March 15–17, 2010 Des Moines, Iowa Please Do Not Cite This Program As the Definitive Source of Abstracts Contained Herein
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
abstracts March 15–17, 2010 Des Moines, Iowa Please do not cite this program as the definitive source of abstracts contained herein. Some of these abstracts will appear in the Journal of Dairy Science® (Vol. 93 and posted at http://www.adsa.org/meetingabs.asp); others will be posted online at http://jas.fass.org/misc/abstr_proc.shtml as part of the 2010 Sectional Meeting Abstracts (Vol. 88, E-Suppl. 3) of Journal of Animal Science. Table of Contents Abstract Page Section Numbers Number Animal Behavior, Housing, Well-Being ................................................................1–25................................1 Billy N. Day Symposium ......................................................................................26–29...............................9 Breeding and Genetics ..........................................................................................30–37.............................10 David H. Baker Amino Acid Symposium .............................................................38–44.............................13 Equine ...................................................................................................................45–49.............................15 Extension-Beef/Small Ruminant ..........................................................................50–56.............................17 Extension-Dairy ....................................................................................................57–65.............................19 Extension-Swine ...................................................................................................66–74.............................22 Graduate Student Competitive Research Papers, M.S. Oral Division ...........................................................................................75–87.............................25 Graduate Student Competitive Research Papers, Ph.D. Oral Division ...........................................................................................88–97.............................29 Graduate Student Competitive Research Papers, M.S. Poster Division .......................................................................................98–108............................33 Graduate Student Competitive Research Papers, Ph.D. Poster Division ......................................................................................109–116...........................36 Growth and Development, Muscle Biology, and Meat Science .........................117–137...........................39 Nonruminant Nutrition ........................................................................................138–236...........................45 Odor and Nutrient Management .........................................................................237–244...........................79 Physiology ...........................................................................................................245–259...........................81 Ruminant Nutrition .............................................................................................260–323...........................86 Teaching ..............................................................................................................324–333.........................106 Undergraduate Student Competitive Research Papers, Oral Division ...................................................................................................334–348.........................109 Undergraduate Student Competitive Research Papers, Poster Division ................................................................................................349–355.........................114 Author Index ..............................................................................................................................................117 ABSTRACTS March 15–17, 2010 *Author presenting paper Animal Behavior, Housing, Well-Being 1 Pasture characteristics and microclimate effects on the tempo- 2 Effect of disposition score on feedlot performance, carcass ral/spatial distribution of beef cows grazing Midwestern cool-season traits and profitability of beef calves fed in the Iowa Tri-County grass pastures. D. A. Bear*, J. R. Russell, and D. G. Morrical, Iowa Steer Carcass Futurity. G. D. Fike*1, L. R. Corah1, M. E. King1, and State University, Ames. W. D. Busby2, 1Certified Angus Beef LLC, Wooster, OH, 2Iowa State University, Ames. Five southern Iowa cow-calf farms were used to evaluate the effects of pasture characteristics and microclimatic conditions on the temporal/ Beef calves (n=47,410) fed at 18 Iowa feedlots through the Iowa Tri- spatial distribution of cattle grazing cool-season grass pastures with County Steer Carcass Futurity over eight years (2002-09) were used to streams and/or ponds. Pastures ranged from 14 to 129 ha with varying evaluate the effect of disposition score (1=docile; 6=very aggressive) proportions of cool-season grass, legume, weed, and brush species, bare on feedlot performance, carcass traits and profitability. A common diet ground, and shade. Cows were Angus or Angus-cross on four farms with was fed and similar implant and health programs were administered to Mexican Corriente on the remaining farm. During spring, summer, and all calves. Calves were sorted and harvested when visually determined fall in 2007 and 2008, 2 to 3 cows per farm were fitted with Global Posi- to have one cm of fat cover. Calves were divided into three groups tioning System collars to record cattle positions at 10 min intervals for based on disposition score: docile (DC), restless (R) and nervous to very periods up to 14 d. Microclimate data were collected with HOBO data aggressive (NVA). Unless otherwise stated, each of the three means for loggers at 10 min intervals over the grazing seasons. Pasture character- each outcome was different from all other means (P < 0.05). DC, R and istics, such as streams, pond, and fence lines, were referenced and used NVA calves had similar feedlot delivery weights. Although disposition to establish zones in the pastures including in the stream or pond, within score significantly affected days on feed, the difference between the 30.5 m, or greater than 30.5 m from the stream or pond. Mean propor- highest and lowest mean DOF was less than one day. As disposition tions of observations when cattle were in the water source did not differ score increased, final weights (537.9, 531.2 and 519.9 kg), hot carcass between farms. However, mean proportions of time cattle spent within weights (330.7, 327.6 and 322.8 kg), ADG (1.46, 1.43 and 1.37 kg/d) 30.5 m and greater than 30.5 m of the water source differed (P < 0.05) and marbling scores (400=Sm0; 431.7, 422.1 and 401) decreased while between farms. The probability of that cattle were within the streamside cost of gain increased (1.33, 1.48 and 1.51 USD/kg). NVA calves were zone (the area in and within 30.5 m of the water source) increased with less efficient (6.97 kg/kg) compared with D (6.86 kg/kg) and R (6.84 increasing ambient temperature and differed between farms. Regressions kg/kg) calves. Rib fat was identical for DC and R calves (1.14 cm), but predicting proportions of time that cattle were within the streamside zone was lower for NVA calves (1.05 cm). Of the black-hided Angus-type from the proportion of pasture sites vegetated with endophyte-infected calves eligible for the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) program, higher tall fescue or the proportions of pasture shade in the riparian zones were disposition scores lowered CAB acceptance rates (20.65, 15.21 and not significant. However, the proportion of time cattle were within the 9.08% for DC, R and NVA calves, respectively; P < 0.0001). DC streamside zones was related (P < 0.05) to pasture size and the propor- calves were the most profitable (46.63 USD/hd) followed by R calves tion of the total area of each pasture in the streamside zone. Temporal/ at 26.16 USD/hd. NVA calves returned the least profit at 7.62 USD/hd. spatial distribution of grazing cattle is related to pasture size and shape, Docile calves had better feedlot performance, improved carcass merit and therefore, the risk of nonpoint source pollution of surface waters and greater profitability than those calves that were more aggressive. may be greater on small and/or narrow pastures than large pastures. Key Words: disposition score, feedlot performance, carcass traits Key Words: cattle distribution, global positioning system, nonpoint source pollution 1 3 The effect of selection for residual feed intake on general scores in all claw areas than stall-housed sows. With the housing system behavioral activity in Yorkshire gilts. L. J. Sadler*1, A. K. Johnson1, in the model, the likelihood of lameness increased (P < 0.05) by 13, 20 S. M. Lonergan1, D. Nettleton2, and J. C. M. Dekkers1, 1Iowa State and 17%, respectively, with every unit increase in scores for OGC, total University, Ames, 2Iowa State University, Ames. WL and total SWV cracks. Separate, stepwise logistic regression for the housing systems indicated that the likelihood of lameness increased by The objective of this study was to determine the effect of selection for 13% and 28% in sows housed in pens with ESF and in stalls, respectively, reduced residual feed intake (RFI) on behavior and activity of gilts for every unit increase in the total SWV score. This study indicated in their home pen. A total of 192 gilts were used, 96 were from a line higher claw lesion scores in lame sows compared to non-lame sows, in that had been