animals were lost in Trial 2 and one in Trial 3 due to
sickness. This occurred early in the experimental period and data

from these animals were removed from all analysis.

Initial Slaughter

 

Initially, in Trial 3, six cattle were selected at random and
slaughtered to determine body composition. They were slaughtered at
a packing plant located 25 miles from the B.C.R.C. where the wholesale
ribs were removed and returned to campus for further analysis. Soft
tissue from the 9—lO-llth ribs was thoroughly ground and mixed and
analyzed for moisture, fat, protein and ash. Total nitrogen of rib
samples was determined using the Technicon Auto-Kjeldahl System.
Water was determined by drying at 60° for 24 hrs. Ether extractable
fat was determined by using the Goldfisch procedure. The following
prediction equations were used for estimation of carcass chemical

composition (Hankins and Howe, 1946):

y = .66X + 5.98

where: y - carcass protein,% and

rib protein, %.

><
II

43

y = .77x + 2.82

where: y * carcass fat, % and

rib fat, %.

><
ll

Termination of Experiments

 

Experiments were terminated by slaughtering the cattle when
the fattest pen was estimated to be 80% choice and then slaughtering
the remaining pens as they reached approximately the same weight.
Final weights were taken as previously discussed. All cattle were
scanned using an Ithaco Ultrasonic Scanoprobe as they were weighed.
Cattle from Trial 1 and pen 1 from Trial 2 were hauled 65 miles and
slaughtered at Walters' Pack in Coldwater, Michigan. Due to closure
of this plant, the remaining cattle in Trial 2 were hauled 25 miles
and slaughtered at Charlotte Meat Company, in Charlotte, Michigan.
All cattle in Trial 3 were hauled 110 miles and slaughtered at Dinner

Bell Meats in Archbold, Ohio.

Carcass Data Collection

 

Hot carcass weights were taken and carcasses were chilled for
at least 24 hrs before they were evaluated. A11 carcass measurements
and estimations were collected by a U.S.D.A. grader except actual fat
thickness. In Trial 3 specific gravity infonnation was collected on
10 carcasses per treatment on the day following grading. Specific

gravity was determined using the following format:

44

Specific gravity = (carcass wt in air)/(carcass wt in air minus carcass
wt in water)(correction for water and carcass

temperature).

The percentage of carcass fat and % carcass protein were calculated

from the following equations developed by Garrett and Hinman (1969):

y = 587.86 - 530.45x

where: y = carcass fat, % and
x = specific gravity.
y = (20.0x - 18.57) (6.25)
where: y = carcass protein, % and
x = specific gravity.

Loss of identification during the slaughtering process occurred
on one animal in both Trials 1 and 3. Therefore, carcass data from

these animals was eliminated from the analysis.

Cost Summary

 

Costs were summarized for each feeding system in all trials.
Non-feed costs were allocated only when they reflected variable expenses
between high silage and high grain rations. Veterinary costs, marketing
costs and death loss were not included since these would be the same
regardless of feeding system used. The factors present in the non-feed

costs were interest charges and additional facility, feeding and manure

45

handling costs as the percentage of silage in the ration increased.

The formula used was (Woody and Black, 1978):

Non-feed cost = .0875 + (.04 - .062(% corR BnGration - .50) + .06 + .01
Non-feed costs of heifers were assumed to be 74% of those for steers.

Major feed ingredients (corn silage, corn and soybean meal)
were priced relative to three different prices of corn: $2.00, $3.00
and $4.00 per bu. The price of corn silage (per ton, as—fed) was

defined as:

6.72 (price of corn grain $/bu) + $2.10.

Thus, corn silage was assumed to contain 6.72 bu of corn grain/ton and
was priced to yield equal earnings per unit land as grain production
(Woody and Black, 1978).

The price of soybeans has averaged about 2.35 times the price
of corn ($/bu) over the years. Thus, the price of soybean meal was
derived from the relationships between prices of soybeans and corn
and among the prices of soybeans, soybean meal and soybean oil. The
derived soybean meal price was based upon 48 1b of meal and 11 1b of
oil from 60 lb (1 bushel) of soybeans:

Soybean meal _ Soybean price - 11 (oil price/lb) + processing charge/bu
(44%), $/bu — 48
Soybean 011 IS priced at $0-20/1b when corn is $2.00/bu, increasing

$0.05 per $1.00/bu rise in the corn price thereafter. A processing

46

charge of $0.35/bu was assumed. The derived price was increased 10%
for pricing soybean meal 49% and $30/ton was added as a transport
charge.

Mineral, vitamin and monensin components of the respective

rations were priced at current levels as noted in Tables 13 and 14.

Data Calculations and Statistical Analysis

 

Average daily gain was based on final live weights after they
had been adjusted to the mean dressing percentage for each trial. Dry
matter consumption was adjusted using correction factors of 1.068 for
corn silage and 1.03 for high moisture corn (Fox and Fenderson, 1976).
Carcass and body composition data were adjusted to the mean hot carcass
weight in each trial by using covariance analysis. Least squares
regression analysis was used to examine main effects and interactions
on performance and carcass characteristics within each trial as

described by Black and Harpster (1978).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Feedlot Performance

 

The performance of the yearling steers is given in Table 5.
The performance for both phases is given along with the overall per-
formance. In both phases, those fed the high grain ration had the
fastest rate of gain and had the least feed requirement/unit gain,
as expected. Those cattle on the mid-switch and late switch programs
gained slower after being switched from silage to corn. This is some-
what puzzling and perhaps indicates that if cattle are to be on feed
for relatively short periods of time (100 to 120 days), they should
be fed the same ration continuously. Possibly they did not have time
to fully adapt to the new ration before being switched.

Those yearlings fed 100% silage performed very poorly during
Phase II, and had disasterous feed efficiency (15.8 units feed/unit
gain).

Table 6 shows the performance of the calves fed each of the
five systems. Again, those fed high grain had fastest gains and
lowest DM requirements/unit gain. However, the difference in gain
between the 85% concentrate and all silage was not as great as in
the yearlings. The 100% silage cattle were not as well finished
(25% choice) and had they been fed to the same degree of fatness

their feed conversion would have dropped.

47

453

Table 5. Feedlot Performance (Trial 1)a

 

 

85% 40% Mid- Late 1002
Conc Conc Switch Switch Silage

Phase I Perfonnance

Initial wt, kgb 391 391 391 391 391
Days on feed 56 56 56 84 56
Avg. daily gain, kg 1.39 1.38 1.18 1.08 1.20
Avg. daily 0M, kge
Corn silage 2.2 7.3 9.9 10.1 10 4
HM corn 8.0 4.1 -- -- --
Supplement 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Total 10.7 12 1 10.5 10.7 11.0
DM/unit gain 7.70 8 77 8 9O 9 91 9.17

 

Initial wt, kgc 469 468 457 482 458
Days on feed 44 44 62 44 72
Avg. daily gain, kg 1.41 1.10 1.03 1.02 0.67
Avg. daily 0M, kge
Corn silage 1.6 6.9 2.0 2.1 9.8
HM corn 8.7 3.8 7.9 8.2 --
Supplement 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.8
Total 10.6 11.3 10.2 10.6 10.6
DM/unit gain 7.52 10.27 9.90 10.39 15.82
Overall Performance
Final wt. kgd 531 517 521 527 506
Days on feed 100 100 118 128 128
Avg daily gain, k 1.40 1.26 1.10 1.06 0.90
Avg. daily 0M, kg
Corn silage 1.9 7.2 5.8 7.3 10.1
HM corn 8.3 3.9 4 2 2.8 0
Supplement 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7
Total 10.7 11.7 10.4 10.7 10.8
DM/unit gain 7.64 9.29 9.45 10.09 12.00
Dressing % 60.7 60.3 59.7 60.0 59.0
1 Grading choice 90 80 80 85 75

 

aTwenty steers/treatment.

bInitial wt on experiment taken after 16 hrs without feed and water.

cIntermediate weights taken after 16 hrs without water only and adjusted to
nonnal shrunk wt (98% of actual wt).

dFinal weight = carc wt/.5994 x 100.

eDry matter of corn silage and high moisture corn was adjusted using the
correction factors determined by Fox and Fenderson (1976) to account for errors
in oven drying procedures. Corn silage - 1.068. HM corn - 1.03.

49

Table 6. Feedlot Performance (Trial 2)a

 

 

85% 40% Mid- Late 100%
Conc Conc Switch Switch Silage

 

Phase I Performance

 

 

Initial wt, kgb 264 264 263 262 262
Days on feed 112 112 112 196 112
Avg. daily gain, kg 1.38 1.16 1.06 1.10 1.15
Avg. daily 0M, kge
Corn silage 1.6 5.0 7.5 7.9 7.6
HM corn 6.1 2.9 -- -- -—
Supplement 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7
Total 8.4 8.6 8.2 8.7 8.3
DM/unit gain 6.09 7.41 7.74 7.91 7.22
Phase 11 Performance
Initial wt, kgc 418 393 382 478 391
Days on feed 89 121 128 79 135
Avg. daily gain, kg 1.42 1.16 1 26 0.99 1.02
Avg. daily 0M, kge
Corn silage 1.5 6.6 1.7 2.0 9 6
HM corn 8.4 3.7 8.5 8.0 --
Supplement 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 1.0
Total 10.3 11.0 10.6 10.3 10.6
DM/unit gain 7.25 9.48 8.41 10.40 10.39
Overall Perfonnance
Final wt, kgd 545 534 543 556 528
Days on feed 202 233 240 275 247
Avg. daily gain, kg 1.39 1.16 1.17 1.07 1.08
Avg. daily 0M, kge
Corn silage 1.5 5.8 4.4 6.2 8.7
HM corn 7.1 3.3 4.5 2.3 0
Supplement 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.9
Total 9.1 9.8 9.4 9.1 9.6
DM/unit gain 6.55 8.45 8.03 8.50 8.89
Dressing % 64.1 63.3 63.5 62.5 62.6
% Grading choice 67 87 55 50 25

 

aSixteen steers/treatment, except 15 head for 85% and 40% Conc due to death
losses.

bInitial wt on experiment taken after 16 hrs without feed and water.

cIntermediate weights taken after 16 hrs without water only and adjusted to
normal shrunk wt (98% of actual wt).

dFinal weight = carc. wt/.632 x 100.
eDry matter of corn silage and high moisture corn was adjusted using the

correction factors determined by Fox and Fenderson (1976) to account for errors
in oven drying procedures. Corn silage - 1.068. HM corn - 1.03.

50

Average daily gain and feed efficiency (feed/gain) for Trials 1
and 2 are plotted in Figures 3 and 4 by the average percentage of corn
added in the ration. The regression lines have also been drawn. In
both trials the slope of the regression line for A.D.G. was significant
(P<:.005) indicating that energy level affected gains.

Woody (1978) observed that steers fed all corn silage during
the growing phase and switched to an all concentrate ration had similar
gains but improved feed efficiency by 6.5% when compared to steers fed
silage plus a constant amount of added grain throughout the entire
feeding period. Similar results were obtained by Dexheimer et_al.
(1971).

A similar comparison may be made in Trials 1 and 2 by comparing
the gains and feed efficiency of the 40% concentrate cattle to the mid-
switch cattle. In yearling steers, cattle on the continuous 40% con-
centrate ration gained faster and were more efficient in feed conversion
by 2% than cattle on the mid-switch program. The opposite relationship
existed in Trial 2. Charolais crossbred calves fed on a mid-switch
program gained equal to and were 5% more efficient in feed conversion
than calves fed a 40% concentrate ration continuously although total
corn consumption was greater on the mid-switch program. The results
of Trial 2 agree well with those of Woody (1978) and Dexheimer gt_al,
(1971).

Performance of the heifers is summarized in Table 7. As would
be expected average daily gain improved with increasing corn in the

ration across all protein levels. The greatest response to adding

1030‘

0')
x
C
'l—
CO
CD
5? .90
E
C3
0)
Cl
(6
S.
(D
>
<
.60

32
{3 11.0
\
'0
cu
(1)
L1.
>» 9.0
U
C
.2
.U
i:
:3 7.0
‘0
(I)
(1)
L1.
6.0
Figure 3.

 

 

I.

o 26 ' Ab 4' 66 77' ab 1
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

db

100

 

 

 

l = All Silage
2 = Late Switch
1 3 = 40% Concentrate
4 = Mid-Switch
. 5 = 85% Concentrate
..L
o ' 2030 4‘ 40:0 ' 60:0 1 80:0 106.0
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)
Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency with Regression

Lines for Trial 1.

1 .30

U)
.x
5?
E
L5
;? .90
5
C3
0)
U)
CO
5...
C1.)
>
<:
.60
13.0
11.0

Feed Efficiency (Feed/Gain)
to
E:

m
o
O

u-

 

 

 

yaI
0 41 20:0 ' 40:0 11 60:0 ' 80:0 1 100.0
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)
1’ 1 = All Silage
2 = Late Switch
" 3 = 40% Concentrate
4 = Mid-Switch
- 5 = 85% Concentrate

    

X
5

 

0 20:0 ' 40:0 60:0 80:0
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

l

.P

1 1
V 1

100.0

Figure 4. Average Daily Gain and Feed Efficiency with Regression

Lines for Trial 2.

53

.000 000 000000; 00 0:00: 000000.00000 xpw>0cm 0.000000 :0 000000

.00.. n 0:: ”000.0 n 000—00 0000 “0000000 0000000000 .0000000000
000000 cm>o 00 000000 000 0000000 op .0000. 000000000 000 x00 00 0000000000 0000000
0000000000 0;» 0000: 00000000 003 0000 00000005 :00; 0:0 mom—00 0000 00 000000 Scam

.ugmwwz 0000000 0500 0:0 armpmswxocaam p0 00000000000 0000 00000050;
0003 000000 000 00000 00 000050000 003 :00 000 0003 0000500000 003 0000 0005000000

.oo. x .00ppmo 000 000 0 00000000 .m>0v 00m. 0 03 0000000 Ho; n .03 000000
.0000; 000 0000 00000.3 a; 00 00000 00000 .03 00000000
.0000 00000 000 ow 000 00 00; 000;; 0000000 300-1Nm we p0moxm pcmEpmmcp\0cmtvmg 0000300

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.000 00000.0 0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 .000 0000200
0.00 0.00 0..0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00000000

000 000 000 000 000 000 _00 .00 00.. 00000 0000\20
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0_.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0000 000000000000
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .0000 000000
..0 0.0 0.0 0._ 0.. 0.. 0 0 0 .0.:.: 000 0.000
..0 0.0 0.0 ..0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 00000><
00.. 00.. .0._ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00000 00000><
00. 00. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 m0000 00 0000
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0 0 ..03 .0000
00. 00. 000 000 00. .0. 00. 00. 00. 000 .03 .000000
00.0_ 00... 00.0. 00.00 00.0. 00.0 00.00 00.0. 00.0 00>00 0000000
00.000
00000000000 0000 Aocounmu. mmuwo 000—00 0000 00oF 00>00 xmcmcm

 

 

.m 00.00. 000005000000 0000000 .0 00000

54

grain occurred at the low protein level where cattle on the 68% CS
ration gained 53% faster than those on 100% CS while those on l00%
Conc outgained those at 68% CS by 38% (Figure 5). At the intermediate
and high protein levels, ADG was improved 6 to 15% from the addition
of grain.

The response to additional protein varied depending upon energy
level (Figure 6). Cattle fed l00% CS or 68% CS rations had 67% and 26%
higher ADG, respectively, from the addition of soybean meal up to the
intermediate level. No significant improvement in gain occurred by
increasing protein to the high level. Cattle fed l00% Conc rations
did not respond to added protein. The responses observed at different
protein levels may be partially explained by considering weather con-
ditions. The winter of l976-77 included some periods of very severe
cold during which gains were reduced. Previous research by Ames (l976)
has demonstrated that when gains are slowed due to severe weather,
protein requirements are decreased. In addition, cattle in this
trial were fed monensin which has recently been suggested to have
a "protein sparing" effect (Byers and Moffitt, l977; Gates gt al.,
l977; Gill et_gl,, T977; Hanson and Klopfenstein, l977). Thus, in
this experiment the protein requirements of the heifers on the l00%
silage and 68% silage rations were met by the intermediate level of
10.9% crude protein in the ration. Protein requirements of the cattle
fed the l00% concentrate ration were met by the high moisture corn and

no additional soybean meal was needed.

Live Weight, Kgs. Live Weight, Kgs.

Live Weight , K93.

55

Low Protein Rations

 

 

 

 

I ~’"
/’ _
363” / of}. I,
/ .0 I
/ ,.- I
/ 4 I
II // ‘.0" I,
./ ./" [I]
/ '0." /
272w / ".4 ,4
/ ./ 1’
44" ,r
4" /
II (I //
fl
“4’
132 : s .. t t . 0'. :
Intermediate Protein Rations
J ,,
363 I If" [V
a"),
J I." I
. ,, ,4
(n'l/
t--'
A”,
272-a 4" I
<3
4'
437
/ {1"
_,/.
182 , ; 0: _0

 

 

43' I,
6‘ /
1: I
arr/l
r /
. ' /
rarp'oo 0’0 Silage
mntz. 68% Silage
--" 10095 Concentrate
' I § 2
200 300

 

Days on Feed

Figure 5. Effect of Energy Level on Low, Intermediate and High

Protein Rations for Trial 3.

 

56

Effect of Protein Level on
100% Silage Rations

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intermediate
_ sea-
0
m
2
In I
H
.c:
.9)
0
g 272-
a:
.2
.1
182 4 1' f : 1 t
68% Silage Rations
3631
0'
m
X
'- -
...:
x:
.E’
0
3 272-
0
OZ
...:
.182 I __r l P J I
100% Concentrate Rations
J High
363
, Intermediate
8) low
>5 .
..:
.C
.9)
d.)
3 272-
0g
.1 I
182 l g 1 : i J
O 100 200 300
Days on Feed
Figure 6. Effect of Protein Level on lOO% Silage, 68% Silage

and l00% Concentrate Rations for Trial 3.

57

No difficulty was encountered in maintaining constant intake
levels with 100% concentrate rations. Further, no founder problems
were encountered. This was in contrast to Trial 2 when several steers
on the 85% concentrate ration foundered.

Feed efficiency, as measured by DM consumed per unit gained,
followed the same response pattern as ADG. Cattle fed a low protein
ration at 68% CS gained 28% more efficiently than those at l00% CS.

A further 25% increase in efficiency was observed at the l00% Conc
level compared to 68% CS. Efficiency improved ll to l5% at the inter-
mediate and high protein levels as more grain was added to the ration.
The effect of protein on efficiency was demonstrated when comparing
the intermediate protein level to the low level for 100% CS and 68%

CS levels. Cattle on l00% CS and 68% CS intermediate protein levels
gained 30% and l6%, respectively, more efficiently than low protein
fed cattle. All other effects of protein level on efficiency were
minor.

This series of experiments demonstrates the effect of ration
on dressing percentage. Those cattle fed high silage averaged l.6%
lower in steers and 0.8% lower in heifers than cattle fed high grain.
Final live weight was adjusted to the same dressing percentage for all
treatments within each trial to remove this bias. Without this adjust-

ment, performance of those fed high silage would be inflated due to a

greater fill.

58

Carcass Characteristics

 

Carcass characteristics for Trials l and 2 are presented in
Table 8. In order to correctly evaluate the effect of ration on
carcass composition, all carcass traits were adjusted to the mean
hot carcass weight for each trial. In yearling steers, energy level
had little effect on marbling score or quality grade. Increasing
energy level did, however, significantly increase fat thickness and
yield grade while reducing rib eye area (REA) and % retail product
(Figure 7).

Energy level also had an effect on carcass characteristics
in Trial 2 although the pattern was somewhat different. Those cattle
fed a 40% concentrate ration continuously had higher marbling scores
and quality grades while those fed lOO% silage had lower marbling
scores and quality grades when compared at equal weights. Ration
energy level was approaching significance for adjusted fat thickness
while no effect of energy could be seen on REA, KPH fat %, yield grade
or % retail product (Figure 8).

Carcass characteristics for Trial 3 are presented in Tables 9
and l0. Table 9 contains the means of all carcass traits for each
treatment as well as the significance level of the main effects.
Table 10 is a summation by protein and energy level for traits which
had no interaction. All traits were adjusted to a constant hot
carcass weight.

In all parameters measured, protein level had no significant

effect on carcass traits. Much of the variation between treatments

59

Table 8. Carcass Characteristics by Treatment (Trials 1 and 2)

 

 

85% 40% Mid- Late 100% Significance

 

- . - of Energy
Conc Conc SW1tch SWltCh Silage Effect
Trial 1a
Marblingc d 11.6 12 1 11.6 11.4 10.9 >.20
Quality grade 9.9 10 1 10.0 9.9 9.7 >.20
Adjusted fat,e cm 1.19 1.02 0.97 1.02 0.86 <.005
Rib eye area, cm2 74.2 79.4 80.0 80.0 80.0 .04
KPH fat, % 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.5 <.005
Yie1d grade 3.0 2 7 2.5 2.5 2.3 <.005
% Retai1 product 68.4 69.6 70.9 70.5 71.6 <.005
Trial 2b
Marblingc d 10.5 12 6 11.3 l0.8 8.4 .08
Quality grade 9.4 10 4 9.8 9.5 8.l .03
Adjusted fat,e cm 0.94 1.19 1.19 0.97 0.76 .10
Rib eye area, cm2 87.7 92.3 85.2 85.2 84.5 >.20
KPH fat, % 1.6 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.5 >.20
Yie1d grade f 2.2 2 4 2.7 2.5 2.2 >.20
% Retail product 71.6 69.7 69.3 70.7 72.7 >.20

 

aAll traits adjusted to a constant hot carcass weight of 3l2 kg.
bAll traits adjusted to a constant hot carcass weight of 342 kg.
CMarbling score: 9 = slight+; l0 = small-; ll = small°.
dQuality grade: 8 = Good°; 9 = Good+; l0 = Choice-.

eFat thickness adjusted by USDA grader.

fBased on equation from Crouse and Dikeman (1976): 78.3 — 5.33 (adj.

fat, cm) + .ll2 (REA, cmz) - .95 (est. KPH fat, %) - .0227 (Carc wt, kg)
— .2l5 (marbl. score).

60

 

 

 

 

 

1
X 0__
I 10.0 )- V 3 X4
25 ~——~ 9 §
n 1%
C CD
a?
13
m
g; 900 ‘1
>5
.0»
'0 .
:
CT
8.0 0% i t .g 4» i i i d —4
O 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

 

73'“ 1 = All Silage
2 = Late Switch
. 3 = 40% Concentrate
l 4 = Mid-Switch
+’ 1, 5 = 85% Concentrate
g 7‘ 00 1’
.0
O
S.
0‘ 1-
'0
4..)
g 6900 "'
0\°
67.0 i 0 i ‘ ‘—

 

 

l J 1 l l
0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

Figure 7. Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 1.

61

  
   

 

 

 

 

 

-( x
a
I
:3 10.0
II
E?
0" l x
0 s
S.
(D
i? 9'0 l = All Silage
.0 2 = Late Switch
7:0: 3 = 40% Concentrate
c7 . 4 = Mid-Switch
5 = 85% Concentrate
J:
8.0 1 i % % : 04 % .0 4 : 0:4
O 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)
7300 "‘
:c,
....)
U
3
-0
O
S.
D.
'59? x
£2 69.0 ‘
o\°
67.0 i ‘ i i i

0 20:0 40:0 60:0 80:0 100.0

Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

Figure 8. Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 2.

 

62

.0000.00000 >0.>000 0.0.0000 00.00 000.0000000

..00000 ..000Ev m.N. 1 .mx .03 .0000v 0~Nc. u .0 .000 10x .0m0v mm.

1 .000 .<mmv N... + .50 .000 .nn0v mm.m 1 m.m0

0.000.. 00000.0 000 000000 0000 00.00000 00 00000

0

..moo.uv0v 00.0000000. 0000.0.00.m 0.00.0 0 003 00000 000.0 000000 0003 00000.0 0.00 020

.000000 0000 00 00000000 000000.00 000

0

.-00.000 u o. "+0000 u 0 “60000 n 0 "00000 >0..0=00

.6..0Em u .. .-..000 u o. .+000..m u m

000..000zn

.00 0mm 00 000.03 0000000 000 00000000 00 0000000<0

 

 

moo.v o~.A 0.0. 0.0. ..0. 0.0. 0.0. m.m. N.m. 0.0. ..0. 00.00000 0000000 0
moo.v om.A ..0m o.mm 0.mm m..m ¢.Nm 0.0m 0.0m m.m~ 0.00 000. mm00000 u
moo.v m.. 0.00 m.00 0.00 «.00 0.00 ...0 0.00 0.00 o.~0 00000000 ..000m 0
moo.v ow.A ..m N.m ~.m 0.0 0.N 0.0 m.~ 0.~ m.~ 0000a 0.0.>
u- 1- o.m ..m m.m N.m ..m o.m ..m ..m m.m 00 .000 10x
moo.v 0N.A m.00 N.mo 0.00 ..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.00 «.00 ~00 .0000 000 0.0
moo.v 0.. N0.. 00.. Nm.. 00.. N... .m.o 00.0 .m.o 00.0 Eu 0.000 00000h0<
m.. om.A «.0 0.0 m.m 0.0 ..m m.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000 00..0:o
o~.A om. 0.0 m.o. 0.0. ..m 0.0. «.0. ..m 0.0 N.m 00:..0002
000000 0.00000 Rm.m. N0... .uc.o. 00.0. 00.0. 00.0 R0.m. 00.0. 00.0 .0>0. 0.00000

 

0000000 0.00

.0 00000...00.m

 

00000000000.uoo.

 

hucounmov mmumo

 

000..m 0000 000.

0.0 .0.000 000000000 00 00.00.000000000 0000000 .0 0.000

 

00.000
.0>0. 000000

63

Table 10. Carcass Characteristics Summarized by Protein and Energy Level

 

 

 

 

 

(Triai 3)a
Protein 1eve1 Energy 1eve1
Low Interm High 100% cs 68% cs 100% Gone
Marbiingb 10.0 10.1 9.3 9.4 9.8 10.2
Quaiity gradeC 9.2 9.2 8.9 8.8 .1 .4
Adj. fat,d cm 1.02 1.17 1.14 0.91 1.02 1.40
REA, cm2 67.1 65.8 66.5 67.7 68.4 63.2
YG 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.2
% Ret. prod.f 70.3 69.3 69.6 71.1 70.4 67.6
% Carcass fatg 30.9 31.9 32.3 28.7 31.6 34.8
% Carcass proteing 15.2 14.9 14.8 15.7 15.0 14.2

 

aAdjusted to constant hot carcass weight of 226 kg.
bMarbiing score: 9 = siight+; 10 = sma11-; 11 = sma11°.
CQuaiity grade: 8 = Good°; 9 = G00d+; 10 = Choice-.
dFat thickness adjusted by USDA grader.

eNo main effects were tested since there was a highiy significant
interaction (P< .005).

fBased on equation from Crouse and Dikeman (1976): 78.3 - 5.33 (adj.
fat: cm) + .112 (REA, cmz) — .95 (est. KPH Fat, %) - .0227 (carc. wt, kg)
- .215 (marbl. score).

gDetermined using specific gravity techniques.

64

was due to energy level (Figure 9). Those cattle on 100% Conc rations
had significantly more backfat, smaller rib eyes and poorer yield grades
with a lower percentage of retail product than those on 100% CS or 68%
CS rations. In addition, they had a higher carcass fat percentage and
a lower carcass protein percentage. Differences between the 100% CS
and 68% CS rations were small for all carcass traits except for the
body composition data which revealed that those on 100% CS rations
had a lower carcass fat percentage and a higher carcass protein per-
centage. Across all three energy levels, marbling and quality grade
differences were only slight and could be explained by normal animal
variation. Thus, in Trial 3 there was a distinct effect of ration on
carcass composition which revealed that those on 100% concentrate
rations deposited more external fat with no corresponding increase
in marbling. Furthermore, those cattle fed 100% CS had carcasses with
a lower percentage fat and a higher percentage protein. This is sup-
ported by other researchers at this station who determined that at
constant weights, high grain fed cattle will have more carcass fat
and fat thickness with no effect of energy on carcass quality
(Crickenberger, 1977; Woody, 1978; Harpster, 1978).

Similar conclusions were also reached by other workers
(Young and Kauffman, 1978; Preston, 1975; Gill gt_al,, 1976; Buchanan-
Smith and Alhassan, 1975; Prior et al., 1977; Smith gt al., 1977;
Ferrell §t_al,, 1978; Utley gt al,, 1975). Together these experiments
lend strong support for the theory that the maximum potential for pro-
tein and muscle growth is genetically set; thus energy intake above

needs for protein deposition is stored as fat.

10.0

(D
O
O

Quality Grade, 10 = Ch—

8.0

73.0

69.0

% Retail Product

67.0

Figure 9.

65

 

l
I

O 20

J
I

40

l l l
I fl I

60

J J
1

foo

l
T

80
Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

l
1

c“-

 

 

l 1

l l L
T V I l

 

o 20x0 40.0 60:0 80:0 ' 106.0

Percent Corn Added in Ration (DM Basis)

Effect of Energy Level on Quality Grade and % Retail
Product with Regression Lines for Trial 3 (Values Are
Pooled for all Protein Levels).

66

Energetic Efficiency

 

Energetic efficiency was calculated as metabolizable energy
(ME) consumed per kg of retail product gained (Table 11). This measure
was chosen because it reflects not only differences in the energy
density of the dry matter intake but also differences in the compo-
sition of the gain. ME intake was determined using NRC (1976) ME
values and unadjusted dry matter intake. Percentage retail product
(RP) was determined using the equation of Crouse and Dikeman (1976).

In Trial 1, differences in energetic efficiency were small,
except those on the mid-switch program tended to be more efficient
than the others. Steer calves were more efficient at converting ME
to retail product than yearling steers. This undoubtedly reflects
the higher maintenance costs of yearling steers since they were much
heavier at the start of the feeding trial.

Comparisons of energetic efficiency between steer calves tends
to favor those fed high grain or high silage. However the low fat
content of the carcasses of the high silage cattle would have influ-
enced this measurement. There were no clear trends in differences in
energetic efficiency among the other three systems.

The heifer calves of Trial 3 were less efficient in their
utilization of energy from high concentrate rations than steer calves
but were equal to or superior in their utilization of high silage
rations.

Since underfeeding protein is not a typical feedlot practice,

the unsupplemented rations will be excluded from comparisons among

67

.w mfiamh mmm pozuoca mepmc
& mo cowpmcwsgmumu com .pozuoca mepwg & nmpmznnmcz x pgmwmz mmmogmu yo; n pozcoga Fvam; mg

a

.cowpmcwEmemc coupes xgu cw mgogcm Low umpmzhum
mmm mm; mxmpCP uz .AmNmF .umzv pcmewfigazm comm cw Fame cmmDAOm x x mm.m n pamEmPQQ3m mwN.m u :Lou
mczpmwos gov; mqm.m u wmmFTm cgoo “Asa mx\_mozv ago: now: mm:_m> Amzv augmcm wFQMNVFOnmpwzm

 

m.m¢ ¢.m¢ N.mv m.o¢ o.m¢
n.0m m.mn o.wm m.ow n.0m
enm.m mmm.m —¢w,m owm.m mom.m

w.w¢ o.mv o.¢¢ ¢.mm
n.0w m.mw N.on N.oo
qu.m mmw.m mmm.m mmm.m

_moz .ouzeoca Feepmc mx\mz
npozvoga meumc my

m_euz .mxmgcw m: _mpoe

 

&w.m_ &N.PF &¢.o_ &o.v_ xm.oF

xm.w &m.m~ xm.op &m.n

 

 

ocou xoop

Accounmuv mmumo

 

mu $00,

 

m megh

Fm>wp cwwpoga

 

cowpmm
_w>m_ zmcmcm

 

N.N¢ ¢.N¢ m.mv m.m¢ m.—¢
¢.Nmp _.mmp m.omp m.mmp w.¢mF
mmm.m wm¢.m momno Nmo.o omm.m

m.Pm —.m© m.mm «.Nm o.mm
«.mm m.mm ©.mm F.0m N.Fm
mom.m vmmam mom.m mm~.m mmp.m

Pmoz .pozuoca mepmc mx\mz
aposuoga mepmc my

e_moz .mxmpcw m: _mpoe

 

mmMFTm gopw2m gopwzm ocou ocoo
xoop ope; new: &o¢ xmm

 

N megh

mom—Tm gupwzm gopwzm ucoo ocou
&oop mpmg luv: &o¢ xmw

 

_ megh

 

 

socmwowccm owommewcm ._P wreak

68

treatments in Trial 3. Removing the low protein rations allows for
combining the remaining rations by protein and energy level since it
removes the source of interaction.

At all three energy levels, there is no appreciable difference
between the intermediate and high protein treatments (P>-.2). When the
two protein levels are combined, those cattle fed 68% CS rations were
the most efficient followed by those fed 100% CS rations, while those
fed the high concentrate 100% Conc rations were the least efficient
(P<:.O75).

These conclusions do not agree with those of Harpster (1978)
who observed efficiency of ME use for production of edible beef was
not influenced by ration energy level. Likewise Smith gt_gl, (1977)
concluded that Mcal of metabolizable energy per kg gain did not differ
among rations varying in energy density. However, Prior et_a1, (1977)
reported that in small type cattle, a more efficient utilization of
energy for production of carcass retail product was obtained with a
low energy ration while large type cattle showed only very small
differences in efficiency.

The results of Trial 3 do agree with the conclusions of
Klosterman and Parker (1976) who noted that lower energy rations
were best utilized by early maturing types which consume more feed

per unit of weight.

69

Associative Effects

 

The energy value of a ration is generally assumed to be the
sum of the energy values of the dietary ingredients. However, several
investigators have suggested that the energy value of an ingredient is
not constant but is dependent upon the associative effects (interaction
with other ingredients in the ration). If this is true, then the energy
value of feedstuffs ought to be higher when fed by themselves than when
fed in a mixed ration.

One explanation for this interaction, as proposed by Kromann
(1971), is that the micro-organisms in the rumen use the most readily
available carbohydrate as an energy source. Thus when a ration con-
sisting of both high fiber and high carbohydrate sources is fed, the
high fiber portion is utilized less efficiently.

If, in fact, corn grain and corn silage are used more effi-
ciently when fed alone, then feeding a mixture of them, such as the
68% corn silage, 32% concentrate ration in this experiment, should
give lower than predicted feed efficiency. By weighting the effi—
ciencies (DM/cwt gain) of the 100% CS and 100% Conc rations, the
efficiency of the 68% CS ration can be predicted as follows (excluding
low protein rations): (0.68) (DM/cwt gain for 100% CS) + (.32)
(DM/cwt gain for 100% Conc) = DM/cwt gain for 68% CS.

Predicted Observed
Intermediate protein 711 668
High protein 702 650

70

Comparing the predicted efficiency to the observed efficiency reveals
that there was no depression but actually there was an improvement in
feed efficiency. Those cattle fed the mixture of corn and corn silage
were 6 to 8% more efficient at converting feed to gain than was pre—
dicted based on the efficiencies of each ingredient fed alone. One
problem in validating this comparison lies in the use of 100% concen-
trate rations to determine the efficiency of corn grain. In order to
maintain normal rumen function, it is generally recommended and widely
practiced to include a minimum of 5 to 10% fiber in the diet. By
feeding 100% concentrate rations with no additional fiber, this could
have caused a decrease in rumen effectiveness and thereby depressed
feed efficiency. The extent to which this may have occurred is not

known but this is merely pointed out to avoid erroneous conclusions.

Ration Net Energy Values

 

In Trial 3 net energy values for each ration were calculated
and are presented in Table 12 along with net energy values published
by NRC (1976). Since lack of protein was obviously limiting energy
utilization on the 100% CS, low protein and 68% CS, low protein rations,
these will be ignored in this discussion. Calculated net energy for
maintenance values for 100% CS and 68% CS rations compare very closely
to those of NRC. However, the 100% concentrate rations calculated
values were 5% lower than those of NRC.

Net energy for gain values of 100% CS rations agree very
closely with those of the NRC (Figure 10). NEg values of 100%

concentrate rations averaged 12% below those of NRC. If energy

71

.cowpmcwscmpmu mepme ant cw mgocgm com vmpmzwum.wmm we: mxmpcw m2 .mw:_m> m2 Ao~m_v
umz cpvz cowuuczwcoo cw mscmcgom» cmpzmzmpm m>wpmcmanu mgp mcwmz umpm_:u_mo mew: mm:_m>o

.Aoumpv umz soc» umuowumga mew mm:_m>n

.mepma zen we mx\m—moz cw vmmmmcaxm mew mmzpm> _—<w

 

 

 

 

 

 

wN.P om.P 8N._ NF._ N_._ wo._ mo._ mm.o ew.o upmzou< 8
NZ
me._ we._ we._ N_.F N_._ N_.F _o.F _o._ mm.o nembuweaca
No.N mo.~ mo.N ¢~._ eN.P wo.fi _m._ em._ Pe._ o_m:pu< e
mz
mP.N ON.N ON.N en._ en._ ek._ _©._ mm._ em._ nempuwemca
ew.m_ &N._F &¢.o_ so.ep Rm.o_ &©.m xk.m_ em.o_ &N.N _m>m_ cwwooca
cowpmm
8:08 eoo_ Aocou may mm mm mo &0o_ Fm>m_ amcmcm

 

 

mAm _wwcbv mcowpmm com mszm> xmcwcm pmz .N_ m—nme

72

.mmzpm> xmcmcm pmz vm>cwmao Op umz mo comwcmaaoo .o_ mgzmmu

:25:
6:00 own—mm
ROO— Nance $030..
An_o>o._ do...“ :9: d .53.:—
..3 10.00.. no:.u>v
Iv- 10>..ouno
.“
66““
m 69$
mz iii
uni...“
\“k
L\..Av
\ ‘
pr_ \\\H‘\tav
m2 ‘9

(wa Salaam) Amen; 16M

 

 

 

 

73

utilization increased linearly as more grain was added to the ration
then one would expect NEg values of 68% CS rations to be somewhat lower
than those of NRC due to the low NEg value of the corn. However, this
clearly was not the case. In fact when 32% corn grain was added to the
silage the NEg values of the rations actually improved 4% over NRC and
6% over what would have been expected based on NEg values of the silage
and corn grain when each was fed separately. Clearly, the cattle fed
the mixture of the two feeds were more efficient at utilization of the
energy than the cattle fed each feed separately. These conclusions
support those previously discussed regarding associative effects of
feeds. They are in direct conflict with those of Byers gt al. (1975a;
1975b) who observed NEm and NEg values were depressed 4 to 15% below
the predicted values when corn and corn silage were fed in combination

indicating marked feed interaction.

Cost Summary

 

In yearling steers (Trial 1) the 85% concentrate ration
provided the most economical gains at all corn prices studied. The
40% concentrate ration provided slightly more economical gains than
the mid-switch which was slightly lower cost than the late switch.

At all corn prices studied, the 100% silage ration was the most
expensive by a wide margin. The additional expense of feeding an
all silage ration was a combination of both feed and non-feed costs.

In the Charolais crossbred steer calves (Trial 2) the pattern
was somewhat different. At low corn prices the 85% concentrate pro-

vided the least-cost ration. However at $3.67/bu the 100% silage

74

ration became more economical. At slaughter only 25% of the
all-silage cattle graded choice, however. Had these cattle been
finished out to similar carcass compositions as the other pens,
their feed efficiencies would have declined and feed costs have
risen. The same situation exists with the late switch cattle since
only 50% of them graded choice. The 40% concentrate and mid—switch
cattle were nearly identical in their costs of gain which averaged
approximately $4/cwt gain more than the 85% concentrate cattle.

The results of both steer trials would agree with the work
of Harpster (1978) who determined that corn grain would have to
increase to $5.50/bu before an all corn silage ration would become
least cost. This conclusion was based on steer calves of beef breeds
of cattle. However for Angus x Hereford x Holstein steer calves the
price of corn would need only be $2.50/bu for an all silage ration
to be less expensive.

Similar results were also obtained by Larson _t__l. (1976)
when they detennined that Hereford yearling steers produced the
lowest cost gains when the ration contained 29.4% corn silage.
However, Utley gt_gl, (1975) concluded that both calves and yearlings
fed an all-forage diet returned more profit than those fed a high
energy diet. Neither Larson gt a1. (1976) or Utley gt_al, (1975)
adjusted DM intakes for errors in oven drying procedures which may
or may not have changed their conclusions.

Costs for Trial 3 Hereford heifers are summarized in

Table 14. At all corn prices studied, the intermediate protein,

75

.oo.om .mo ewsmow> moo.we .om< casebw> mom.e

.mem Fmgwcws woman moo.m .mcopmmEPF moo.m_ .mpmcamocg empmcwczo_$mu ”Apzo\wv pampmcoo mmuwga ngpo

.wm.mF .m¢.F .¢F.n u :a\oo.¢m pm vcm mm_.NF .P—._ .om.m u :n\oo.mw pm mmo.w ,mk.o .mm.m u =n\oo.mm pm
“Atom mm .pzo\mv >Fm>wuowamoc .mee cmmn>Om vcm mumpwm :Loo .ccoo yo mwowcmu

. wo<
umou mcwpucm;

Smog meaumac + “moo apwrwomc + masses +

.cwmm p30 gun a c? vwmmmcaxw mew mpmou _—<m

061L050 H pmoo Ummklcoz

pmmgmpcw

n

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.wm ¢¢.mo oo.¢o cm.mo mF.mm m¢.v~ mm.mo mm.mo ofi.No m¢.mo :n\oo.¢w
mm.o¢ m¢.m¢ Fm.om m~.om mm.m¢ ov.mm m_.mm ¢_.¢m mm.mm mu.om :n\oo.mm woven :Lou
m_.mm m¢.mm P¢.mm Po.om an.mm m¢.¢¢ mm.o¢ mm.mm um.nm um.mm :n\oo.mw

“pmoo Peace
Fm.om NN.¢m Nw.om am.om ¢¢.mm _¢.¢o on.Fm mm._m Fm.oo cm.mm :n\oo.¢m
m¢.wm om._¢ mo.mv ww.mq «N.o¢ mm.m¢ oo.n¢ mw.ov an.m¢ mo.m¢ =n\oo.mw mowca :Loo
¢~.om mm.wm w~.mm Fm.mm mo.nm mm.¢m mm.mm mo._m mp._m mm.om :n\oo.mm

unpmou ummd
m¢.w m_.w mp.“ o¢.m Fn.m mo.o_ ©_.w no.5 mn.o mo.m apmoo vmmmucoz
mmmpwm copWZm gogw3m ucou ucoo mumpwm gupPZm goprm 8:00 0:00
&oo~ mum; -uwz xow xmw xoo_ mom; -uwz xoe &mm

—mwg mech
MAN tam _ mFmPLHV zgwsszm “moo .m_ mFDmH

76

.oo.wom .cwmcwsag ucw moodm .mo :wEwpw> m00.3 .om< swampw> momé .ppwm PwLmaE mumxu moo.m

.muwgopsu Ezvmmmpoa moo.m .mcoumwewp Moo.mp .mpmsamoza umpwcwczo_wmo

.mm.m~ .m¢.~ .¢~.n u :n\oo.¢m um ucm mop.mp .FP.F .mm.m u :n\oo.mm um mmod .wm.o .mm.m n :n\oo.mm pm

“Apzo\mv pcmpmcoo mwowga gmgpo

”Anew mm .pzo\mv >Fm>wpuoammc .mes :mmnzom use mumpwm :Lou .ccoo we mmuwgmo

wo<
“moo mcvvmww + pmoo xHTFTUmm +

“moo wcwrvcm;
mczcme

+

u pmoo vmmeucoz
pmmcwpcw

n

.cwmm p30 emu a c? commmgaxm mew mpmoo __<m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n¢.mm no.0m co.mm ww.mm NF.m¢ mm.¢m wm.om mo.Pm vo.mm :a\oo.vw mupcn
oo.m¢ pw.m¢ wo.m¢ mo.m¢ Pm.mm on.m¢ mm.mv mm._¢ m—.¢m :n\oo.mw cpou
NN.Nm mm.Fm mw.om w_.—m om.mm no.mm om.¢m oo.mm ow.~¢ :n\oo.mm
”pmoo Payee
om.mm mm.om o¢.m¢ mo.o¢ ~_.N< mo.mv ~m.m¢ Pm.m¢ mw._m :n\oo.qw mopga
mw.mm mo.wm om.mm n_.mm om.mm mo.mm om.mm mm.mm «m.o¢ :n\oo.mm cpou
om.om mw.mm mm.mm mm.¢m mm.m~ m¢.¢m mm.om ¢N.m~ mw.mm :n\oo.mw
onpmoo vow;
mn.m NN.m mm.m ow.o mm.© vo.w mo.m mm.w —m.m_ npmou vmmwncoz
&w.mp &N.FF x¢.op &o.¢F xm.o_ &o.m xm.m_ &m.op &N.N Fm>mr :wmpoga
cowbmm
mpmgucmocou fioop Aocooumuv mmnwo mmm_wm :Lou fiOOF Pm>mF amgmcm

 

 

mfim mecev acmEE=m pmou

.qr mFQmH

 

77

68% silage, 32% concentrate ration was least cost. At approximately
$2.25/bu corn, the intermediate protein, 100% silage ration became
more economical than the unsupplemented 100% concentrate ration.
At all prices, the unsupplemented 100% silage ration was the most
expensive.

These results agree well with those from the Ohio Station
by Klosterman and Parker (1976) and Newland (1976) who concluded that
heifers made greater economic returns when fed an all silage ration

versus an all concentrate ration.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions

were made:

1.

All cattle performed as expected from the energy level fed
except in Trial 2 where 100% silage cattle gained faster

than expected.

In Trial 3 the protein requirements of the heifers fed the

100% silage and the 68% silage rations were met by the
intermediate level of 10.9% while protein requirements of

the cattle fed the 100% concentrate ration were met by the
high moisture corn with no additional soybean meal needed.
Cattle fed high silage averaged 1.6% lower dressing percentage
in steers and 0.8% lower in heifers than cattle fed high grain.
In Trials 1 and 3 energy level had little effect on marbling
score or quality grade while increasing energy level did
significantly increase fat thickness and yield grade while
reducing rib eye area and % retail product at an equal carcass
weight.

In Trial 2 energy level had no effect on external fat thickness
or muscling but 100% silage rations produced carcasses with

lower marbling scores and quality grades.

78

10.

11.

12.

79

Protein level had no effect on carcass characteristics in
Trial 3.

In Trial 1, differences in ME/kg retail beef were small,
except those fed on the mid-switch program tended to be

most efficient.

In Trial 2, those fed the 85% concentrate ration continuously
required the least ME/kg retail beef produced.

In Trial 3, considering only adequately supplemented rations,
those heifers fed 68% CS rations were the most energetically
efficient followed by those fed 100% CS rations, while those
fed 100% Conc rations were the least efficient.

Dry matter efficiencies and ration net energy values indicate
that the heifers performed better when fed a mixture of corn
and corn silage than when each ingredient was fed alone.

In Trials 1 and 2, steers made the most economical gains

when high concentrate rations were fed.

In Trial 3, heifers produced the lowest cost gains on ade-
quately supplemented high silage rations while 100% Conc

rations were competitive at low corn prices.

APPENDIX

8C)

Table A.1. Total Feed Consumption (as fed/cwt. gain).a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

852 402 Mid Late 100%
Gone. Conc. Switch Switch Silage
TRIAL 1
Corn silage, tons .19 .81 .75 .99 1.60
Shelled corn, bu. 12.5 6.6 8.0 5.6 ---
Supplement, lbs. 35.0 55.5 44.5 55.4 89.6
TRIAL 2
Corn silage, tons .16 .72 .54 .83 1.15
Shelled corn, bu. 10,9 5,0 8.2 4.6 ---
Supplement, lbs. 49.0 67.8 50.9 65.6 88.6
TRIAL 3
RATION Energy level 1002 CS 68:32(CS:Conc) 100% Gone.
Protein level 7.7 10.9 13.7 8.6 10.9 14.0 10.4 11.7 13.8
céin silagejitons 1.67 1.0 1.0 177.8 .7 .6 o" o o
Shelled corn. bu. o o o 4.7 3.6 2.9 12:1 11.4 10.8
Supplement, lbs. 13 62 113 9 44 89 12 '30 59

 

a

aAdjusted to 35%, 84.5% and 90% DM for corn silage, shelled corn and soybean
meal, respectively.

Table A. 2. Weight and Composition of Initial Slaughter Cattle (Trial 3).

 

 

No. of Shrunk Carcass Dressing Carcass Carcass
animals weight, kg weight, kg 2 gprotein, Z fat, Z

6 196.5 110.8 56.4 17.17 21.94‘

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

000. 000. 000. MR. 000. 00... 02.. we. . 0:”. 3:85 300 08 02
30. 040. 6.30,. no». 33.. «0e. 02. no». «,0. 32035 302353 .80 mz
3703 $0.03 33.03 000.03 000.00.... 92.63 03.0.0." 02 .3..." 03.03 3035 50.303000 5330...“:
02.30. 02.02.. 3.0.00.0 sou .03 00050.. 000.000 03.2: 03.03 000.03 3: 033 00 9:05 .080 03:
nm~.~0~ «3.3... $0.03 03 .00“... 30.05 0.1.0.2.. Noo§m~ 000.. .03 000.03 350: 00a 303335 m: .3000
0.3.3 03.3 000.3 000.3 $0.3 $1.3 0.6.0.3 000.3 30.3 285 335 ”E :08
2!. 0:. MN». 000. $0. 000. N00. 30. 30. 32:35 03.5 a“ 0302
0.3.0 03.0 30.0 00.0.0 03.0 02; So.» one .0 0.8.0 2020500 + .5810: .3000 .22
£3... moo.m mom..: 2.0... mmfiéa mmo.m ONO)» own... .33.: 33500000000050.0180 >33 .22
000.30 ~30: 000...: 000000 000.000 30.3,... 000.30 2:. .00.. 0.3.2” 28508 500 .355 .03.
02.0.3 32.30 30.»: 03.2: 000.30 000.03 20.0.: 0~e.03 20.: 3300302000 000 8053
30.03 000.03 “3.03 n: .23 0.00.03 2.0.2: 000.2: 000.03 000.20 2355380 5...» .335 .03
~03... 000.0: 35.00 0.6.0 .3 000.? 000.00 35.0... 000.00 000...... Scuuflfifiaw 539a 60803.
0.3.2.6. .0333 2.0.0:” N00 ...00 30.2... 0.3.000 13.00... 000.000 0.3.0.; 0335 :0: >060 30am
004.3 03.3 03.3 03.3 000.00 02:3 0%.? 02.3 00.0.3 333 :0 3000 00302
000.000 000.000 000.mo~ 000.00~ 000.m0~ 000.00N 000.0r~ 000.0- 000.00n 0000.:.0ss_
000.0,: 000.00» 000.0: 02 .00... 000.0: 03.0.: 005.0: 000.02 03.000 33 :2: :63 .33 .395
$6.23 03.3 0.3.00 000 .0~ 08.00. 03;... 000.8 30:3 20.0...” ~25 .03 33 300.0 N
03.3 000.3 000.3 03 .2 00.0.3 03.3 000.3 000.3 000.00 1335 .03 >060 580 N
30.3 000.3 08.3 20.3 30...: 30...: 03:: 02.0.“ 000.2 :50 .5323 .33 .305 u
80.: 000.: 000.3 000.2. 000.5 000.3 000.: 000.: 000 .2 3305 .5380 .63 be... a
000.0; 000.34 000.00.. 000.03 000.0; 000.20 000.0? 000 .03 08.3.. 23 .0: 1.305 6,0262.
Nw.m~ vacuumwwwwo noofi N0.o~ No.0H Nm.o~ Neda Nn.m~ Nm.o~ Nm.n Hu>oq :«ououm

 

«uncoumuv unumc

 

uwmflfim choc Rood

Ho>oA mwuocm onH<z

 

Am meepv memewm: 0eoemem: Op 000 meowpmm eo mm:_0> amewcm #02 mo cowpm_:o_0u m.< 0—00»

. ”fir-m

 

I).

 

SIEFR§.(IRIAI

\.

PH
{Finn Rafi E

D
RADE

{EL

TUAL
AT;
CH

C- :EAT,D.. %
cu

D
B a.
RADE... CM

QUAL

mm ’ G

wHOT
. CAnc.--
NL KG

ADG;
KG

{AL
JB

F1:
HI.

KG

1

INITIAL
EED NI

DAES
o
F

1".
0L_

EN A
981 N

 

 

DownN0~0003NooIINOHMAN
00000000. 0000
NP)MP)NNNMNMM~;P)F)IOMNMN

mmmmeon~m~um3mu~oao¢m
0000.00.00.000000000
«1.7-mud :JWJO‘900‘33mno-ucn
NONQNNNQNMNNOQOOSOO

mmmommmommmmmoomoooo
0.00.0000... 00.0.
«%N« n nnnacunénnunwn

N: 000‘ DONG 0'
ca 40¢ 4:04 a
00 000 0000 0
Ha « «awn

NNAM I‘DOdNQNQuDNKNN‘oNNN
oUtanksvaszNNNNouooo
00000000000000.0000.
H00“ .4 v4 tic-Odd ddfl

:ock‘ooemmNnamooon:
wJJNNNHQNDNJQ 1:.tocv0v-t
0.000000000000000...

fidv-O «a dfldfiflfifldfldd

QOODU‘OOOOOOOOOOHODHO
«v4.4 dddddfl Hdflflddev-l

ONHNO‘NNNNNNNNHNHHHJ‘N
v-(Hv-d dddHHAv-«HHv-(HHHHA

”OOO‘NNONnCONQv—(JU‘NWN

00000000000000.0000.
mmnmvdmoQJO‘o-ahv-aNMDNv-om
00“?“0'07’3NH107‘DNL‘dJKC‘T
NNNMNNnnnnMNnnnnnmw

HQJKONNOMDO‘O’HDO‘M‘DJOPWO
nN~.¢.r-v:nwnN'-rno':msf~co
000.000.0000 .0000
«Hadudnddndufiddfidwua

on:m::oor~:~r~~~aa~o~v~amu

0.000000000000000...
“(J-3‘ ' :Uf0uu'ncflh's J N00nlnm® J
fidO‘dO‘wC)JLhMU\\DO‘JU‘NLnO‘NN
4 UNJQD 7.7 :Inmmmc'mnmmmmc 3

0030's «QMmJnoo Hhcokhcb

OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOOOO
N30m:mokou~noamaosma
Jaht-Jétxduowm.‘ O‘rumomm
mnnmnnmaélJnafl:”Jcnn

NMML" FNMMMNKMMMMKMNN
od‘oooooa‘wo‘ono WO‘oc‘oo
o-l ’00-‘04“ 0400 H 04.4

Nmonoowkmowcnooowmom
flfiflNNNNanJJmmthO

82

ONKOQoocomm005nmo~~~
0.0.0000000000000000
HNMd4nM«MH~dNNHWNMMN

Ocnnaauuauuunwwm3knk

00000000000000.0000.
N:a«uo~bwsfim~:mm:a~c~o
Nhkootskhkckohooshkhh

oczuzcimmooommmomummoou:
0 000000000000000
«MthMNnHN ~u~~~n~nn~

N w o o «N: 0
No as o N mod N
00 0. 0 0 0.0 0

w «a

muowkNO0N~@KOQONNGOO

mmNKNQNNOONNNNNOONKN

00000000000000.0000.
a“ H“ d

:QK:”ON‘O JJONKNKUSNKNN
i h Néo .1 ob «msoNowtvoNNo

nae-0099:9090: flOOV-Odflo
«v4 «flaunfiwfld «dc-odd

on«o@N«~N«~Nn¢o~¢::N
fidflNHHde flddfld

¢Nm¢DNQHV~N®m®®n¢NcNKN
00000000000000.0000.
090050»: JOCooc‘oflO‘O‘Odev-I
moNvJ‘Wt)N~:rO c0330 1””0‘“
NMDNHMMNNNNNMMNFO'OP’N”

#NO‘Oth‘mdwd‘o .2 Jed“ 3d:
0"" fJNM30Nv-‘WO‘HU‘K34 70‘”
0.000000000000000...
fififiduuu «flu «a «an H

mnoo~¢:a~a~mao::mmm.vor~
00000000000000.0000.
Jonlnmqmmmoaxmfitswmn .ru
stum~mm~uow0¢3mr~~0mr~m
:mwnmmm0m 3m: :u‘mmnuxsm

:0~«:ooaomooomncowmo
.....0........00...0
an‘D“?~U\Lfi.ffi‘°ON~YF‘fid'-“IP\D
nm°u\o‘0r“ O‘lhfscf‘ J‘IJ'mo-fl\o
MMJMJn0nnnnnn0n::Jn4

brownhmmhhsnrshnhmmhhm
DU‘O‘OOO‘O‘OOUO‘OOO‘OO‘O‘U‘OO‘
H «H «cu-4 0'0". v4 .4

000.1 yd-Onm'N-«HJ gum-om 1"
dNNnJCOOQ¢NTO‘O‘@

102

>—

2:

\

O

U

<

- I

:3 P

H H

"CD s

F" m

I m

E" O

V) C!

I O.

I o

-(J 2

:m <

0

u 0‘ (0

+01 U
4" -Q
L0 2*“
+ com
(9 ‘03
as ““’

'0:
«act-5
lunuLJZ

(2:3
_Hl< W
I!) crow
OLSON
«(Z
0. CIIX
w-CDPL)
tum—*0“
KUCD 32
0C: >F-

u<>—m
«nan: P
o f3<
L9 0 LI.

z>dUP
~P4-<_J
J—un£¢(
“3.13.03
¢r<‘H~k
‘33:};

>2

KQLHDN

 

 

Tab1e A.4-Continued

"s. Fifi
Z

c .Fi¥;n. 5E1¥5L

EIELD
~p

REA
Chi

I

CM CM

find.
A AT,
3 CM

 

QUAL
RADE

..LMARA£_;G

0T
CARC.-
e

ADG;

INITIAL FINAL
,_KG___ WT,

ED

DAYs
A IN. ON

E."

 

 

NOODNHNNON005601033H
00000000000000.0000
NflflNNHMMNNNNNNN «FINN

ssoc «kw-«mt: «wwhmoadcmd
00.0000000000000.000
NON-0.1Loo-kmnvm.arrv.:o~r-.mm om
NOO‘NNWohNhoNNw-ohrsoh

monomommummmouuzomomm
000000000000 00000
HHflH N~«N«d«;~:qzv4nwd

:«woo~.aso~~oooso~~~a~~~
mmrnkouxNhokmbNoowmoo
9.00 .000000000000000

v-O .4 v4 ...-('4 odd

0&0 tOéOo~DKG~3~DO~¢3Q3JJ
bur-okfi'onhmcfilsmmomdna
00000000000000000000

H v" H H vii-«4H

dado V‘OV‘O‘OODVIOOGQOODO‘
Hflflfiv‘flfi H “Viv-404'! fififl

”NnHMflWO‘NON-‘YNNNQNHNO‘
«flaw-{drove .4 flflHw‘fi a“...

IOU‘IDWNNNsDov-aoLfiNN-domcmh
0.000000000000000000
O‘flooooc-MONMMQHNNNJNH
0‘27: LC.‘":-4~3.-u-a.¢-r:ro 'Trv-vcmo"
Nnnwnnnmmnnwnwmwnwnw

NdONJMmNG‘OdO‘QNmmfinM
NMpanNondeO‘NC‘HU‘O‘Ov-OO‘
00.000000000000.00..
«dfldflwddddd H d «H

Nosnonaumnwomhoaonmn

00.00000000000000000
WNWOmoa‘aMfTchN-aJmmdmo
thc JfldmNMNdoOUflwnfxOv-fl
meh :mmwnmmm:m .3me in! m

NNMMNQNQ:09« «nowmmcm
.0000..0000000000...
onwomamvkuaa:oyno~mo
on44m-u~ocrc-Nmo~~c~u ...-1
n¢4m4n4nmmfiflanmn4nc:

LNN(.~NNQ¢).‘C his mkmhouk
NOONOQONNNNOONONO NNca
.4de dddddddddddfidddd

hmv‘m 000540 GDQNONO‘N'DQO
«NI-'3 r04 mmmmehknrro‘a‘d‘o
.1

E33

Nitzcziaih U‘OOHJU‘NV‘NJU‘Q

NWNWHHNN NM NN nwmnwa"!

0000.4«1mn0'm35mm anu‘mnn
00000000000000.0000.
WMONmoafiNM'OQHVJNv-flu‘nmfl
NQNNNNNNMQNNOQONNOQ

omoottomuzemczmomooooom
.... 0 0 00.00.00.

dNNv‘NdvzvaN vzfiNHdflNNHN

OONQm ~34~a~okwo~~os~w~
900900 00-00-096" Nomhdamu
00000 00000000000000

0‘ o-t “000-004 «a «an H

0400‘ \DNLOonO‘NOACNU‘O‘Dmv-ON
mots Nohh ummhkol'kkhmo
000 0000000000000000

w H .4 .4 04

IOO‘NJNOG‘ONNWODNO‘NN‘OJN
NONIDU-JchONNU‘I‘O‘TNNNON
0.000000000000000000

v1 rev-1 04H" 'v-a .4 H

owooooaoafio-oa‘ohadooo
HdHfiI-‘Hflfldfl v-0 .4 dfiwwq

«HNNNaNHNHNa‘HNNHNNN
fidHflHHfiHflC-G .4 rd 94040-10004

OdJNmmOOONU‘O‘ommv400hN

00000000000300.0000.
d‘DffiNNU.ONm«MHONv-4~DNHO
v-‘NLJn'ON‘DnOJNLCZ‘MJO‘MM'rcwx
MMHNMMNNNMP’NMMNHMNNM

”mucwmmommemombmo-c
OO‘QdO‘MQG‘O‘OuQuMTQH‘JoN
00000000000000.0000.
v-O 040-1 ...fi «.4 «.4 Ha H

cmusu‘onomgooosussmm

0.000000000000000...
OHOuMIQv-ANO.rv-Ah.v0~roLomu~.\DOMD
fiN—JQMU\HNP~M®Q\DU‘O‘MU‘G‘0~4
mwn 9mmm: :mm: mm :mm: 3-0

ONGLNDDUVOLBO‘OKIOJNNOQLDO
00000000000000.0000.
kmammfi‘ov‘ HQ'OO‘N‘UO‘U‘ODU‘M
'OO‘GDJHNNU‘ md‘ijwooo‘ncm
nnnn4nnnnm nJJn:J”m:

comm-noocmooo 01010030.) 00..
NNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNN
flfldddd ddddddddddHo-fidd

HJTdfihchwmmeJde©o0
«nanmnaemmOQNhomwono

ES
...—1

NlC SCANOPROBE, lTHAco, N.Y.

I
2:
«LJ
3')
II N
+ -
..ll! 0
U) m
+ 0::
L9 ‘03
:30 °
umeZ,
0:)
_Jl|< W
Lf) (row
ovum
«:7;
.. <52):
m-czkc)
mun—~—
OtLLCD I
on >-r-
U<>-cn
:0an l—
o q<
(3 gun.
z>—w+—
—-r-l—<.J
..Io—wic‘t
634:)":
Cz<’))-t-
(sac/3U
59me
Account“

 

Tab1e A.4-Continued

 

Sui

“J g N3~DN0~4~0NVONO H0 3 Hanan

fix .0.......... 0......

W HHWNNNNHCVNFTN NNMNNPJN
3f m0n1M‘DkNHaoo-a Jon-«nous
mu 000000000... .00....

a: mHH-J'UJHQUHDHJN ~0o~omuxm

schbhhhokhhc koosooh

‘

EEZEQ ommmmooommmo ommamoa
00000000.... 0.00.0.

um. H HH HHHHHHN NHMHHNH
.w

J

< ‘ 4w~0~¢0~~oc~¢ .1 NNNHOQH
3": wmowwommco (D ooomhhm
F<U 00000000.. 0 0000000
é?- H H HHH

G

' ‘ moNNJoooooNoomeNowH
PJ’: NhNowthhNokhoNOuhhm
W<U 00009000004000.0000.
l“? Hd H H

'U

' ‘ JdO‘O‘OQG‘v-ONONO 00"»400‘0
“fi—fl ommmsuomoswk ”wahoh
D<U 000000000000 0000000
an. H H HH

:1:

_JI-I-l

¢1§ omoocooomcoo 0000900

:3 HNHHHHH HHH H H fid

cam

L9

‘4

m vaQNv-de-J-QO‘flNd flO‘NQHNQ
é HMHHHHH HHH H H HH

2:

.@ N¢OnéchNNHM mO@QNHJ
PU! 000000000000 0000000
0 a: NO‘H: mmoHocwo Mocmmcn
-< 4 muowwmmo~~4N QNQHNOd
Flgh NNMMNNMNMNnn NMNMMNM

;:

. ‘ I
cum ommnwncmnmnowohNGMJm
O x homozcswrarsoooors JO‘HDNQ
< 00.00000000000000000
H H HH HH H HH
homuwmm Hu'uDHuua: ammo

00000000000000.0000.
comm H~QMMM~QO¢mcmMNJM
NmHMNmauNmo3Mthmm¢~
43mm .1‘1-anm0mmm 3-90mm0m

@HMoMN$O~NO‘U~¢QNJD¢Mm

00000000000000.0000.
«van»: "0‘ awoémoNWNNmeo
NLQDW$WWMNWMGBM¢QN¢fi
Mnn:nmmm4nqcnn:nmcn¢

Goon mocoocomcommncoo
NNNN NNNNNNNNAINNNNNNN
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHV‘HH

QNMHJOJOH0mNJmn®¢JOH
”HNNNK‘MJJ J mmmshnmo'w

 

 

 

>-
2:
s
O
U
<
. z
I: F
#4 *‘
"CD \
H LU
I m
5%" 53
I- ' O.
I ‘3
°U z
D5 <
O
"0‘ U)
a»
+ U
A” ~
{D Z
+ 9,
‘9
N <
:n 'm
O‘KF‘
"“NUJ_
DZ)
Jfl‘<
V) KC)
unau
00 <
.43

ITHA
CTUAL FAT THICKNESS MEASURED.

 

.ARBLING SCORES

SUALITY GRADfig
DJUSTED av
ESTIMATED av

in
B
C
D.-
EA

 

I V£S (TRIAL 2L

DJ.‘ EST. A TUAL
AT,c . AT,D. .EAT, E
CM0

Ct‘L

{'GAND

.I

i EIELD
cm RADE_

REA

H
AT,.
2

CM

 

. QUAL
BA GRADE3

ARC .

4—_H0T
C
WT;

ADG,”
KG

FINAL
WTIEKS

INITIAL
HT, KG

DAYS
0N
FEED

Aflé'f'

PEN
106

 

 

_NoI

QJOOONOdN-zfla‘Nv-M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
dNNNfiNNszNflNNNN

HmnondeJU‘OQOIO

000000000000000
OONNONNQOHHDNQU‘
O‘U‘O‘NO‘GO‘NQOSOOQO

oomommmmomoomu‘m
000000000000000
NNdHfldddfldflNv‘v-ON

:flOVDJNdOdOJJO
(‘mNF-QDU‘NU‘NOVCN
0 0

040

ms

000 0000000000
04

JNNNQJO‘NDSOOWDfV3N-3
\ODDNOHONN‘CNQfiOd
000000000000000

HfiH 04 0404-404

aocnscoooooeaooo
H HHHHH HHHH

O‘NO‘NONNNHNQNHHH
fifldfl v4 04040-104

HsonnooodeoNHN

000000000000000
OJNHowoNuH~D~D~oHJ
F~U‘JDJ‘1‘U"3“\JMN¢JU’\P§J
nnnnnnnwnnnnnnn

mowemwoonrsonoc
:nnwamnoneJmNO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'30
HHHdHH" HHHH .403

”ddeDU‘MNOdN‘DJN
00000000000000.
C‘dNMNflOAv-OHNOJOO‘ID
OmHmmoJmowrsoJHm
mums tmmmmnmwmmmm

on:m:~m~ ooocaom
.0000000. 00..
a co samaNNn tU‘J 1‘0
('u‘JJNN0400o-ou. h:
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

NNNH'CNNNNNH 04040-001
HHHO‘OHHHHHU‘O‘O‘O‘O‘
NNNHHNNNNNHHHHH

ononowo‘mmno-fins
flflflvoNMf’)M .: .2 mmkmm
O‘O‘U‘O‘U‘O‘O‘O‘G‘O‘G‘G‘O‘O‘O‘

107

85

aHa~oranona~r~c~HHm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
nNHNMNnHMN HNNN

M30H¢OMOHOQLDJNJ

000000000000000

M”.f~00ddn¢lNNmDNN

OOO‘O‘OOOUNO‘HO‘OOO
d 00

momtcuzoooamommm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VOINNnnganv-Iflvdnfil

OOO‘NKN4HNNHOOO‘N
JflcleOv-OWNV‘IDNO‘JN
000000000000000
'4 “04"“ '00-! 00

JNNNQoNoKNwDOSDNN
HDOQNNQNNQNNKOD
000000000000000
040-00400 H «H 0404

moawwmoomovaoasa-o
whommc:kwhm:c¢:
000000000000000
H HH H HH H H

OOONNONOHHONON H
HHHHHHHHHH HHH

HOMOHKOU‘ #QBONU‘
HHHHHHHHHH HHH

annNOHmoNHHQnNO
00000000000000.
\DNJmOJNNNCCO-730-CN
CJNJ’ "N 7F-mJMN30‘\D
nnnnnnnnwnnnnwn

JNNU‘mnnHfldQJ-fko
{DOMUONNG‘NNHMO‘N
0000 00000000000
H.174“ ddv-‘H "04740-1 04

OdcmcfiNMM3HflO0-0h

0000.0000000000
mNU‘IOO‘Huu‘HmHuofim
930mmwam~mHJom
\Dmmlh .fll‘umncmmw-m .1 In

O‘NDSDNONLNAJO‘NDO 0'05
0 0000000000000
O‘NNN 3H0 mcurenstmouo
‘00 kac:4"‘~:¢.m:nuxh
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

nnnn nnmnnmnmnmm
nnnn mnnnmnnmnmn
NNNN NNNNNNNNNNN

wO-flrmH :NHQ :OHr-no
G‘O‘OUUNV’PIM: J'PKK-o'f‘
mowmo'o'o‘oa‘u‘ovmm

>-

z

's

O

U

<

o I
D I—
H H
no \
H m
I m
Z" O
V) C5
I CL
I 0
«LJ 2
m 4
U

I] 's U)
:1”! U .
L0 :zfa
4' cm
L9 W3
&3 25‘"
«arkfi
"cow-.11:
Q:
.1" < U)
V) 0:00)
LDOUUJ
<2
.. <I¥
m-cakc)
Samar—~0
MUD I
CC) >V"
u<>—¢n
mecca l-
0 a4
(.9 Q "-
Z>-I.IJO'-
~PP<J
..J—ami“
CDJD~ZJ
«('70—’-
(DQWU
§ZO<CLAJ<§
mUQW

 

Tab1e A.5-—C0ntinued

2 FE?
Z

REA IELD
EN‘i ERADEE

I

CM

c Ei¥10 Afl¥fL
CM

DJ I
AT,
CM

, QUAL
MARBA GRADEB

C 0T
ARC.
HTS KG

ADG,
KG

FINAL
WT; KG

INITIAL
HT. KG

DAYS
0N
FEED

ARST'

108

 

0
OJ:

 

 

MNoHfiO‘OU‘I-hlflvfi’dvm
0000000000000000
mnmNnv‘v‘NnNnNNNNn

fiat-:NGQVDQN'OQETLZKD

QOOOQONNOO‘ GOOD

QDU‘ Od‘ll‘ om omco CHINA
0000000000000000

NHNNNHNNNHNNMHHN

JNJONOV‘I‘QHNNNQQD
dNHhU‘MU‘IDNmQOQMNJ
00-00000-0000000
HHH H HH HHv—l H

NNNNNNDCOJNLDNNNNNDH

ONOU‘H3NU‘N'DNNOO‘N
:JJfi'CmoUIm'a tNNh'Dln
0 0000000000..
40104 '04

G‘OflONQSQ :U‘Hoocm
HH H

a‘flJQQQMNNU‘JQNNW
041-1 H HHH v4 fid d

NNNQV‘SNIAIDCOHNONN

0000000000000
mod’KDNfDD NONE-IN UNO‘O
U‘IJJ“'-' :4m”m1~‘.u."‘a~1
nnnmnnmnmmnmnnnn

Noa‘om: .70 Num” ovum
HHNHU‘QMN HH HDQP" H'J

00-00000-0000000
H0404“ HHHNHHHHHHH

Nm011dzuvlf. nae 0‘01 :1
0

H‘NQJCO _; “'4 :P’)

unnmm.’ u’u mm: mlnmmmmm

Cid-:C‘U‘I'002viPzNNOO‘DON
0

NN‘NNNNNNNNNNCJNM

”GODDDOIJ013DLIOD
44:44::444434444
NNNNNNNNNNNNN NNN

30"" am -DI\I~H¢INL a
O‘c‘vIv-H‘IN’“ ’JJU' \DLD'D ’3‘
6017‘ MOO‘OG‘OOv‘U‘U‘V'

86

OontkoczHfitram—iotkt
0 0 I 0 0 0 0
HP;~H"’~~I-)~N~HMH>H~

r:3mo:v:0:oa~m:m—wz4oo
- 0 0 0 0 0

Nlrgmk mHNwmmoovmm

msooooownhvswosom
H

mmommmmau\mamaumm
000.000.000.000.
HNHHMHHHHHNHnnHN

QNG‘JNO‘QNO‘OHU‘NNDv-«D

‘OCOOCNNQJU‘NU‘NU‘N
0000000000000...
v‘ v4 H d V!

omoHHmHmoaHmooc:

Hwommkmo NQmNnhmo

0000 .0000'0
H

QNNQNOO‘O ONOQH~010

KNONN NBTIJOinUIU‘I‘K‘O’D
000000000 00000.
H“ 00 adv: 04

O‘NU‘OWU‘NHOQDODDOU‘
vi 040‘ “04 H 04"
O‘N0‘ch‘haooNnHNoO‘
H HH HH H HH

mnkaNJw HQFO‘OG‘NW
00-00-00 .00....
HmeomJQJH v-hDLl‘N NaH
LNNHmv-SJ :0 ”WV" LIONCJL.

MM mnmm¢m~‘nnn ton

mHJO‘OO‘JKMNiNHmU‘N
H mowing-4H ”90‘ r; nmac
0000 00000000000
H "HHHHH

OmoowmfinfihmmNmHH

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
gm’q NISN‘:|.\I\I':UOHO o-OHH
U‘DWNHJHIV" M- NNO‘UHI‘
mmm¢mxaln®In~nmunowmvn

NNJNHfTVZNOmefiH

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

mmmmmmmmmu-mmmmu‘m
NNNBNNNNKNNI-NBNN
~~~~~~N~NNN~N~~~

fiNmrsH DNNO 1‘ uoN ya .4
U‘m'J‘O‘ootJ" 1.1mm»; 20"”-
o-‘nno‘u‘a-oo‘o‘n-wa‘u‘ma‘

as
C)
H

 

>—

z

‘

O

O

<

- 2‘.
E) #-
,—‘ —1
HO ‘
r—i u:
I 03
Ell O
A m
I m
I O
-~L) Z
:n <
U

[I -‘ U)
+07 U
.1“ “'-
Da 2:8
0::

In:

N gm
“mhfi
"cow—J}:
O:
..Jil< W
n mtam
OOUI-U
(Z

.. qxx
m-OPU
wuxO—‘*
mLm: I
00 >-’—
u<>—m
warm I-
o B<
0 D “-
z>vuJP
~r—k-(J
__1~mi<
mJD--D
«(fit—f-
(BOWL)
ficriukg
(munw

Tab1e A.5-Continued

6K"
2

* ST. A
C. HEATID .E
CM,

E_

IELD
RAD

E

REA
cmi

’ .

TUAL
AT,
CM

T:
CM

.EE

. . DUAL
MAREA GRADEB

”’Hor
.CARc.
NT, KG

ADG,
KG

FINAL-
HI, KG

INITIAL
NI, KG

DAYS
0N
FEED

 

Arm:3

 

 

 

BEN
h

110

mur~noo30~~oo~~or~n~oh
0000......OOO...
NNHNHNNHHHH"NMHH

NOO‘QQLUMDLAG‘v-«DQOMQ

00......00000000
n¢~3mr~m~~oH~H03H3
OOOKOONCQOQO‘KKON

UDDQDU‘U‘OOIflDU‘U‘DOLfl
0000000000000...
NNNNflHHdHfifiHdNHQ-Q

JOHH'MDO‘NHJQGLIN 4
okmmmkcmmonan fl
00000000000000 0

H '“

HJOddOOHLfl‘OIflv-‘U‘mdw
monmmhthhNu‘NNmk
0000000000000...

NOVDNDQLDNQ'Ov-dd :Oé‘ONc
NNKQNNNmmOWCNMM
000000000000000
d

1.52

U‘Dfio 94K QU‘OQQOO‘OONO
v4 d H d

O‘NU‘MNOO‘OOQOO‘QNNN
'4 d v4 d

Ib~fN~Do~D®v4Q'°flo~OO‘NO

0000000000000000
onmocHoemmokmnmu
m'c\N'.)H.:.-¢Mmr):mnr_ynuo
nnnnnnmnnnnmnnnn

kwm:Hnnnnoo¢omon
HQHQHHG‘HQO‘NOIQQOM
0......0.......0
HHHHfiH dd "ddflflfi

meNQNuoéJJO‘JNu-OQ
................
N'Dn‘OHDO'MO‘JMMQFJHQ
\DOHO‘NOC‘MHO‘mNNO‘mO‘
mmmcmu‘ 1mm tmmm mun

:nm:~N¢osnnooomo

......O...0.0...
JO@ONH@JNOONNMMO
50:14commmmoonmo
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

NNNNNNKKKFFKNNKK
34:43:3407JJQJ 3::
NNNNNNNNNNNNN‘UNN

”NQ‘O'OLDNNND Qme “N?
0‘0 0001”"‘4 U-murner roamn
00‘00‘0‘0‘0‘0‘0‘ 00‘0‘0‘0‘00

87

>-
2:
‘ s
O
U
<
o I
I: P
H 0—0
"CD s
H “l
I m
in O
:0 m
.l m
I’ O
-%J 2
U! 4
U
“0‘ 07
a:
isn ‘J '
H
to 213
+ 13m
LD ‘03
N (U,
:0 “25
-\KF‘
“GDW—JZ
0:)
J" < m
w “833
“30
4‘2
o. (I!
”.42P-U
wuxn—‘~
«fit: I
DC) >?‘
£J<>-m
”(Km F
G 8“
0 a W
Z>HUP
"F‘Pth
J-*m§:<
m.JD-D
«‘15F-F
#532;ng
KQLHDu‘

 

 

s. 133%,

ES?
1

ARCASS CA
ROiEIN,

REA: Mag

TUAL
AT;
CM

CM

 

.f92%;c. “F2¥;v“?
CM

QUALB

 
   
  
  
 
   
    
  
    
  
  
  
  

 

 

been .7 N DNONn
aiqnm 's o Nmmono
O o O O O O O o O O
UMDU‘ N 0 oflv-dNO‘
NN“ N N NNMNN
“\Jo v1 N o‘uvoko
Mum H b 0000.?
O O O 0 O O O I O 0
005 h- m Nomhu‘
“Nd N '1 Hfldflfl

commoowooo~uoumscso~
....OOOOOOOOOOOOO...
«Nd HNNNN Nrc~~~~vov< «NNN

mSDONO‘onmO‘NmNNMMKIfim
....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOQO
mmfinntomoo~33Weods "Lam
mosmhomoohmoomkoosm

mmmooomommmucomOQcaom
O Q 9 0

no ooooooooaooooo
NNNNMNNNNNNnnNNNNHFDN

COfimNmJQO‘QuomemQ-QC'U‘

nhu‘NNnfifi onmnNKMNMHV‘N

......OOOOOOOOOOQOO.
N v.

maam~o34 JdudddaddsDOv-d

NewmanOoommmmmnmmhnm

00000000000000.0000.
H

QC‘JdmNJ-SSDNHflfiQdJmu-‘NQO

Mommmsocnommmnmommmnn
Oooooooooooooooooooo
v1 d '4 v4

concooooooohhoc—«nhorso
v-c adv-4 v4 «'4 fl

U‘ONmNHOQfiU‘U‘NNOHJNQNm
fl flfld V4 flv-O fl

oomc4r~mcnna~nr~u~¢amc~mom

......OOOOQOOOOOOIO.
mmmoommoowmwocaomaa‘o
:«wwV-‘Wm‘fimdmmmovqmaumcn
fifdfidPJNHflNNflNdNNdNqu-q

mQONH‘vaOONmONQQHNOv-fi
.fm 1 momwm mm: szLthI-somu‘un
......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

WNO‘MNQNMMN’NNMOKKONJd

......OOOOOOOOOOOOO.
no‘onmmmmwmc :mkc'lhma'r’)!”
ommmounmanovstonmoHN
NMVNVJ 3MP! :mnnfimmmmrnm

JONO‘Nann3nmeo-owhtmo
oo...ooooao.oooo.o..
NNamoNvaawc‘O'Osoo'nm «Puck
.1O‘cudwx-OMUONOOHIM.urm.~o
dfldleNHNNNddeOddNCJv-Od

nnnmmmnmnmmnnnnnnmnn
ODOOO!)UOODOIJC)OCJ(1D¢’JOO
nnnnnnnn nnnnnnmnnnmn

ecum3nmmwhhoswnd:mka
nnmohhowwo«nmm®mw®w
dflfldooflfidVGd

E38

800 Q N ONONM
com Ix \o NOMU‘O
O O O 0 o O O O O 0
“‘00 N o Ono-“NO
NNH N N NNnNN
UN to .4 N a‘lnoho
"no u 5 000°:
0 O O O ' I O o O O O
005 rs m kmmhm
Hfld « « «Hddfi

JJNQONOJONOJOQOouaJU‘v-fl
OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
N”NNNN01Nfl«NNNNHnNNv4M

mnkanwammumkac-acskkmw

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
JOQHNuO'OmNomycnov-«mO‘Jv-a
osmoho~ooo~ocoom~moo~o

coocmooommmooomoumoo
coo-9000.00.01.00...
MJHMMMHMNNNMMMMMMMMM

JNo-cNNv-lev-CQSDNOJOJQ‘OQJ

\‘mmOC'mQHmMNNh ok-ombno
....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO
v4 «v4 «v4 .4

0N®@N«:NJO:K:NOG‘dv-4HQ

houmc'mwoowwNonOmmmh
00000000000000.0000.
d 0" .4 fl

O‘NdQKmONU‘QQO‘NOONQSDON

QIDUMDNN :oNMNCNNJmMNMN

.....ooooooooooooooo
v. H v41!

oam~00~mmoooo~aa~~mrn~c
« a an «flu H v4 v-d

o;on«¢om¢«oawwoacmso
a a «a «an a « d

mummcnomousohnn~c34

.....OOCOOOOOOOOOCOO
:«m3mooooamn~~«:mam
"JlflO-Wmmgxo‘v-C’J‘NMUMN:K‘O'fin
NNdNNNNfiPJflNNNNNNfiNNN

“NmHJKG‘NOfiQNfldNNNnG‘
COHC‘DQ LID-0.000080050431105
cocooooouooooooo-goo

mmmONdahmc‘muddstwoNU‘

0... 0.00.00.00.00...
'J'sm vd‘c) tmru'o‘o: :Mu.romwm.n
Ja~m0~a~~nso~r~c~nmoxduo:a~
n 3nmmm;mmnmmrmm:n 3mm

QOO‘O‘thCNONfimv-OJ’NU‘ONON

...-00.0.0.0..000...
0mwfimO'-£'O'u‘-O‘Nc‘d\c0JNQNN
u.m8uHO'NN~LI\U'O~" twat-Impmd
udWNaNdauwMflNfiNv-ONMN

cocoowmoomwooomoummm
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

mnocma U‘HHOVDc-CV‘N'I‘UJ ¢ U‘wb
«Nun .1 mysoumwumwssnmowm
decade-cud «added

103

SM- 8 10.
= 10

CH-
SCANOPROBE, ITHAco, N.Y.

o
I

: SL = 8; SL+ - 9
G = 8; 6+ = 9
GRADER.

13A

ARBLING SCORES
ESTIMATED BY ITHACO ULTRASONIC

gUALlTY GRADfig
DJUSTED av
ACTUAL FAT THICKNESS MEASURED.

”3
B
C
D

 

E

Tab1e A.6-Continued

E 15%,.

C. .E§¥JD. A?
CM

 

ARCASS CAECASS
ROTEIN, QT:
Z

IELD E
RADE

E

REA,
CM"

TUAL
AT,
CM

T5
T AT,
' CM

QUALB
RADE,

”AREA ”6

HOT
CARc.
WTL,KG

ADG;
KG

FINAL
WT, KG

INITIAL
NT, KG

A I DAxs
M. o
No. FEED

PEN
No.

104

 

 

4mm 00 ON I00 DO
:09 M «a cm 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0050 O (”-4 km ”0
nnn N NP) NN 00")
Out: ‘0 ON 0ND 00
omm tn 00'! 0: ma
0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0
WHOM m mus 00 3m
«04d 04 040-1 ‘04“ «0‘
0O NQOQOdQHNv-MDOOJOO‘O

00000000000000...
NNNflWNNNanmflnnNd

m: «MommaohkmonNoav-a
0 00000000000000.00
the ONmOUI'DMU‘NU‘HM'OJHCN
NO NNGONOKQOQQONNNON

mm mmoumooomcomomomm
0 o 0 0 0 .

000000000000
NM nn¢nnnnnnnnmnn0nN

m 0 J 0:
JNO h «N 50 N6
000 0 00 00 00
d 04 v4

NONO@NJ®333NJ:JflOWNJ
NQNNOL'WKUJOOuv-dcwmwoom
0.000000000000000000
'4 04 V‘ dd ..‘0-0

ms :swmeNokc:m«mkkd
flNm¢NDONN3€KmONNw
.0 00000000000000...
«a «nu «H «a «an

ON

OODNU‘OOO‘OOONNHOOO
0404 H

'4 v" 0004“ “040-004

DVD

QddthNmooahheNao
H“ «a

H «v4.4 dfldfi

@QmQONnnHNOJDocna‘Ncl-fl
00.00000000000000000
OQJQQANNMN:DOO‘U\NJNHJ
MNJN:UTNNJ f'J-DM”3NNNV)NJ
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI‘J

Hou:o:«om:¢0mmo«ddwn
QNNONUNNQQNNQOcmmkcfi
00000000000000.0000.

NNO‘DNNu\:JaD-MD:\oNnQ\Dm

0.000000000000000...
@U‘QH'UFHONO-HJTNOJ'NUJN'T’U‘Q
O‘OO‘QUQNWU“JNO‘O‘~DNJNJ)«
nmnn::nn:yn4mnmn¢mn;

QO'OJNOONmJHnNmOSWO‘éd

00000000000000000000
NOONMIATO-ou‘nammHNmHNJ
O‘NNF «(T-owe ucn'otmo: ”or U
HaNHNHdddeNudeNfdv-ON

mo~00m00~00000000000
4444::334334343444J4
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

o:o~mmm¢o~~:~~¢o*~¢~
flNbFNQU@OOnNNMON¢QC@
VOW-00004000400040.0404

€39

Md N on 0 man”
no 0 No a 4N0”
00 0 00 0 .00.
:m 3 NN « ”NOD
mm n ”N n nNNn
ON 4 0m '0 ONON
NN N no a m~4n
0. 0 00 0 0000
.7: m .:U\ cf 35mm
«a H «a d fldfid

NNOQOO‘HNU‘U‘J «0~:wmo~
00000000000000.0000
”MNN «anNNdNndNNdNNN

mamomc-mluumaJnaoamo

00000000000000.0000
GumNAMMmHQmO‘O'ome‘Jv-fi
OhhkhooomhhomNNOOON

mmmmoooommmmmmoom
00.000000000000000.
”MMNNMMMMNNNWNMMMMP)

NN «N “on: mocwmowwao:
mcmochcokcoohhhmdko
00.000000000000000.
«d a a d

03dNOOdeswomdoddOQ

Numoohmomosthhmmbh

00040000000000.0000
d

moo:sp~oao~o.ov~om~o~oo~oo
OJKfihh;~KNNJNNBHONN
00.000000000000000.
«a a a «a d

odocoo@oowocmo@oodq
HHfi «a w a a a «fig

«coonawomc«:oo~como
ddv-O «v4 v4 '4 v4 '4 Hdv-Q

dNO‘WkIfiHQO‘QNNQOrBO'DN

00.000000000000000.
#NoO‘NUAJOlth'OSDNofONmnc
(‘JUJ‘C‘JHmfi'0NWNZnLthu-C‘JF7H
NNMJNNNNNNNNHNNNNNN

oooN03~noomoor~m~on
NNNN nonwoscmmso‘NNoN
00000000000000.0000

mc:NOMQuD:N:~no:ooN

0.0000000000000000.
NdflO‘NOJther-Om\OP|MMN'00:
mmomochmhoc‘NHoLfiOouh
nasmncmmn3M3nnJMMJM

\OhflO‘NMHm0650v-doJNJQJN
000.000.000.0000000
InNJ'DJN’D'UU‘.H\DO‘QJ«WNPJ r4",
wfiuumewquNchwkcwo
dNNNdNWflde-‘Ndde-dv‘r‘fl

04'4““ dF‘OOfifiHfiv-‘Huadv-OVCH00
oomowwq‘mmmoww omwoo
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNWNNN

@Nnh fi'Y‘ODF') J onnmmn :3'UN
“4:mm“owoawnmn:m00
«uduuuaaau

105

>-

2:

‘s

O

U

4

. I

:3 P

H —o

"C3 \

H m

I m

2" o

:0 m

0 m

I 0

DU 2

I” <

U

l N U)

01

t1" " '
LO 2J3
+ (31
(D ‘03
53 '<‘"

'CK
tsmi—fi
“GHUJZ.

DZ)
_Hl< W
to KC)”
LDOLHu
<12
.. 43:3
m-{DFWJ
MW)...”
““‘° 35

0C) >

U<D_Q
cnma: P
0 fa<
0 Q m

Z>-UJP
-—PF-§_J
J—HDL<(
m.JD——D
m'ijf-P
‘(DCHDU
DXQQMxfl
ItmLHQU

 

Tab1e A.6—-Continued

a . Fgfi,

 

EARCASS AECASS
YIELD ROTEIN, AT,
GRADE Z Z

REA,
CM;

A TUAL
D fiATl
cm

H.
AL
m

CH

QUAL IEEIlc E

MARBA GRADEB

K§;.;

or
CARc.
WT.

DAYS
0N hNITIAL FINAL ADG.
FEED T. KG WTI KG KG

m

 

gEN ANIN.

 

9O

04 Knlblh (3‘0 '0 F
N n9N’7‘ 4N0 II‘ D
0 v o a 0 0 I 0 I
04 mambo CHO". m N
H NNMN nnn n P"
0‘ 0 v-«Dv‘ and 0‘ N
m In—fv-‘J ”0‘0 0 F
o 0 0 0 0 . 0 0
J U‘m-Yln mMIh 4 4
04 “0‘00." «04" 04 0'0

MOTNfimazatmanoonmmv-A.‘
0 . n 0 0 a 0. - 0 0
.... v MN

NNHKMJNDOJNNOTiO-DOM

v 0 o 0 .
Isa NHHV‘
\D\D~D owoonhkooozomowoo

00‘ D B k ON" on
mm m N .1 0000 NO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MD 0‘ F D IOU-4 NO
"'0 N N N MM?) '0")
U’UD 0‘ 400 Omvfi 40‘
who .3 13k om“: INN
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
:h" In IDDIn ”UNI-r- 4'0
"A 01 000104 V401

\ON—vonmtjuwNo toot-once
.

0:...» .00.-
v-‘;

mmau‘rrmo Tarnmm—m‘ommow

oswnhonowmshomooomns

 

00000000000007.0000.
u. v, n ..

oom::w:oao~«n~o~oma:o
vitamin-«rs NU‘U‘NNQ aqua-«Dc
00000~ 0000000000000
wt a a 04'1““

ONNON NNOWIDNNOONNNO‘DN
:Ng)~7'DU‘NKNI:U\DJ ’Nm 51ch
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
«Huuuvza dd

okhorxHOJADoc-okkochushw

BNNNNU‘JQNK IU‘NNQNV‘NND
'00'00000000000000
dd .4 rd H “Hddddv:0:

GNU‘OQNO‘BNGBFO‘O‘OJOQDO
«V1 0"" H «'4 v4

NwDONC‘NNNNN-I —
fl v1"! 0. «N 0'1

\DOO‘amJOJoO‘v-‘ou'amko‘moa‘
0 a n 0 . 0 . 0

O‘Hm
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

g‘nmNnn-«shvv44m dmv-‘NONDWN
0‘

0000-00-00000000I000
Ila

~001wnom~¢a~mm~owa~or~

DNNNNNQ~LDLLUV:NIJ\ONQ¢DN

0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.4

     

OOmNoerO‘clN-DNJJQLD'QO
enema JJNQNJIU‘NDAOHKNN

NO‘OD‘DDO'GNKQOM‘I‘OQNU‘OQ
“HON 3K .1'\CJU\NOJ NVZJVVDQNN

 

woeonenoooNonsoooq-aa
V‘ Hr. .100 04 0" 0‘ I4

‘ L ....--

0“; 4L
Nfiflfiflfififl '4".

$9.2NOC‘O”¢5KU‘U:|B‘°\°v4N\°N
0 0 0 0 0

LAU‘ONE‘

 

 

 

0000000000000000'000
v1 «'4 v-c

 

OOLDNI-1~d~uf\:—o:\0uomccd:m

nn;nmm~‘mnam 1'6"? 94'0"”0"?

OGIWm-JzNNal33NDNDNDKNJNND

....... .....
“1:32; 3mm~a~uro~mr~ M Dom-4
a‘uNU-tha‘oz-al C‘influud‘n
«NNHHvodddflmddquNNNa-d

mmu‘mmmmmmu‘muxu‘mmmlr ufll‘u‘
nut—Inn:

0.0.0oo-ooo:uoo0--ooa
N «v4 dd “H

mmo¢a§€fimuuumnmm0aa

m HI
mammmvsmrso‘aucmmmmo-
3* no 03Mm1MI-Inhn ’Mnmmmm I”)

Dr:«r~04wnesonr::moa~mo
. . . . . .

maonom mgmn M;;N;-—:uc:

G‘utxw‘afikmo ufljllvl—Ihu \DDG- U"

.«uv-tN‘hq «Nah. ”N00 «Nay-1

mV‘uM‘mmu‘uxu‘mu‘mummu‘mmu-m
1C)

 

'01:!» :00: JNNn‘l‘oIo-«wwom'fl
NW4¢JFF¢¢OWJNN J 4 :JUINN
- «...-4 u add

(JD

0' "mm I‘JHV‘JINdev-AD '7‘an
NFL“! V‘NCWBC-u: 2'3"”: :‘BT‘
«add

N
O
H

 

>—
z
‘
O
U
4
- I
D )-
,_1 -—0
IO ~
H u.)
l CD
2n 0
U) I!
I m
I 0
AL) Z
on <
L)
ll -\ (I)
m
3:. U '
w 28
+ on:
(D 103
as g”
“mkfi
llwI-U—IZ
CI:
_Jll<( 1’)
J) crow
‘3wa
<2
.. «Ix
Lanai—U
Lawn—0*
“'“Z3 E
00 >'
u<>—¢n
warm )—
0 B<
QLELW
._
~FH<J
J~m2<
mJD—D
“(355
<3
€o<m<g
(QUDW

 

Table A.6-Continued

4.
:—

CASS
AT

I

E2

ARCASS CA
ROEEIN:

RADE

.. REAa Ell-SLIDE
CM

'2 Fifi
z

TUAL
AT,
CM

¢ Eflzv “E
CM

N 3 a: ONO mo
0 I) .14 nnm Hugo
0 0 O 0 o o o o o o
o a on use 5 3.4
.1 '0 4”) mm: nnn
M 6 "‘0 «ON Nina
I: N on fume BN0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
M [n N: JMN M4m
v4 v4 dd ...-0H Hut“

91

.95 on Oh!) an M N
and do «No a N a
o o o o o o o o o 0
00 Km OJ: 0 Q n
7')" MM nnn n n 00
N4 N0 0‘0” 0 O 0
00" #0 an: M .t h
0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0
MM MN) '64-! In M 3
«d «a «do-O H .1 v1

 

 

 

NomdhvihoNJQOnhNO‘OOJQ
0.000000000000000...
NMnmn;«~Hannn:Nn.-.nn

meomdm3vaonuokNMO~OM¢=~o

00000000000000.0000.
4mou‘neca:a~m«o-~ramm«a~
smoomocmmmmhoomomcso

cocoonaomoomommmcom
00000000000000.00000
n::4nnnn:~n:n¢n~nnn~

NOONmmowccsmkm~09~30N
OG‘JOQ‘IDOHNNWNWU‘QNHNW
00.00000000000000000
H dflfid “dflddfiflfl «and

NmO:4«:JO:NdNNONNONN
mJ-onua‘oudeO‘omcuocNo
00.00000000000000000
«.4 «v4.4 .4 fiddddddd dd

' ‘ buo:m~0~oxo~omomc>~aw~o~oo¢o
I—fl ngaoun~50404m~~au~~
Lg-EU ooooooooooopoocooooo
HddfidN wuawwN-«d «a
m
.Jui
4% NDQONflOOO‘dOQOflv-«DNOOO‘
:3 vi Hv-Ov-(v-GH .4“ v4.4" .4 a
a a:
O
> <
m NHQNOWOOOnQDHJJQNQOO
g « HHflHd «fl Hdd a a
E
-(D :MflnomN”OMO‘nNQ~DNNflNo
FOX 0.00.00.00.900000000
on: momoncmNmkoaMo:cooam
< 4 :NNVDN31039’7'DNkmb‘fiV‘UXI’m”)
ug NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
‘ ‘d
LO mmwNONJO‘NMO30m.B~D—OU\NN
cam mmntoomouomoooomouuo
< 00000000090000.0000.
.4 H .4 H adv-«4
.Jq OOKDJdQNmoomOJOMQDQQ
<31 00.00.00.00000000ooo
Z mmo‘NknumkNNuuc“Nun-vows
0— '4 O‘CONOC‘NMQJNMU‘DOWNDv-‘Q
uJ— nnnmmnammnnrm;mn31:n
:
.J
(0 U‘NOHnO‘fiOQU‘v-OWNJ33IAIAJN
I-Ox 00.00000000000000000
’- fim~3nammm~omwmmkamomm
~ 1 DQO‘usDQNo-mtrNNHuJ-muo‘hh
zh‘NflHNHNNddHflNNNdNNHHH
0-«3:
m a mum‘mu.mmmmmuxmlnuumlé‘mmmm
>- Z ouncuooouourauuuououo
< OuJ NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
D u.
0
3: .1
---O NOMNOOONonMNH‘Pa-owscn
:z: «Hudwmnmmwmwwmmwkcfl
c: «urn-«doucufid
Z 430
Lu 0 I)
CLZ'Jt—i

:mowomnnon’ucunmNmOOc:
00000000000000.0000.
HMJWNF’JMHMMMF’MMMNNNM

omwmacmmm :3omanmMNu4
00000000000000.00000
.«DJmou.::Mo~c~mmeJ~ON-‘O~D
NombP-mooommomowmomcm

mooomcmmommmcuuwsmmoa
00000000000000.0000.
n4nn~an~cnn~nnnucv~nn

Oh me 46:64 O N o
:N us: «me no 9 h
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
«v4 «a ”.4“ v4

oONNNN¢NQkO¢QONON00
domooouohwuocorsoahooho
00.00000000000000000
v4 «ddfldd v4 v4 v4

ONQGO‘QO‘DDQKNNNMHNNU‘N
NU‘NNQ'NNN :NPJNNU‘|OO‘U\OO°

0.000000000000000000
HHHH «Ndddflddflfiddfl «

(av-«coo waco-«Nood‘cromooc
«dfid flfifidddfl .« «dd

Dmdoonooo¢0°owo~oaNdd
«Hon-1 dfiddflfid .4 94'4"

:««:a~oo:«:n~oa~c~o~\0933

0.00.00.00.000000000
DCG‘OOOMMCJHNCv'CmNUUMODv-fl
JJ'U°IIM'.L‘uuv‘“NNJTNU‘940.c'6“
NNNNNNNNNNfilNfiNmNflNN

omo::o-oocoa~mcm.:r~a~:ev4n
O‘O‘ow‘oodm'ommuouo-O‘aNuo
00000000000000.0000.

«H d H 0" HF.

OJUWWJHHHOMmdNva-‘U‘m.’
00000090000900.0000.
BPJwM‘Ow-Txbnm-nmm Thnmmmh
QO‘NDNNlenNU.V,NNHu‘mN|-qw
”find” 11"":l0M3-6rflgmmn3m

©fiMBOw-dfl‘.d‘4 mmowou‘orxomn

0.00.00.00.000000000
NJN'\I’JU"3\DHH(DV‘JNJ'OC‘JLHP’
mowdocrqwhmua‘umgmumfk.«D
dNuN~~fiadmuNwawaadNH

omnommcmouommm«2:10.000
O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘G‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O'O‘O‘O‘U‘
dflddfldddddddddvcddddd

“0507‘ v0 (".05 mk‘oxco’ug 359'.
N”: J U-U’WDVDOQQ’U‘ Ud'fl" O‘O‘
dadddd

109

 

>—

Z

s

O

U

‘5

D D—
H ~
[IO s
H Ll.)

I an
El! 0
V) a:
I m
I 0
ML) 2
:n <
U

I! 's (I)

O5

Sn ° '
u; ::8
+ or:
£9 ‘03
'\ <03
m -15
0‘0!!-
"cam—J2
DZ)
.1" < 0')
LI) crow
LDLDUUJ
(Z
.0 (IX
wo¢:F-U
lumen—«-
OEU-D I
CD >-)—
u<>-cn
warm '—
0 8“
(9 Q U.
Z>-UJI'—
~PF<J
.l—U’Z<
(ll—ID”:
cr<—)F-D—
£53233,
KmUQW

 

1nued

Cont'

.6--

Table A

CASS
AT,
1

EARCASS CA?
Regaln,

ZIELD
RADE,

REA,
CM?

I

e. E?
Z

TUAL
AT,
CM

c RED A?
CM

. }§3 .
OUALB AT,
RADE cm

MARBA G

LXG

ARC.

C’HOT
C
NT

ADG,
K&___,

KG

INITIAL FdNAL
NI. KG WT,

’DAYs
0N
FEED

Aflé’f'

cN
0L
110

p.
N

 

 

 

co @N can :0 a
ON!) on Nun an o
00 00 000 00 Q
on 0N 0&0 ow a
'0'") Mn MN?) N") n
ma on 400 :0 8
km on waa NO N
00 00 000 00 0
mm m; ”an an 0
«a an «ad «a «

ManNmV-‘MQNNO‘v-«O‘DOHOUQ
00000000000000000000
MJHMNMM'VMHHMHJNJNMWH

NfiNNMmHOmdQNdmncomdd

00000000000000000000
(IHM:cac‘womxonch~D.?Jck
msounsmmomnososmmomo

mmommomommoooomammo
00 00000000000000000
nn~~nnmmnnnn~nnn~n

SN 00 NON 0M 4
Nm ms mnm on a
00 00 000 00 0
«a w w a N «

N::hoowm:m::NNo¢:mh:
OddwoomrsdwodcnoodohNd
00.00000000000000000
“dd“ « «flfl « «a

00mmkckucm~~003amkow
NNQflNKNcNNmmva-‘QNNNU‘
00000.00000000000000
WNHHdfiHv-CN 04H NHN Viv-Q00

HOOOOOQdNOOOD@OONQOO
«a a H a «a a «a a”

no¢~0~o¢haooo¢o~hooo
«a a H n «a n «a “H

mnnoswnwnooaonu~sooo

00000000000000.0000.
OawoaNkmhmnmNncmocu-c
NoMonnHowawacmomoN
NNNNNNWHWNNNNNflNNfV

unstsnwmomnw-«Nwmuneo

mum~m=m=o~o.«u~o.cmmooo
00000000 000000000000
94 v4 v4 v4 Had 0-0 V!

OJdmOQO‘JU‘dQJQMO‘NOMv-(O
00000000000000000000
H'DQO‘anNONm-OmQOG‘CDN6N
ONUHOWHU‘ONN.0UGIU\M\O(IDU\LD
”8'03"" «fr-moron: 7MM4~5NMWM

”@HNONQHNQMONONJO~3Q

00000000000000000000
NHJNOMOOJQNTWWOHWOHN
U‘UQflN—dMU-U-OJTJU‘U’DONQO‘
«Nmmuwwduawduawduadd

commune-unmoowwooooaoo
O‘U‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘OO‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘
daddudddfidddflvtddddfid

Nnmcwakmowomdc0Nan:
v00 “‘Nwmuuv «man; 0006‘
Huddddddddfi

92

>.

2:

s

O

U

<

- I

I: F

H 0—0

RC) ‘

H DJ

in 8

m a:

I a

I O

0%) Z

55 <

U

fl-s U)

+6, U

J" “
Ln zffi
+ 00:
(D ‘0:
N (U3
I” 00:5

-\mF-
”COW-J:

DZ)
_H|< m
to “(3%
U30£)m
¢(Z
00 (I):
”O‘DF‘U
UUXO—‘~
CHI: I
CC) >F‘

LJ<>-m
«nan: P
O 8‘!
O Q &

z>%UP
.JH‘DL":
m.JD~‘D
m<t7P'P
552L233,
KGMJQUJ

 

 

 

93

Table A 7. Trial Numbers, Pen Numbers and Corresponding Rations

 

 

Pen No, Ration
Trial 1
101 85% Concentrate
102 40% Concentrate
103 Mid—Switch
104 Late Switch
105 All Silage
Trial 2
106 85% Concentrate
107 40% Concentrate
108 Mid-Switch
109 Late Switch
110 All Silage
Trial 3
102 100% Silage, Low Protein
103 100% Silage, Intermediate Protein
104 100% Silage, High Protein
105 68:32 (CS:Conc.), Low Protein
106 68:32 (CS:Conc), Intermediate Prot.
107 68:32 (CS:Conc.), High Protein
108 100% Concentrate, Low Protein
109 100% Concentrate, Intermediate Prot.
110 100% Concentrate, High Protein

 

LITERATURE CITED

 

 

LITERATURE CITED

Ames, D. R. l976. Adjusting protein in cattle rations during cold
weather. Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta. Rep. of Progress 262.

Anderson, V. L. and C. A. Dinkel. l977. Forage finishing exotic
crossbred cattle. South Dakota State University Research
Report, 77:l6.

Asplund, J. M. and L. E. Harris. l97l. Associative effects on the
digestibility of energy and the utilization of nitrogen in
sheep fed simplified rations. J. Anim. Sci. 32:l52.

Black, J. R. and H. w. Harpster. 1978. Standard but seldom used
methods of analyzing feedlot performance data. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Res. Report.

Buchanan-Smith, J. G. and N. S. Alhassan. l975. Diet and beef
carcass composition at constant live weight. J. Anim. Sci.
41:287.

Burroughs, W., A. Trenkle and R. L. Vetter. 1976. Completion of two
feeding trials testing the value of rumensin in cattle feedlot
rations. Iowa State University Cattle Feeding Report A.S.
Leaflet R226.

Brown, H., L. H. Carrol, N. G. Elliston, H. P. Grueter, J. N. McAskill,
D. Olson and R. P. Rathmacher. l974. Field evaluation of
monensin for improving feed efficiency in feedlot cattle.
Proc. Western Section, American Soc. Anim. Sci. 25:300.

Byers, F. M. l977. Importance of growth potential and patterns of
growth in beef cattle nutrient requirements. Ohio Agr. Res.
Report.

Byers, F. M. l978. Impact of rumensin, limestone and energy level
on corn silage energy utilization and composition of growth of
cattle. (Abstr. No. l06), llth Ann. Meeting Midwest Section,
American Soc. Anim. Sci.

Byers, F. M. J. D. Matsushima, and D. E. Johnson. l975a. Application
of the concept of associative effects of feeds to prediction of
ingredient and diet energy values. Colorado State University
Exp. Sta. Bul., General Series 947zl8

94

 

 

 

 

95

Byers, F. M., J. D. Matsushima and D. E. Johnson. 1975b. The
significance of associative effects of feed on corn silage
and corn grain energy values. Colorado State University Exp.
Sta. Bul., General Series 947:22.

Byers, F. M., C. F. Parker, V. R. Cahill and R. L. Preston. 1976.
Plane of nutrition response and mature size. Ohio Agr. Res.
Report.

Byers, F. M. and P. E. Moffitt. 1977. Physiological and nutritional
modification of growth patterns and DES, rumensin and previous
nutritional plane. Abstracts, 69th Annual Meeting of the
American Soc. Anim. Sci., No. 563.

Byers, F. M. and R. L. Preston. l976. Relationship of corn silage or
grain diets fed during the growing phase to protein requirements
during growing and finishing. Ohio Agr. Res. Report.

Cmarik, G. F., B. A. Weichenthal and A. L. Neumann. l975. Protein
levels and implants for finishing yearling beef heifers.
University of Illinois Research Report.

Crickenberger, R. G. l977. Effect of cattle size, selection and
crossbreeding on utilization of high corn silage or high grain
rations. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Crouse, J. D. and M. E. Dikeman. l976. Determinants of retail product
of carcass beef. J. Anim. Sci. 42:584.

Dikeman, M., K. Bolsen and J. Riley. l976. Energy levels for growing
and finishing steers. Kansas State University Report of Progress
262.

Dilley, G. W., M. B. Wise, E. R. Barrick, T. N. Blumer and E. J. Warwick.
1959. Influence of levels of nutrition and stilbestrol on
performance and carcass characteristics of growing-finishing
beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. l8:l496.

Dowe, T. W., J. Matsushima and V. Arthaud. l955. The effects of
the corn-alfalfa hay ratio on the digestibility of the different
nutrients by cattle. J. Anim. Sci. l4:340.

Embry, L. B. 1976. Rumensin for growing and finishing cattle. South
Dakota Cattle Feeders Day Report.

Epley, R. J., H. B. Hedrick, W. L. Mies, R. L. Preston, G. F. Krause
and G. B. Thompson. l97l. Effects of digestible protein to
digestible energy ratio diets on quantitative and qualitative
carcass composition of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 33:355.

96

Ewing, S. A., L. Davis, W. Burroughs, L. N. Hazel and E. A. Kline.
l96l. Factors influencing relative deposition of external fat
and marbling in beef steers. (Abstr. No. 64), J. Anim. Sci.
20:9l6.

Ferrell, C. L., R. H. Kohlmeier, J. D. Crouse and H. Glimp. l978.
Influence of dietary energy, protein and biological type of

steer upon rate of gain and carcass characteristics. J. Anim.
Sci. 46:255.

Fox, D. G. and J. R. Black. 1975. Influence of cow size, cross
breeding, slaughter weight, feeding systems, and environment
on the energetic and economic efficiency of edible beef pro-
duction. Proceedings of the Reciprocal Meats Conf., Columbus,
Missouri.

Fox, D. G. and J. R. Black. l976. Summary of nutrient requirements
for growing and finishing cattle. Mich. Beef Prod. Manual Fact
Sheet l097. ‘

Fox, D. G. and J. R. Black. l977. Influence of feeding system and
environment on the energetic and economic efficiency of gain
in growing and finishing cattle. Michigan Agr. Expt. Sta.
Res. Report 328.

Fox, D. G. and J. R. Black. l977. A system for predicting performance
of growing and finishing beef cattle. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res.
Rep. 328.

Fox, D. G., R. G. Crickenberger, W. G. Bergen and J. R. Black. l977.
A net protein system for predicting protein requirements and feed
protein values for growing and finishing cattle. Mich. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Res. Rep. 328.

Fox, D. G. and C. L. Fenderson. 1976. The influence of dry matter
determination by oven drying on dry matter intake and feed
efficiency. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Report 328.

Garrett, W. N. and N. Hinman. 1969. Re-evaluation of the relationship
between carcass density and body composition of beef steers.
J. Anim. Sci. 28:1.

Gates, R. N. and L. B. Embry. l976. Effect of monensin on dietary
protein needs and nonprotein nitrogen utilization by growing
feedlot cattle. South Dakota Cattle Feeders Report A.S.
Series 76-20.

Gates, R. N. and L. B. Embry. l977. Monensin tylosin and protein
supplementation with finishing cattle. South Dakota State
University Research Report, 77-ll.

97

Gates, R. N., L. B. Embry and L. F. Bush. l977. Monensin, tylosin
and protein supplementation with finishing cattle. Proc. 69th
Mtg. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci.

Gill, D. R., J. R. Martin and R. Lake. l976. High, medium and low
corn silage diets with and without monensin for feedlot steers.
J. Anim. Sci. 43:363.

Gill, D. R., F. N. Owens, J. Martin and J. H. Thorton. l977. Protein
levels and monensin for feedlot cattle. Proc. 69th Mtg. Amer.
Soc. Anim. Sci.

Goodrich, R. D. and J. C. Meiske. l97l. Methods for improving the
interpretation of experimental feedlot trials. J. Anim. Sci.
33:885.

Goodrich, R. D., D. W. Crawford, M. L. Thonney and J. C. Meiske. l974.
Influence of corn silage level on the performance and economic
returns of steer calves. Minn. Cattle Feeders Research Report,
B-l95. -

Goodrich, R. D., J. G. Linn, J. C. Schafer and J. C. Meiske. 1976.
Influence of monensin on feedlot performance--a summary of
university trials. l976 Minnesota Cattle Feeders Report.

Guenther, J. J., D. H. Bushman, L. S. Pope and R. D. Morrison. 1965.
Growth and development of the major carcass tissues in beef
calves from weaning to slaughter weight, with references to
the effect of plane of nutrition. J. Anim. Sci. 24:ll84.

Hammes, R. C., Jr., J. P. Fontenof, H. T. Bryant, R. E. Blaser and
R. W. Engel. 1964. Value of high-silage rations for fattening
beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 23:795.

Hankins, O. E. and P. E. Howe. l946. Estimation of the composition
of beef carcasses and cuts. Technical Bulletin No. 926. U.S.D.A.

Hanson, T. L. and T. J. Klopfenstein. l977. Monensin, protein source
and protein levels for growing steers. Proc. 69th Mtg. Amer.
Soc. Anim. Sci.

Harpster, H. W. l978. Energy requirements of cows and the effect of
sex, selection, frame size, and energy level on performance of
calves of four genetic types. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Hatfield, E. E., D. L. Hixon, L. A. Peterson, W. L. Braman, A. P. Peter
and U. S. Garrigus. 1971. Levels of protein for beef cattle
finishing rations. University of Illinois Research Report.

 

98

Henderson, H. E. and W. T. Britt. 1974. Effect of source of protein
and level of concentrates and corn silage on steer and heifer
calf performance. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Report 245.

Hendricksen, R. F., R. L. Hendrickson, L. S. Pope and G. O'Dell. 1959.
Effect of moderate gs, rapid rates of gain on efficiency of feed

conversion and carcass compositon of steer calves. J. Anim. Sci.
18:1484.

Hoffman, M. P., B. Melton and D. Cianzio. 1977. Effect of varying
ratios of corn silage and corn grain upon feedlot cattle per-
formance. (Abstr.), 11th Annual Meeting Midwestern Section,
American Soc. Anim. Sci.

Judge, M. D., E. D. Aberle, W. M. Beeson and T. W. Perry. 1978.
Effect of ration energy and time on feed on beef carcass
quality, yield grade and palatability. (Abstr. No. 37),
11th Annual Meeting Midwest Section, American Soc. Anim. Sci.

Klosterman, E. W., P. G. Althouse and U. R. Cahill. 1965. Effect
of corn silage or ground ear corn full fed at various stages

of growth and fattening upon carcass composition of beef cattle.
J. Anim. Sci. 24:454.

Klosterman, E. W. and C. F. Parker. 1976. Effect of size, breed and
sex upon feed efficiency in beef cattle. Ohio Agr. Res. Bulletin
1088.

Kromann, R. P., E. T. Clemens and E. E. Ray. 1975. Digestible,
metabolizable and net energy values of corn grain and dehydrated
alfalfa in sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 41:1752.

Kroman, R. P. 1971. Evaluation of net energy systems. J. Anim. Sci.
37:200.

Larsen, R. E. and G. M. Jones. 1973. Effects of different dry matter
determination methods on chemical composition and jn_vitro
digestibility of silage. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 53:753.

Larson, D. A., J. C. Meiske and R. D. Goodrich. 1976. Influence
of corn silage level on the performance and economic returns
of yearling steers. Univ. of Minn. Res. Report B-218.

Neumann, A. L., B. C. Breidenstein, P. E. Lamb, W. W. Albert and J. E.
Zimmerman. 1962. Effect of length of heavy corn silage feeding
on total feed requirements and carcasses yield and grade in
fattening steers. Ill. Cattle Feeders Day Rpt., p. 1.

99

Neumann, A. L., D. L. Hixon and J. Hicks. 1972. Medium and low
levels of corn silage in steer finishing rations. Univ. of
111. Res. Report, AS-6629.

Newland, H. W. 1976. Finishing steers and heifers on all corn silage
or all concentrates. Ohio Agr. Res. Report.

N.R.C. 1976. Nutrient requirements of domestic animals. No. 4,
Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Oltjen, R. R., T. S. Rumsey and P. A. Putnam. 1971. All-forage diets
for finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 32:327.

Perry, T. W., D. Webb, C. H. Nickel and W. M. Beeson. 1961. Various
ratios of corn and corn silage in the fattening ration of beef
calves. Purdue Agr. Exp. Sta., Mimeo. AS-294.

Perry, T. W., D. Webb, C. H. Nickel and W. M. Beeson. 1962. Levels
of supplement A and corn silage for growing and fattening steers.
Purdue Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Prog. Rpt. 11.

Perry, T. W. and W. M. Beeson. 1976. Ratios of corn to corn silage
for finishing beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 42:549.

Peterson, L. A., E. E. Hatfield and U. S. Garrigus. 1973. Influence
of concentration of dietary energy on protein needs of growing-
finishing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 36:772.

Pinney, D. 0., N. W. Bradley, C. 0. Little and J. R. Oldfield. 1966.
Urea and soybean meal supplementation of corn-corn silage rations
containing different levels of energy. J. Anim. Sci. 25:260.

Preston, R. L. 1975. Net energy evaluation of cattle finishing
rations containing varying proportions of corn grain and corn
silage. J. Anim. Sci. 41:622.

Preston, R. L., V. R. Cahill, G. L. Bennett and C. F. Parker. 1975.
Production of beef from Angus or Charolais steers full-fed corn
silage or a high concentrate ration. Ohio Agr. Res. Report.

Preston, R. L., V. R. Cahill, W. E. Kunkle and C. F. Parker. 1975.
Role of roughage in high concentrate rations for finishing
steer calves. Ohio Agr. Res. and Dvlpmt. Ctr. Res. Sum. '63.

Self, H. L. and M. P. Hoffman. 1977. Allee Research Center: Effect
of silage level on feedlot performance of yearling steers. A.S.
Leaflet R250. Iowa State University.

100

Smith, G. M., J. D. Crouse, R. W. Mandigo and K. L. Neer. 1977.
Influence of feeding regime and biological type on growth,
composition and palatability of steers. J. Anim. Sci. 45:236.

Theuninck, D. H., S. R. Burghardi, R. D. Goodrich and J. C. Meiske.
1978. Corn silage-corn grain feeding programs for steer calves.
(Abstr. No. l), llth Annual Meeting Midwest Section, American
Soc. Anim. Sci.

Thonney, M. L. 1977. Use of monensin sodium in feeding cattle, a
review. 1977 Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers.

Tolbert, R. E., R. E. Lichtenwalner and G. A. Broderick. 1977. Effect
of monensin on protein degradation. Proc. 69th Mtg. Amer. Soc.
Anim. Sci.

Topel, D. G., D. L. DeWitt, R. L. Vetter and A. M. Trenkle. 1973.
Influence of energy consumption during growth on carcass compo-
sition of feedlot cattle. Iowa State Univ. A. S. Leaflet R183.

Utley, P. R., R. E. Hellwig and W. C. McCormick. 1975. Finishing
beef cattle for slaughter on all-forage diets. J. Anim. Sci.
4011034.

Vance, R. D., R. L. Preston, V. R. Cahill and E. W. Klosterman. 1972.
Net energy evaluation of cattle finishing rations containing

varying proportions of corn grain and corn silage. J. Anim.
Sci. 34:851.

Woody, H. D. 1978. Influence of ration grain content on feedlot
performance and carcass characteristics. Ph.D. Thesis,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Woody, H. D. and J. R. Black. 1978a. Pricing corn silage. Mich.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Report.

Woody, H. D. and J. R. Black. l978b. Influence of ration grain
content on cost of feeding, manure handling and storage, and
manure credit. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Report.

Woody, H. D. and D. G. Fox. 1977. The influence of monensin on the
feedlot performance of heifer calves. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Res. Report 328.

Woody, H. D., D. G. Fox, J. R. Black and E. C. Rossman. 1978.
Effect of ration grain content on feedlot performance.
Mich. Agr. Res. Report.

 

101

Young, A. W. and R. G. Kauffman. 1978. Evaluation of beef from
steers fed grain, corn silage or haylage-corn silage diets.
J. Anim. Sci. 46:41.

Young, L. G., G. A. Branaman and R. J. Deans. 1962. Influence of rate
of grain feeding on gain and carcass characteristics of calves.
J. Anim. Sci. 21:621.

 

 

 

a;

   

llTill]Elllllllllllflfllllll