S. Aft.J. Anim.,Scf.,4, 221-226 (1974)

INTENSIVE PRODUCTION; ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROBLEMS

R.L. Preston

Aninul ScienceDeprtment Ohio Agriculturql Researchand fuvelopment Centre Wooster,Ohio, U.S.A.

The utlization of in the production of food lor the total, but marketed48% of the fed cattle in the United hurnan consumption takes place pritmrily in those areas States. There were 2()6 lots with capacitiesover 16,000 that have either an excGs of roughage(x rn exces of grain. head,which eccountedfor 35? of the fed cattle (U.S.D.A., Although cattlc and streeparc the rnajor economic 1974r. It has been projected that by 1975, the panhandle anirmls that can utilize roughage, it is misleading to sey area of -Oklahorna,Karsas and Nebraskawill finish that cattlc production can only take place where there is two-thirds of the cattle in the US.; lowa and lllinois will an overproduction of roughagein a world that b short of accountfor one*ixth of the total (Detrich, l97l). food. In thqe areas where grain production exceeds the ln the large areas, most of the operations demand for human food, grains are used to produce bcef. can feed between 5,000 and 50,00Ohead of cettle at one Carst (1963) has said that the real function of is time; $ome foedlots are eyen larger with capacitiesup to to burn off the carbohydratesand to conccntrate protcin. 200,000 head.Since thc typical feedingperiod is 120-150 Thus if carbohydrate is produced in exoess,whether it is days, it is possibleto feed ann"ally up to two and one-half cellulose or starch, livertock Ecrvea pooitive role in human times the capacity of any given lot. More typically, nutrition. ln my opinion, s,t ar€ nowhere near the world's approximately 8O%of capacity is realized; therefore two capacity to producc gfain.This paperwill reviewcertain as- timcs the capacity of thc lot is fed annually. pectsof intensivebeef prodrction utilizing grain as practiced As dready mentioned, such lots require a large in the . A comprehensivereview of intensive capital investment not only in physical facilities, but also bccf ploduction has bccn providcd by T.R. heston & in cattle to stock thesc lots. Many lots have feed mills M3. Willb (1970). wtridr areused almost solely to feed the cattle. Typical costs lntensive, rneans to cause an increase in degee or fa physrcal facilities range between $50-150 per head amount, to irrcrease the yield per unit of input. In live- capacity and cattle csts rangc between $175-250 per stock production,there is probablyno better exempleof this head. Thus an initial investment,not consideringfeed, for than the cattle feedlot industry in thc Unit€d States(U.S.). a 20,000 head lot would be near $6 million. Other areasin the world have intensified livestock enter- Few thcrefo're reprssent e typical farmer prises, but thcse repraent p,rimarily an intensification of owned enterprise.Gencrally they are financed by financial labour. Thc fcedlot industry in the U.S.represcnB an inten- irstitutions (e.g., commercialbanks) and managedby pro' sification of capital input in order to minimize labour input. fessional pqsons familiar with procurement, nutrition, Most of the practiccs which characterizc this industry can vcterinary medicine and marketing. In many cases,the be so described, and the degree of intensiw feedlot pro- cattle are owned by penons irrterestedonly in investing duction and its geogfaphicallocation can be largelyrehted money and are fed in feedlotson contracts,based generally to the willingness of financial systern to invcst in thb in- on feed and yardageccts. tensive systcm of production and to the willingness of Becauseof the heavy outside financial interest, com- feedlot operatorsto undertakea larp financid obligation to plete records are maintained which are essential for the fi- achiwe the scale of operation that mekes many of the nancial transactions involved. These records, however, things to be describedhere a rcality. Agriculnml production serveto wduate practicesthus enablingsmall improvements is charactedzedby diversity, habit and tradition, rather in overall efliciency to be moasured,something that has than beingbasedon sound recqds and busincssjudgements. neyer been possiblein traditional agricultural enterprises. The latter is what characterizes the large cattle feedlot While many advantagesarc claimedfor the location. etc. of operations in the U.S. theselarge feedlots, the evaluation of mcaningful records is, The major ccntrca of laryc unitr in tlr U.S. arc in the in my opinion, the chief advantagethat largefeedlots have prnhandle arca of Tcxrs and Oklahoma, thc South*cst arca over traditional systemsof feedingcattle. of Arizonaand SouthcrnCalifcnia, and in tho plainsrrca of Typically, thesc feedlots utilize weanling calvesand Ncbreska, Ksmss and Colorado. The traditbnal Corn Beh somc yearlings, both steers and heifen. Initial weights arca of the Unitcd States(Iowa, Illhob, Indbna, Mirsoui, rangebetween 160-3m kg. Ovenll, the ration fed consists Minncsota, and Ohio) b sfill a major cattle feeding arca but of 3O%roughage and TOeoconcentrate, and is fed ad lib. practicesare mor€ onwntional,traditioml and generdly or Initidly, the ration contains a lower level of concentrate, a smaller scalc than in the abovementioned arcrs. with the of ln 1973, there were 146,420 fecdlots in thc U.S.; lcvel concentrateincreasing during the feeding recently, there has b€en a dcclhe in the total numbcr of perid up to as high as 90 or even l00e' The amount of feedlots (5% decrersein 1973). Hourever,the numbcr of feeddry matterrequired to producea unit of liveweight gain lots with a capacity of greater then 80m hcad increapd generally rangesbetween 5 and 8. Upon reaching a final by 74in 1973. TbcsGlargpr lots rmdc up lessthan I t of conditionthat is typicalof U.S.D.A.grade Good and Choice,

221 these cattle are gonerally sold direct to pecking oompenies since mud in drives adjaccnt to feed bunks can becomc a for daughter. Slaughterweighb rangebotween 360-540 kg problem and becausecoveragp of the bunk to shield the (Dietrich, 1968). fecd from rain and snow is more easily accomplished. Other points that further characterizc the feedlot Since rations are prepared daily from a standardized industry will be developed in subsequent discussion.The combination of feed ingredients, comlruter formulation of industry as it has developed has rnade some outstanding rations is practiced by many lots to achievespecified nu- accomplishmentsand it hasbeen plagued by some problems. trientlovelsandother ration reguiremenBwhich are known A discrrsEionof these will serveto further describe this in- or found to be desirablefor a particular set of circumstances. dustry. These specificatiors genemlly include energ/ concentration The rmlx reasonfor the scaleand extent of the feed- (net energy), protein, calcium, phosphons, potassium,salt lot industry has been the surplus grain productiqr in the (NaCl), vit4min A, , etc. Feedsmay be given an U.S. betweln 1950 and 1970. This obviously nreantcheap rbitrary roughagevalue and a minimum roughagevalue is grain, *rhich lead to nutrition and rnanrgemcnt systcns specified for the total retion. Many other nutrient and feed that permittod the feeding of high grain rations. Rescarch specifications are included depending on feed sourccs sho*ed thet roughegewar not a re4uircmcnt for nunhantr, available and the particular preferencesof the nutritionist although mct studies indicste sornebenefit in performance in control of ration formulation. Wherechoices are possible when low levels (e.9. SUSof roughageare included in the for various ingredients, computer frmulation rsing least ration. cost computations results in minimizing the cct of the Gain processingmethods havebeen a major research total ratiq. It has been emphasized,however, that lcast area, which has been recently reviewed(Waldo, 1973;HaIe, cost forrnulas are not necessarilymaximum profit formulas, l973,Natl. R€s.Council, 1973). Benefitswith certaingains since ration specificationsdo not cqrsidff changesin profit are especially notable. Milo (gain ) is not well potential with changingspecifications (Preston, 1972). It utilized by cattle without pnor processing.Grindhg and can be generalized,howeyer, that costs are minimized by rolling geatly improvesits u^iliz-tion but steamingfollowed feeding nutricnts at levels tbat will allow maximum rates of by flaking results in maximum utilization. Some benefits grin. are derived from processingbarley; dry rolling, however, More eflicient utilization of phyrical facilities is appears to result in mudmum utilization with only incon- another accomplishment of large feedlots, thus enabling sistent further improvenrcnts with steamirry and llaking. higher coet facilities (e.g., feed mills, covercddotted floa Improvemcnts in the utilizadon of corn (rnaize) are not feeding barns) to be part of the feedlot. As mentioned nearly as large and are lessconsistent. Otr research(Vance, above, m(xc traditional systenrsof cattle feeding generrlly heston, Klcternran & Cahill, 1972) has shown that un- feed qre group of cattle annually thus greatly increasing processed whole dry corn will actually gve better per- capital costs per head of cattle fed. formance in finishing cattle than rolled dry corn, depending Bccause of the numben of cattle involved and the on the level of roughage that is concurrently fed. lVith detailed rccords maintained by large feedlots, small al- roughageleveh less-than 15- 2oeoof the ration, nfiole corn terations in nutrition and manapment can be evalusted will result in better perfcmance than rolled corn, whereas and standrrd procoduresaltered to incorpuate those found the reverseis true when roughagelevels exceed 20%of the to give bcneficial results. Thus small ctnnges can bc mea- ration. sured, something that is not pocsible urrder many typical . Srnall butconsistent funprovementsin grain utilization experiment staton conditions, becausc of srnall experi- especiallyin feed efliciency (5-10%), are seenwhen grains mental numben and the large experimental error associated are stored in restricted air containers (e.g., siloe) following with cattle research. harvest with higfrer-moisture levels (25-32%) than is pos- hobably the biggest and most obvious accomplish- sible for storageas dry gnin (lO-15%). "Reconstitution" ment has be€n the volume production of a standardized of gnin gives a similar result. Water is added to dry grain product for an unbelievably expanding market fo'r bcef. prior to placing in a silo to effect the "reconstitution" pro- U.S. Choice bcef is by far the most popular gade of beef. ces, followed by storage and partial ernsilingfor at least 3 Massivevolumes arc marketed on the basisof carcassweight, weeks. gradeand retail yield specifications,something that probab- Another rnajor accomplishment is the mechanization ly would n€rverhave developed without the large volume of feeding, greatly reducing labour. Thb hes happenedpar- and standardizndpractic€s of large feedlots. All enterprises tially becauseof the ue of high grarn rations that are more have problerns,howwer, and the feedlot indtatry panially easily mcchanizod than rations cmtaining high lwels of becauseof its rapid growth has had its stlare. roughage.Feed wagonsor trucks are'used with side deli- Grain and protein feeds have been increasingin price, veries into fence line feed bunla. Fecd ingredientsare especiallyduring the past l8 months. Thus the basisfor the weighed into these truclcs followed by mixing prior to establishment and growth of the feedlot industry, namely placing into the feed bunk; mct of thesefeed deliverysys- cheapgrain, is rapidly disappearing.Furlhermore a shortage tesr have built-in scalesenabling feed recordsto be kept of non-protein nitrogen (urea) and phosphons sourceshas on each pen of cattle. The other common method of me- disnrpted application of computcr formulation because chanizedfeeding usesaugers or belts that blend feed inge- while prrces for these ingredienb are still quoted, they dients and deliver the mixed feed along feed bur*s. This simplyare not availablein somecascs for usein rations. Thb system is more common to thce areasof higher rainfall, situation is renewing interest in roughageutilizatiqr for

222 finishingcattle (Oltjen, Rumsey& Rrtnam, 197l') and in the nure. The current environmental emphasis has greatly value of by-product feeds(Preston, Vance & Cahill, 1973r. accentuatedthis problem and many of the requirementsof Backgrounding,a term applied to a system of production the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are posing irn- where calves are grown on high roughagprations until they possibledemands on somc existing feedlots. hcsently there .*?igh 250-350 kg pri'or to finishing on high concentrate does not appear to be a more practical solution than the diets, is gining in popularity. onepracticed for centuries,namely spreading on land. Run- Varyrngdegrees of successare expcrienced wtren cattle off from both feedlotsand land on which manureis spread are fed high concentrate ratiqrs. There is an adaptation may cause pollution of surface waters and perhaps sub- period during which cattle adjust from roughageto conceo- surface water. Odours from feedlots can becomevery of- trate rations- Founder, laminitis or lactic acidoois,is the fensive,espechlly to residcntialareas. Uke many environ- mst common problem observedin starting cattle on high mental problems, complete elimination of the problem concentraterations. This is apparentlydue totherapid pro- often meansextreme costs which would probably eliminate liferation of micro-organisnu in the rumen that produce the product from the market place. Slotted floor facilities lactic acid and the relatively slow growth of thoseorgpnisrns with pits beneathallow storageand containment of feedlot that utilize lactic acid. The symptomology is p,robablydue wastesfor later distribution on land. Sinceanaerobic fermen- to D() lactatc which may not be mctabolizcd systcm- tation takes place in thesepits, the material at the time of icelly (Drnlop & Hammond, 1965; Telle & heston, removal has a very offensive odour. Various aeration sys- l97l; Morrow, Tumbleson,Kintner, Pfander& heston, temshavebeen tried with varying success;most of theseare 1973r. Decteasedfeed intake, poor perforrnance,diarrhoca, costly in termsof power to operatethe aerationequipment. lethargy, foundcr and death are the symptoms of thls Many feedlotsare usinglagoons to collect and oxidize feed- problem. lot wastes, using the water for irrigtion or for reflusing High concentraterations dso result in changesin the m&nureinto the lagoon. rurren wall that may increase the incidence of liver ab- More ingeniousideas are being tried (Winter, 1974) scesso3.Thus clumping of the papilae,accumulatiqr of hair- and one or more of these may offer a practical solution. and sloughing of the rurnen wall are commonly observedin An enormouscomposting operation at a large feedlot in cattle fed high concentrate rations. Performanceof cattle Ohio produoesa stearile compost in sevendays for the affccted with liver abscessesis generally reduced (Powell, gardner and enthusiast at a p,ricethat is equal Durham& Gann,1968).Penetration of the rumenepithelium to the feed fed to the cattle originally. Alternately, a low by hair accumulatedbetween the paprllaehas been suggested level of this compost can be incorporatedback into cattle as the source of bacteria involved in liver abscesses(Fell, rations to supply a sour@of "roughage"- "\Uastelage"is a tr(ay, Whilelaw & Boyne, 1968; Fell, Kay, Orskov & term used for feed resulting from the ensiling of manure Boyne, 1972).The useof broadspectrum antibiotics marked with other feed materials(Anthony, l97l). Useof manure ly reducesthe incidenccof liver absccses,as docsthe useof to produce methaneis now being proposedas a sourceof low levclsof roughage(e.g., 5%of the ration). energy. Wilh the shortagesof materials due to It has been suggestedthat the useof high concenmte insuflicient energy and increasing fertilizcr costs, manure rations leads to excessiveqrantities of fat in the carcass. rnayagain be usedas a sourceof plant nutrients, a recycling Howevcr, data io support this view is very limited. To the procedurethat is hard to surpa$. contrary, most published reporB indicate that plane of One of the biggestproblems of the feedlot industry nutrition does not affect carcasscomposition (heston, in the U.S. is the supply of cattle to placeon feed. Expan- l97l), at least when cattl€ are slaughteredat weightsand sion of the feedlot industry and the demand for beef has degreesof fatness that are typical of the US. gradesof exceededthe expansionpotcntial of brood stock producers. C,oodand Ctroice (e.9., 2s-35eo fat in the carcars).How- Simply stated, there are insufficient cows to produce the ever, prior to this point (e.9., less than l8-z0%fat), plane calvesrequired to keepthe feedlot industry at full capacity. of nutrition may affect carqus composition(Fox, Johnson, As a result, pricesof replacementcattle for the feedlot have heston, Dockerty & Klcterman, 1972). The gradingsys- increased.Cattle are assembledfrom all over the U.S. and tem rsed in the U.S.ishighlyrelated to the degreeof fatness ship@ perhaps l80O km to the feodlot. Additionally, becauseof ib dependenceon intramuscularfat (marbling). liglrter weight calves are being purchased(e.9., l0O kg). With current methods of growing and finishing cattle in Both of these practiceshave markedly increasedthe pre the U.S., the importance of marblingas a quality indicator blem of "shipprngfever", a syndromethat is respiratory in is very questionable(Parrish, Olson, Minor & Rust, 19731, nature but also involves,founder and death in getting the whereasthe role of maturity (age) is of significance(Goll, cattle started on feed following a long shipment under Carlin, fuidenon, Kline & lValter,1965). Thereis no doubt, semi*tarntion conditions.Many calveswill be sold through in my opinion, that the presentsystem of gradingin the U.S. one or more auction barns prior to arriving in the feedlot, is seriously confusing the picture as to wtrat it requircd thus exposingthem to a full rangeof respiratoryand other geneticallyand nutritionally to produce a high proportion dbeases.Death lossesof l-3% are comflron in thesecattle of lean meat that hasa high consumeracceptance. Feeding andlosses up to l0-30eoarepossible. steen instead of bulls is a good example,where practically Despiteconsiderable research and many claims,there all factorsfavour bulls exceptperhaps the degreeof marbling. is no known procedurethat will preventthe uncertainty of C,oncentration of cattle in large feedlots has accen- this problem. The feeding of relatively high levelsof anti-' tuated a common chore, namely the dispcal of ma- bioticsandsulpha dnrs will greatly lessenbut not eliminate

223 the problem. Many vaccineaare available which rnder ccr- intekc have been rwiewed recently (Bailc and Forbes, tain circurnstancesrnay be quite effective; they do not offer 1974). nrflicient protection, howwer, to be consid€trcdrelieblc. The usc of is one production technique Preconditioning is terminology applied to cattle that have that can rnarkedly im;nove the performance of feedlot been weaned, dehorned, castratcd, taught to eot from a cattle. Unfortrurately, the usc of hornpnes has become a bunk, drink water from a water tank and properly vaccins- po[ticd rather than a scientific guestion in the U.S. ted, all sufficiently aheadof shipment to minimizc the stress E:ropnously administered hormones, primarily thce with of shipnrcnt. While all of thesc practlrs are no doubt oatrogpnic activity, will improve rate of gain in steers desirable, no ono Eecnuto be wiling to fy sufficient p,ra approximately t2-158 and feed efficienry 8-10%. A mium to the producer to makc it worthwhile. Thus tnany wst body of litereture has accumulated in the 24 yean calves are weaned and shipped, and the above procedures fcillowilrg this dbcovery and b too voluminous to rwiew are applied at various points thereaftcr. It is not unqormroo here. Unfortunately, the mode of action of thesc compounds for cattle arriving at a feedlot to be given a worming treat- is stimulating growth is still unkno*n. Scveral haye bcsn ment, vaccinated for scverrl bacterial and vird dbeases, postulatcd but all have failings that elimimte them as the injected with a massivedose of yitamfoisA, D and E, treatcd sde cxflanation. As mentioned prwioruly, castration eli- for gnrbs, dipped for lice and mangeand given a minata one of the best sourcesof hormone for enhanced implant, all on the dey of arrival at the feedlot. production in cattle. The ure of buls in intensivc systems I would lifce now to discuss$'fnt midtt be d*ribod of bed production is an idcal combinetion gince the de- as research needs and probabilities of new findings thet creesing tenderncs observed h bulls generdly does not will prove useful to interuified bcef production. Compared begh to trke plscr until thcy are 18-20 months of ags. to other classesof livestock, beef cattle havegreater potcn- With intcnsivc practioos,bulls crn be finished for slaughter tial for improved efficiency simply becaussthcy have thc by thir timc. It b of intcrert to notc that bulls end hormonc lowest feod efliciency of any classof livestock, mcasuredby treated ctec6 tcnd to perform equa[y (Prcston, Klorter. almostany inputoutput relationship. nnn & Cahill, l97l). Thc rsc of entire mrle animds in One of thc major factors limiting the efliciency of mcat production hasbcen recently revieurod(Rhodce, l%9). growing-finistring cattle is their low voluntary feed intakc One of the greatert ncedr for reseerch rclsta tocrr- (heston, 1968). Thts efficiencies for the production of cars cunpoeition as it influencer thc yidd of edible meat edible protein and correspondingvohurtary feod intakes arc end its quslity attributes, Brccd typ6, mature body size, approximatelyas folloun: slaughter wergfut and perheps plsnc of nutrition mry all play . role in carcas composition (Hedrick, 19721. tn the Aninul hoteh Volunury inuke U.S., the pres€Nrtmcesures of carcassgrade p,rcscnta real effuicncy paradox to the produccr. Sinoe marbling, thc major lactating cows 27% 3-5 timesmaintenencc factor invotvod in gnding, is hi$ly related to totd fat Gro*ing-finishing pfs 16% 3 tirnes rneintenancc concentratim in thc carcass,to improve grade generally Grouing-finishing cattle 6% 2.2 tfuncsmaintcnence rreans to decrersc yield of edible meat. Since current sys- temr of intensivc beef production greatly dimini$ or crrcn Feed intakc in growing-frnistringcattle on rations thet ex- eliminstc rmrbling as a good indicator of quality, it seems ened 67eodry rnatter digestibility (e.9., greater thrn 50? that to continue with this system of grading can do nothing concentrate) declines resulting in a rather cqrstant encrgy more than to grcatly confuse the issue regrrding those intake and,therefore, a constantrate of garnwith increasing breeding and production systems that will improve efli- concentrate level. There is some tendency to think that ciency and still result in highly acceptable bo€f. higher levels of concentr:ateresult in higher rates of gin. It is wpn known that the cqrcentration of fat in- This may be true in certain circumstancesbut generally creui€sin the sarcasswith increasingweight and converroly speaking,rate of gain plateauswith concentratelevels above the concentration of protcin decreases.Therefore, snrdie$ 50%of the total ration. Fecd efficicncy, as would be ex- on the influence of plane of nutrition on carcaEEcunpooi- pected, continues to improve with increasingcmcentratc tion mut be evaluted at cqual body or carcassweight. level. This of coursehas some practical value sincelccs feed Cattle fed on higher planes of nutrition generally gain needsto be hatrdledand lessrnanure is produced. faster ud thcreforc will be heavier after an equal time on If feed intake rcmained the same(e.g., 100 gm dry feed rcsulting in carcasseswith a higher fat conceirtrarioo. rnatter/Wpro'751with increasingconcentrate level, it canbe The proportion of mature body *rryht at which cattle are daughtercd i$ probably the main factor govcrning projected that growing-finishingcattle could be as cfficient the concentrationof fat in the carcass(Preston, l97l Thrs, as swine on allconcentrate rations (heston, 1972).This is ). beef trading should be oriented the percent fat where there is greatest potential for improved efficiency in towards of required in the sarcas for a given consumer cattle. Variousreasons can be pctulated for this limitation, clientele and the size of carcassdesired. Since (agc) e.g-,volatile fatty acid(VFA) end productsfrom the rumen, maturity is a major factor in tendemess,production systemsthat will yield car- heat irroduction, and growth versrrslactation. All of these, cass$ with the required maturity can be developcd. however, have points wtrich negate them as explanations, then Breed typc or mature bpdy size and slauglrterweight can Iactating coua produceVFA's and producelarge quantities of heat; both lactating cows and growing prgs eat more then be more logically manipulated to achieve the desired feed than growrrg-finishingcattle. Factors affecting feed result.

2U Carcassfat concentrationcan be quite easily$timeted evaluation. One of the major limitations in the utilization with acceptableaccuracy by measuringthe specificgravity of roughagehas been the largelabour input required for its (Preston, of the carca$ Vance, Cehill & Kock, 1974; harvest,storage and feeding. Recent developmenu in the Garrett & Hinrnan, 1969). This techniquecould easily be designof farm machineryrnay alter this picturein the future. added to the slaughteringprocedure for cattle. Such a Harvestingand storageof fresh as silageis a practice would greatly enhancethe ability of packingcom- practice of long standingand is easily mechanizedto mini- panies to sell beef carcasseswith known composition. mize labor. Corn is no doubt the More researchemphasis is neededin the areaof live easiestcrop to ensileand animalevaluation of carcasscompcition. Severaltechniques resultsin a highqualityfeedwith minimum risk. Flarvesting have been studied but most are either too costly or too the entire corn plant as silagecan result in 50eomore beef time consumingto be usedeither to.evaluate breeding stock producedper hectarethan will result from feedingthe grain or to study the growth curves of experimental cattle. only (Preston,1972'). Measuringurea spacein livc cattle is rapid and inexpensive "Big package"forage handting machines for harvesting and predicts carcasscomposidon with reasqrableaccuncy andstoringhay andcrop residuesappcarpromising, especial- (heston & Kock, 1973). Further researchon thig technique ly where cattle can bc fed outdoors for the entire year. rmy provide sufficient experience to determine if it has Various making equipment hasbeen evaluated at Ohio promiseas a researchtool and for the selectionof breeding (Van Keuren, Parker& GiIl, 1973). tlay qulity and feeding bulls. value is maintained in these large packages.Thus beef The major thrust of this papcrhas been the intensifi. cowscan feed from thesepocloges at or nearwhere the hay cation of beef production primarily by increasingthe pro- is harvested thus minimizing labor. Smatl round bales portion of grain in the ration and the resulting advantages urcigfuing20-30 kg,left in the field at harvesttime for later and problems that result. Initially, the point was made gfazing by cattle have been used for somc time. Newer that roughageutilization is a unique capability of equipmentcan packagehay in lm-1000 kg packages.Of such as cattle. Thb is also an aspectof beef production that equal interest is the use of harvestingand packagingequip can be intensified. This is especidly neededin the intensifi- ment for $,such as corn stalks (Butts, 1973). cation of beef cow managementfor the production of Suchcrop residues,with proper supplementation,are ideal calves.Unfortunately, mct publishedresearch in thb area forbeef cowssincetheyare low in energywhich keepscows deals with basic studier on cellulce utilization and forage in a more thrifty breedingcondition.

References

ANTHONY, W.8.. 1971.Animal wastevaluc - nutrient recoveryand utilization..l.Anim. Sc,i.J2,799. BAILE, C.A. & FORBES,1.M., 1974. Control of feed intake and regulationof energy balancein ruminants.Physiol. Reys. 54.160. BUTTS, S., 1973. The rangecattfeman's competition. Spechl report, UvestockField Day, Antelope RangeField Station, Buffalo, South Dakota. DIETRICH, R.A., 1968.Ttrc Texas0klahomacattle feedingindustry. Tex. Agric. Exp.Stc., pub. B-1079. DIETRICH, R.A., l9Tl.lnterregional competition in the cattle feedingeconomy, with spocialemphasis on economicsof size.Tex. Agric. Expt..Sra.pub. B-ll15. DUNLOP,R.H. & HAIIMOND, P.8., 1965.D-lactic acidosis of ruminang.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.I19, I109. FELL, B.F., KAY, M., WHITELAW,F.G. & BOYNE,R., 1968.Observations qr the developmentof ruminallesions in calves fed on bartey.Res. vet. Scf. 9,458. FELL, 8.F., KAY, M., ORSKOV, E.R. & BOY-I{E,R., 1972. The role of ingestedanimal hairs and plant spiculesin the pathogenesisof rumenitis.Res. vet. Scl., /J, 30. FOX, D.C., JOHNSON,R.R., PRESTON,R.L., DOCKERTY,T.R. & KLOSTERMAN,E.W., 1972.Protein and energy utilization during compensatorygrowth in beef cattle. J. Anim. Scr. J4, 310. GARR-ETT,W.N. & HlNMAl.l, N. 1969. Re-evaluationof the relationshipbetween carcass density and body compositionof beefsteers. t. Anim. Sci.28. l. GARST, J ., I 963. No needfor hunger.New York: RandomHor.rse. GOLL, D.E.,CARLIN, A.F., ANDERSON,L.P., KLINE. E.A. & WALTER,M.J., 1965. Effect of rnarblingand maturity on beef musclecharacteristics. Il. Ptrysical,chemical and sensoryevalrution of steaks,Fctctd Technol- 19, 163- HALE, W.H., 1973. Influence of processingon the utilization of grains(starch) by ruminants.J. Anim. Sci. 37, 1075. HEDRICK,H.8.. 1972.Beef cattle type and body compositionfor maximumefficiency.J.Anim. Sci 34,87A. MORROW,L.L., TUMBLESON,M.E., KINTNER, L.D., PFANDER,W.H. & PRESTON,R.L., 1973.Laminitis in lambsin- jectedwith lactic acid.Am. J. vet. Res.34, 1305. NATTONALRESEARCH COUNCIL, 1973. Effeet of processingon the nutitiorul vatuesof feeds,Washington, D.C.: National Academyof Sciences. OLTJEN,R.R., RUMSEY,T.S. & PUTNAM.P.A., 1971.All-forage diets for finishingbeef cattle.J. Anim. Sci.32.3!7.

225