Comparison of Low-Input Pasture to High-Input Drylot Backgrounding on Performance and Profitability of Beef Calves Through Harvest

Mathis, C.P.; Cox, S. H.; Löest, C.A.; Petersen, M. K.; Endecott, R. L.; Encinias, A. M.; Wenzel, John C

doi:10.15232/s1080-7446(15)30832-9

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A trend was observed (P = 0.06) for the calculated cost of gain between the 3 backgrounding systems in the current study, where CG was lowest (CAN$2.96 ± 0.88/kg) and DL was greatest (CAN$6.32 ± 0.88/kg). These results are in agreement with other studies using extensive grazing systems for backgrounding beef calves (Mathis et al, 2008;Kumar et al, 2012). Kumar et al (2012) reported cost of gain for calves grazing swathed barley was 31% lower than feeding calves in a drylot system.…”

Section: Backgrounding Trialsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Therefore, optimal carcass characteristics can be achieved by feeding a diet based on either corn or barley grain, regardless of how calves are backgrounded. These results strongly support the hypothesis that calves can be backgrounded on extensive winter grazing systems without having any negative effect on subsequent feedlot finishing performance, and also agree with previous research reporting that extensive grazing had no negative effect on final steer performance (Vaage et al, 1998;Mathis et al, 2008;Kumar et al, 2012). Beliveau and McKinnon (2008) reported 18% of cattle fed barley-based diets graded AAA, whereas Damiran et al (2014) reported 76% AAA grades.…”

Section: Finishing Trialsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Kumar et al (2012) reported cost of gain for calves grazing swathed barley was 31% lower than feeding calves in a drylot system. Mathis et al (2008) reported that pasture backgrounded calves had a CAN$45 greater net income compared with calves backgrounded in drylot pens. In western Canada, beef calves are typically weaned at 200 to 250 kg of BW and are then backgrounded for 100 to 150 d until they reach 350 kg (Karantininis et al, 1997).…”

Section: Backgrounding Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of extensive winter feeding systems for backgrounding beef calves and the effect on finishing

McMillan

Penner

McKinnon

et al. 2018

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of low heat unit corn varieties in western Canada has led to questions on how this crop might fit into an extensive backgrounding program. Therefore, a 3-yr study was conducted to evaluate the effects of grazing standing whole-plant corn (Zea mays L. 'Pioneer P7443R') or swathed whole-plant barley (Hordeum vulgare 'Ranger') compared with barley hay fed in drylot pens on beef steer performance during backgrounding and feedlot phases. The effect of backgrounding system was also assessed during finishing when steers were fed diets based on barley grain or corn grain. Each yr, 120 Angus steers (BW = 250.5 ± 1.8 kg) were allocated to 1 of 3 replicated (n = 2) backgrounding systems: (1) field grazing swathed whole-plant barley (BSG; 11.2% CP, 60.6% TDN); (2) field grazing standing whole-plant corn (CG; 8.7% CP, 64.6% TDN); or (3) drylot (DL) bunk feeding of processed barley hay (10.9% CP, 57.2% TDN) for an average 78 d (42 to 95 d) trial. All calves received 2.5 kg/d of a range pellet supplement (16% CP, 78% TDN). Treatment groups were similar (P > 0.05) in final BW (295.8 ± 5.0 kg), ADG (0.59 ± 0.03 kg/d), and G:F ratio (0.187 ± 0.03 kg/kg).

show abstract

Section: Backgrounding Trialsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Finishing Trialsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Backgrounding Trialmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of extensive winter feeding systems for backgrounding beef calves and the effect on finishing

McMillan

Penner

McKinnon

et al. 2018

The Professional Animal Scientist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, Bailey et al (2016) reported that calves weaned in a pasture environment for 28 d before feedlot placement had reduced BW gain during the weaning and receiving periods compared with drylot-weaned calves; however, pasture-weaned steers achieved full compensation of BW by harvest with no differences in finishing dry matter intake (DMI), DOF, or carcass characteristics. Similarly, Mathis et al (2008) reported that calves preconditioned on native range weighed less at the end of a 45-d preconditioning period but gained more BW during the first 75 d of finishing than calves preconditioned in a drylot.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Effects of weaning method on postweaning performance by early weaned beef calves

Jaeger

Preedy

Waggoner

et al. 2022

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health and performance of early-weaned steers was evaluated during a 56-d weaning period, a 56-d feedlot receiving period and a 165-d feedlot finishing period. Steers (n = 239; 128 ± 14 d of age) were assigned to a 56-d weaning treatment: drylot weaning (D) or pasture weaning (P). Pasture steers grazed mature, native tallgrass range (89.2% DM, 9.08% CP) without supplementation. A concentrate-based diet (18.7% CP and 1.15 Mcal NEg/kg) was fed to D steers. Later, all steers were transitioned to a receiving, then a finishing diet and fed to a common endpoint. Body weight after and ADG during weaning were greater (P < 0.01) for D than for P. Incidence of undifferentiated fever during weaning tended to be greater (P = 0.10) for D steers than for P steers. Conversely, incidence of keratoconjunctivitis was greater (P < 0.01) for P than for D during weaning (40.2% vs. 0%, respectively) and receiving (P < 0.01; 14.3% vs. 1.6%, respectively). At the start and end of receiving, D steers had greater (P < 0.01) BW compared with P steers. Drylot steers had greater (P = 0.03) ADG compared with P steers during receiving. Pasture steers tended to have greater DMI (P = 0.09) during receiving than D steers. In contrast, gain:feed (G:F) was improved (P < 0.01) for P steers than for D steers during receiving. Incidence of undifferentiated fever was not different (P = 0.99) between D and P steers during receiving. At start of finishing, D steers were heavier (P < 0.01) than P steers; however, finishing ADG was greater (P < 0.01) for P compared with D. Conversely, hot carcass weight of P steers was less (P < 0.01) compared with D steers. Drylot steers had greater DMI (P < 0.01) than P steers during finishing, whereas P steers had improved G:F (P < 0.01) compared with D steers. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.19) between treatments in DOF, carcass characteristics or USDA yield grade. Growth and health during a 56-d weaning period and a 56-d receiving period were improved when steers were weaned in a drylot environment and fed a concentrate-based diet compared with non-supplemented steers weaned in a pasture environment. We interpret these data to suggest that, under the conditions of our experiment, steers preconditioned on mature, native, warm-season pasture for 56 d without supplementation were unable to compensate for previous nutrient restriction during finishing.

show abstract

“…Summer grazing supports the cattle industry's competitiveness through low-cost body gains from pasture grazing (Mathis et al, 2008). However, the bites and irritations caused by summer pest flies, such as horn fly (Haematobia irritans irritans), face fly (Musca autumnalis), or stable fly (Stomoxys calcitrans), can have direct negative effects on cattle performance and behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Garlic-infused Salt Supplement on Fly Abundance, Salt Intake, and Defensive Behaviors in Grazing Beef Cows

Durunna¹,

Lardner²

2020

SAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the efficacy of free-choice feeding of garlic-infused salt as an alternative pest-fly control strategy in grazing beef cows. This on-farm study is relevant because pest-fly abundance during the summer can impact performance and may cause welfare concerns on beef cattle operations. Over two consecutive summers, three groups of grazing cows received either a trace-mineral salt (TMS) supplement or a TMS infused with garlic powder (GPTMS). The study assessed the treatment effects on fly abundance, defensive behavior, and salt consumption for each group. All cows grazed similar forage species. Fly abundance and defensive behaviors were evaluated in each group using digital imagery. The results showed no difference (P = 0.34) in monthly salt consumption among groups. There were differences (P < 0.0004) in fly abundance among groups where one GPTMS group had at least 47% fewer flies and 41% fewer defensive behaviors than the TMS groups. On the other hand, another group that received GPTMS in the second year indicated a trend (P = 0.07) in fly abundance from its previous outcomes when the group received the TMS in the first year. These differing results for fly abundance and defensive behavior in the groups that received the GPTMS suggest that the efficacy of this feeding strategy in cattle may be affected by differences in genetic or environmental factors or both. We recommended that future studies consider genomic breed compositions before assigning subjects to different groups. Additional studies are required to investigate the variation in individual supplement intake between treatment groups and whether infusing mineral supplements with garlic powder is associated with similar outcomes as salt.

show abstract

Comparison of Low-Input Pasture to High-Input Drylot Backgrounding on Performance and Profitability of Beef Calves Through Harvest

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

Use of extensive winter feeding systems for backgrounding beef calves and the effect on finishing

Use of extensive winter feeding systems for backgrounding beef calves and the effect on finishing

Effects of weaning method on postweaning performance by early weaned beef calves

Impact of Garlic-infused Salt Supplement on Fly Abundance, Salt Intake, and Defensive Behaviors in Grazing Beef Cows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About