Bedding Application to Feedlot Steers: Influence on Growth Performance, Estimated Maintenance Coefficient, Carcass Characteristics, and Circulating Metabolites in Beef Steers

Abstract

Two randomized complete block design experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of bedding use in confined beef steers. Experiment 1 used Simmental × Angus steers (n = 240; initial body weight (BW) = 365 ± 22.5 kg). Experiment 2 used newly weaned Charolais × Red Angus steers (n = 162; initial BW = 278 ± 13.4 kg). Steers were allotted to one of two treatments: (1) no bedding (NO), or (2) 1.8 kg (Experiment 1) or 1.0 kg (Experiment 2) of wheat straw (as-is basis) bedding/steer·d−1 (BED). In Experiment 1, applying bedding improved (p ≤ 0.01) dry matter intake (DMI), kg of gain to kg of feed (G:F), and average daily gain (ADG). Bedding reduced (p = 0.01) the estimated maintenance coefficient (MQ). Dressing percentage, rib fat, marbling, and yield grade were increased (p ≤ 0.03) in NO. Bedding resulted in an increase (p = 0.01) in serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I). In Experiment 2, a tendency (p = 0.06) for increased DMI for NO was noted. Bedding improved G:F (p = 0.01). MQ was elevated (p = 0.03) for NO and NO had an increase (p = 0.02) in serum concentration of urea-N (SUN). An increase (p = 0.01) in serum non-esterified fatty acid was noted for NO. These data indicate that bedding application should be considered to improve growth performance and feed efficiency by reducing maintenance energy requirements in beef steers during the feedlot receiving and finishing phase.

The Influence of Bedding Application in Feedlot Cattle: A Review

“…Interestingly, most previous work conducted regarding the effects of bedding on feedlot growth performance during winter months did not report any differences in dry matter intake (DMI) as a result of bedding application (Birkelo and Lounsberry, 1992;Stanton et al, 1994;Anderson et al, 2006;Mader and Colgan, 2007). However, Smerchek and Smith (2020) reported 5.8% in DMI for bedded in experiment one, conversely, a 4.6% increase in DMI was noted for non-bedded cattle in experiment 2. A common physiological reaction of ruminants, in addition to increased intake when exposed to cold stress, has been shown to be increased reticulorumen motility and rate of passage of digesta (Westra and Christopherson, 1976).…”

“…Increased maintenance energy requirement in order to maintain homeothermy as a response to winter weather conditions such as sustained cold temperatures, snow accumulation and wind are well known beef cattle (Young, 1981;1983). This principle has been demonstrated in a number of previous studies dealing with bedding application and cold stress (Birkelo and Lounsberry, 1992;Stanton et al, 1994;Anderson et al, 2006;Mader and Colgan, 2007;Smerchek and Smith, 2020). Table 1 summarizes previous bedding studies and the subsequent effect bedding application had on calculated Maintenance coefficient (MQ).…”

“…However, in contrast to the previously discussed studies, it was reported that bedding application, in both trials 1 and 2, did not cause a significant response in ADG. Smerchek and Smith (2020), in experiment 1, found that bedding application resulted in a 21.0% increase in ADG and that cattle from the non-bedded treatment required an additional 35 days to reach a similar compositional endpoint. In some previous work, during winter and spring months, final BW was increased in bedded treatments compared to non-bedded controls when cattle were marketed at equal days on feed (Birkelo and Lounsberry, 1992;Anderson et al, 2006).…”

“…Additionally, the cumulative MQ of NO and BED treatments were increased of 41.5% and 27.3%, respectively, compared again to the standard NEm requirement value for beef cattle in a thermoneutral environment of 0.077 Mcal/BW 0.75 (Lofgreen and Garrett, 1968). In a second experiment, Smerchek and Smith (2020), conducted a 56-d receiving study, used 162 newly weaned Charolais x Red Angus crossbred beef steers to evaluate the effects of bedding application (1.8 kg of wheat straw bedding/head•d 1 ) on growth performance and maintenance energy requirements during the feedlot receiving phase in newly weaned beef steers. It was reported that non-bedded cattle had an 18.2% increase in MQ compared to cattle from the bedded treatment during the 56-d receiving study.…”

“…Data indicated that NEm required by cattle during and in the aftermath of a major winter weather event may be 2.5 times higher than NEm required under standard thermoneutral feeding conditions. Smerchek and Smith (2020), conducted a pair of studies that evaluated the effects of wheat straw bedding application on the estimated Maintenance coefficient (MQ) of confined beef steer growth performance, carcass characteristics and circulating metabolite response. In experiment 1, Simmental × Angus crossbred beef steers (n = 240; initial BW = 365±22.5 kg) were assigned to treatments of either No bedding (NO) or Bedding (BED).…”