Growth is frequently described as weight gain over time. Researchers have used this information in equations to predict carcass composition and estimate fat deposition. Diet, species, breed, and gender all influence fat deposition. Alterations in diets result in changes in fat deposition as well as the fatty acid profile of meat. Additionally, the amount and composition of the fat can affect lipid stability and flavor development upon cooking. Fat functions not only as a storage of energy and contributor of flavor compounds, but also participates in signaling that affects many aspects of the physiological functions of the animal. Transcription factors that are upregulated in response to excess energy to be stored are an important avenue of research to improve the understanding of fat deposition and thus, the efficiency of production. Additionally, further study of the inflammation associated with increased fat depots may lead to a better understanding of finishing animals, production efficiency, and overall health.

Understanding the relationship of foot angle and claw set to beef cattle structural soundness will be critical to the selection of animals that fit forage-based production systems. In an effort to address concerns about foot and leg structure, the American Angus Association’s foot angle and foot claw set expected progeny differences (EPD) were developed in 2019. As a result, these relatively new EPD and associated guidelines have limited phenotypic data submitted thus far. While ample research has evaluated lameness and foot issues in the dairy breeds, less is known about the factors that affect foot structure in beef cattle. This review focuses on beef cattle foot and leg structure, selection factors that may have led to increased problems with feet and legs, and the importance of foot and leg structure in forage-based grazing production systems. Specifically, the importance of locomotion and freedom of movement in extensive rangeland environments is discussed relative to the current literature. In addition, environmental factors that may influence foot and leg structure are addressed as well as heritability of various aspects of foot and leg traits. Where possible, information gaps and research needs are identified to enhance further investigation and the improvement of foot and leg selection tools.

This study evaluated the effects of barley and corn finishing rations on feedlot performance and behavior of steers. Feedlot rations in this study were comprised of a main concentrate of either corn or barley. Steers were fed in a GrowSafe system to measure individual animal intake and behavior. Weight gain, average daily gain (ADG), and gain:feed were measured for each steer. Feeding behavior including time spent eating (min/day), visits per day, time per visit (min), eating rate (g/min), intake (kg/day), and intake per visit (g) were measured for each individual. Corn-fed steers had greater ADG (p < 0.01) and heavier hot carcass weights (HCW; p < 0.01). In addition, corn fed steers had a higher yield grade than barley fed steers (p < 0.01). No treatment effects (p ≥ 0.11) were observed for time spent eating, visits per day, time per visit, eating rate, intake g/kg body weight, or intake per visit. Although corn-fed steers had a greater ADG and HCW than barley-fed steers, they tended to consume more feed (p = 0.06). Depending on the difference of costs associated with feeding corn or barley, barley could be a potential high-quality feed source in beef cattle finishing rations.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impacts of supplement form on supplement intake behavior, body weight (BW), and body condition score (BCS) change of yearling heifers grazing dryland pastures during the summer. In each of the two years, Angus crossbred heifers (14 months of age; Year 1, n = 57, BW = 449 ± 3.60 kg; Year 2, n = 58, BW = 328 ± 3.57 kg) were used in an 84-day completely randomized design evaluating the following treatments: 1) control, no supplement; 2) salt-limited supplement in pelleted form; and 3) a salt-limited supplement in loose form. Individual supplement intake, and time spent at the feeder were measured throughout the course of the study using a SmartFeed Pro self-feeder system (C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD, USA). On days 0, 42, and 84, the heifers were weighed, and body condition scored following a 16-h shrink. Supplementation and form of supplement did not influence (P ≥ 0.62) BW change for yearling heifers within or across study grazing periods. Body condition score was not influenced (P ≥ 0.26) by supplementation and form within the 0 – 42 (period 1) or 42 – 84 (period 2)-day periods but displayed a treatment by year interaction (P &lt; 0.01) for the 84-day summer grazing period. Supplement intake (kg/d and g/kg BW) displayed a treatment × period interaction (P &lt; 0.01). Supplement intake (kg/d) of heifers consuming pelleted supplement was 28 and 31% greater (P ≤ 0.02) than heifers consuming loose supplement in period 1 and 2, respectively. Supplement intake (g/kg BW) of heifers consuming pelleted supplement was 24% and 32% greater (P ≤ 0.05) than heifers consuming loose supplement in period 1 and 2, respectively. Overall, across both years, supplement intake in period 1 was less than half (P &lt; 0.01) that of period 2, averaging 0.50 and 1.14 kg/day, respectively. Variation in supplement intake (% CV) was greater (P = 0.03) in period 1 compared to period 2, averaging 119 and 91 %, respectively. In addition, variation in supplement intake was greater (P = 0.03) in year 2 than year 1, averaging 122 and 88 %. Our results suggest that salt-limited supplements have a high degree of intake variation and pelleting could have a masking effect as indicated by the greater intake and intake rate of supplement with heifers consuming the pelleted supplement.

No abstract