DOCSLIB.ORG

Feeding Broiler Litter to Beef Cattle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feeding Broiler Litter to Beef Cattle ALABAMA A&M AND AUBURN UNIVERSITIES Feeding Broiler ANR-557 Litter to Beef Cattle attle and other ruminants have a unique diges- It is important that the beef industry avoid a Ctive system that allows them to use waste and controversy over the healthfulness of beef. Broiler other types of by-products as sources of dietary nu- litter has been used as feed for several years in all trients. The cattle-feeding industry has been built areas of the country without any recorded harmful largely on the use of by-products and other materi- effects on humans who have consumed the prod- als that can be digested only by ruminants. One by- ucts of these animals. In addition, in Alabama, litter product that can be used as a cattle feed is broiler is most commonly fed to brood cows and stocker litter. cattle that are not usually marketed as slaughter The broiler chicken industry has long consid- beef. Very little if any litter is in the diets of fin- ered broiler litter a problem by-product. It has been ished cattle fed for slaughter (although, allowing a used mainly as a fertilizer. However, fertilizer does 15-day withdrawal period from feeding litter before not make the most efficient use of broiler litter. In slaughter, such a diet would be considered safe). terms of the cost of replacing the nutrients it pro- So, the possibility of any human health hazard, ei- vides with nutrients from other sources, broiler lit- ther real or imagined, is remote. ter is worth four times more as a cattle feed ingre- In sum, the use of broiler litter as a cattle feed dient than as fertilizer. Litter is a good source of offers three primary advantages: protein, energy, and minerals, especially for brood 1. It is an environmentally responsible use of a cows and stocker cattle, which are the backbone of problem by-product. the cattle industry in the state. In addition to offer- 2. It provides an incentive for the proper man- ing an economic advantage, using broiler litter in agement of this by-product by poultry and cattle feed also helps to conserve plant nutrients. These producers alike. nutrients, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and 3. It economizes the production of beef cattle. other mineral elements, are distributed on pasture land as manure by the cattle consuming the litter. Under present conditions, broiler litter offers so Regulations on Feeding Litter many advantages that even long-distance trans- In 1967, when the FDA issued a policy state- portation does not reduce its economic value. ment that discouraged the feeding of litter and Alabama beef cattle producers can make use of this other types of animal wastes, there was relatively plentiful resource to substantially reduce their pro- little knowledge available on feeding broiler litter. duction costs. In 1980, after extensive testing by researchers at Most beef producers take into account the pub- universities and USDA facilities, the FDA rescinded lic perception of beef when they are considering its earlier policy statement and announced that the using waste materials as feed. There is an apparent regulation of litter should be the responsibility of reluctance on the part of the public, as well as of the state departments of agriculture. At present at some beef producers, to accept broiler litter as a least 22 states have regulations pertaining to the cattle feed. However, the public readily accepts or- marketing of litter and other animal wastes as feed ganically grown vegetablesARCHIVE grown on composted ingredients. broiler litter. The process by which a plant assimi- Presently, no federal laws or regulations control lates food into its tissues is much less complicated the sale or use of broiler litter as a feed ingredient. than the process by which a cow does the same Also, no state laws specifically regulate the feeding thing; a cow’s food is broken down and processed of animal waste and other by-products. But, several much more completely. And, in fact, a cow must states have regulations that govern the sale through be off broiler litter for 15 days before it can be commercial markets of these products intended for slaughtered for beef, while a mushroom can go di- sale as a feed ingredient. The Alabama Board of rectly from its bed of manure to the grocery store. Agriculture and Industries adopted regulations Visit our Web site at: www.aces.edu under the Commercial Feed Law to deal with only of birds housed on the litter are not standardized or commercial transactions of processed animal waste. regulated, litter quality can vary considerably from These regulations do not address private use one producer to another. Other factors such as broil- or exchange of broiler litter or other animal er house management, the method of litter removal, waste. and moisture content can add to the variation in litter Processed broiler litter offered for sale in com- composition and quality. The average nutrient con- mercial channels as a feed ingredient must meet tent of 106 samples of broiler litter collected from certain quality standards. The regulations governing across Alabama is shown in Table 1. animal-waste feed were adopted by the Board of Agriculture and Industries and went into effect Table 1. Nutrient Content of Broiler Litter in Alabama January 1, 1977. Those regulations are listed under Components, Dry basis Average Range Agricultural Chemistry Regulation No. 9. If animal Moisture 19.5 4.70-39 waste contains drugs or drug residues, it must carry Dry matter, % 80.5 61-95 a label that reads “WARNING: This product con- TDN*, % 50.0 36-64 tains drug residues; do not use within 15 days of Crude Protein, % 24.9 15-38 slaughter.” This warning should also be observed Bound Nitrogen, % 15.0 5-64 by any farm feeder of broiler litter. Crude Fiber, % 23.6 11-52 Minerals The beef producer, regardless of government Calcium, % 2.3 0.81-6.13 regulation of the feedstuffs used, has the responsi- Phosphorus, % 1.6 0.56-3.92 bility of selling a wholesome animal that is free Potassium, % 2.3 0.73-5.17 from drugs and toxic substances. To minimize Magnesium, % 0.52 0.19-0.88 risks from drug residues in the tissues of beef Sulfur, % 0.50 0.22-0.83 cattle that are fed litter, all litter feeding should Copper, ppm 473 25-1,003 be discontinued 15 days before the animals are Iron, ppm 2377 529-12,604 marketed for slaughter. Litter should not be fed Manganese, ppm 348 125-667 to lactating dairy cows, because there is no oppor- Zinc, ppm 315 106-669 tunity for a withdrawal period to ensure the elimi- Ash (minerals) 24.7 9-54 nation of residues from milk. Because of the sensi- 106 Samples; *TDN = Total Digestible Nutrients tivity of sheep to copper, litter containing high Moisture. The amount of moisture in broiler concentrations of copper should not be fed to litter is determined by the management of watering these animals. These safety precautions are gener- systems in the broiler house. The moisture content ally sufficient to eliminate most health risks associ- of the litter does not vary significantly between ated with drug residues that may be associated fresh litter and litter stacked for 6 months. with broiler litter. Though moisture content is not an important For further information on regulations govern- measure of nutrient value, it will determine the ing the commercial sale of broiler litter, contact the physical quality of the feed. If the moisture content Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. is 25 percent or more, a feed mix will not flow eas- As stated previously, these regulations apply only ily through an auger. However, if the broiler litter is to broiler litter offered for commercial sale. 12 percent moisture or less, the ration may be dusty and less palatable to the cows. Some beef Nutritional Value of Broiler Litter producers see an increase in feed consumption when water is added to extremely dry mixtures of The bedding materials used in broiler houses in litter and grain just prior to feeding. Alabama are wood shavings, sawdust, peanut hulls, TDN. The Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) fig- and some shredded paper products. Poultry house ure is calculated from crude protein and crude fiber owners use these products in varying amounts for values. The energy value of broiler litter is fairly the initial bedding and as additional bedding after low in comparison to grain. However, litter that has each batch of birds. The bedding material alone is ARCHIVEa calculated value of 50 percent TDN is comparable a low-quality feed ingredient. However, with the to good-quality hay. Litter could be a valuable addition of feathers, waste feed, and excrement source of energy for both stocker cattle and brood from the birds, the nutrient quality of the litter im- cows. proves. Crude Protein. The average crude protein The kind of bedding material used in a broiler level of the samples analyzed was 24.9 percent. house has little effect on the quality of the litter More than 40 percent of the crude protein in litter when it is used for feeding cattle. Because the can be in the form of nonprotein nitrogen. The amount of bedding used and the number of batches nonprotein nitrogen is mostly uric acid that is 2 excreted by poultry. Young ruminants do not utilize to conventional feed ingredients. Copper, for exam- non-protein nitrogen as readily as more mature ple, is usually not fed at more than 150 ppm in beef cattle. So, for best performance, feed broiler beef cattle diets.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook/LDP-M-244/Oct
    Economic Research Service Situation and Outlook Livestock, Dairy, and LDP-M-244 Oct. 17, 2014 Poultry Outlook Kenneth Mathews [email protected] Steers and Lower Corn Prices Boost Cattle Dressed Weights Beef/Cattle: Despite recent and current positive cattle feeding margins, increases in feeder Contents cattle prices are offsetting declines in corn prices, signaling continuation of positive margins. Beef/Cattle Despite record retail beef prices, meatpackers are caught between high fed cattle prices and cutout Beef/Cattle Trade Pork/Hogs values too low to generate positive packer margins. Poultry Poultry Trade Beef/Cattle Trade: U.S. cattle imports are up 13 percent this year as high U.S. cattle Dairy prices continue to draw animals across the border. U.S. beef imports continue to grow and Contacts and Link were up 46 percent in August from a year earlier. Demand for U.S. beef exports slowed somewhat this summer but remain strong to Hong Kong and Mexico, both showing strong Tables gains from last year. Red Meat and Poultry Dairy Forecast Recent Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Special Articles Web Sites Animal Production and Marketing Issues “Effect of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on U.S. Dairy Trade,” pdf pages 19-25 of Cattle November 2013 Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook report Dairy (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1221780/specialarticleldpm233.pdf) Hogs Poultry and Eggs “Determinants of Japanese Demand for U.S. Pork Products in 2012,” pdf pages 20-25 WASDE -------------- of the May 2013 Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook report Tables will be released (http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1106754/ldpm227.pdf) on Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries
    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs
    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Program Producer Manual
    Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Five Rivers Cattle Feeding All Natural Cattle Producer Manual Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Table of Contents Live Animal Requirements 1. Angus/Red Angus Genetics 2. U.S. Origin 3. Less than 30 Months of Age 4. Certification 5. Ranch Inspections Documentation 1. Producer Confirmation of Understanding 2. Five Rivers Affidavit Production Requirements 1. Non-allowable products Animal Welfare and Handling 1. Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) Beef Cattle Standards Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Live Animal Requirements 1. Angus/Red Angus Genetics Five Rivers requires the cattle to be a minimum of 50% Red- or Black-Angus genetics. No Dairy or Brahman influence. 2. U.S. Origin All cattle must be born and raised in the United States. Producers are required to document cattle origin and/or brand ID on the Five Rivers affidavit. 3. Less than 30 Months of Age The Five Rivers Natural program requires cattle be of “A” maturity (under 30 months of age) at slaughter. 4. Certification All cattle must have been born, raised, finished, and slaughtered in compliance with the Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) Standards for beef cattle. These standards are included in this manual and are available online at www.certifiedhumane.org. 5. Ranch Inspections The Five Rivers Natural program requires that a minimum of 10% of suppliers be inspected annually for compliance. Inspections are conducted by a Five Rivers representative or approved 3rd party. Five Rivers Cattle Feeding Natural Producer Manual Last Revised: 3/16/18 Documentation 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to South Dakota!
    A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AGRICULTURAL AGENTS Volume LXXV I No. 1 April, 2015 NACAA - 6584 W. Duroc Road - Maroa, IL 61756 - (217)794-3700 Welcome to South Dakota! S ion of c AL A SOC at o N IA i u O T c n I • EXTENSION • I o t T O s y A N s a N a • g • C l • RESEARCH • S a a O • LAND GRANT COLLEGE • T g U n N e N o n E i T NACAA t Y G t a 1915 – 2015 A s A L n great faces. great places. GR A ICU TUR owing professional L gr for 100 years ly Ce s lebrating 100 Year 20 1915 15 S I G H T S O F S O U T H D A K O T A page 2 President’s Corner C You’re Invited to the E Birthday Party in South Dakota! L Birthdays are special occasions, and 100th birthdays are You will find excellent facilities for E especially so. From July 12 -16, 2015, NACAA will celebrate the AM/PIC when you arrive in its 100th birthday at the Centennial AM/PIC in Sioux Sioux Falls, complete with FREE B Falls, SD. The celebration will include birthday cake, or parking, and the airport just a Mike Hogan R fifty cakes to be exact. Each state association will have its $5 cab ride away! (But you won’t own birthday cake at the AM/PIC, and state associations need a taxi to get to the airport, as NACAA President A and their families will be asked to decorate their state’s the South Dakota members have birthday cake however they choose on Sunday.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Livestock Farming: Potential and Limitations of Husbandry Practice to Secure Animal Health and Welfare and Food Quality
    Organic livestock farming: potential and limitations of husbandry practice to secure animal health and welfare and food quality Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop 25-27 March 2004, Witzenhausen, Germany Edited by M. Hovi, A. Sundrum and S. Padel Sustaining Animal Health and Food Safety in Organic Farming (SAFO) Co-ordinator: Mette Vaarst (Danish Institute of Animal Science, Denmark) Steering Committee Malla Hovi (The University of Reading, England) Susanne Padel (The University of Aberystwyth, Wales) Albert Sundrum (The University of Kassel, Germany) David Younie (Scottish Agricultural College, Scotland) Edited by: Malla Hovi, Albert Sundrum and Susanne Padel Publication date: July 2004 Printed in: The University of Reading ISBN: 07049 1458 1 Contents Foreword M. Hovi, A. Martini, S. Padel 1 Acknowledgements 3 Part A: Organic animal health management and food quality at the farm level: Current state and future challenges Organic livestock production and food quality: a review of current status and future challenges M. Vaarst and M. Hovi 7 Animal health in organic farming defined by experts- concept mapping and the interpretation of the concept of naturalnessl T. Baars, E. Baars and K. Eikmans 17 Animal, welfare and health problem areas from an organic farmer’s point of view U. Schumacher 25 A veterinarian’s perspective of animal health problems on organic farms. P. Plate 27 Part B: Animal health and welfare: organic dairy production Swiss organic dairy milk farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? E. Haas and B. Pabst 35 Animal health in organic dairy farming – results of a survey in Germany. C.
    [Show full text]
  • Heraldic Terms
    HERALDIC TERMS The following terms, and their definitions, are used in heraldry. Some terms and practices were used in period real-world heraldry only. Some terms and practices are used in modern real-world heraldry only. Other terms and practices are used in SCA heraldry only. Most are used in both real-world and SCA heraldry. All are presented here as an aid to heraldic research and education. A LA CUISSE, A LA QUISE - at the thigh ABAISED, ABAISSÉ, ABASED - a charge or element depicted lower than its normal position ABATEMENTS - marks of disgrace placed on the shield of an offender of the law. There are extreme few records of such being employed, and then only noted in rolls. (As who would display their device if it had an abatement on it?) ABISME - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ABOUTÉ - end to end ABOVE - an ambiguous term which should be avoided in blazon. Generally, two charges one of which is above the other on the field can be blazoned better as "in pale an X and a Y" or "an A and in chief a B". See atop, ensigned. ABYSS - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ACCOLLÉ - (1) two shields side-by-side, sometimes united by their bottom tips overlapping or being connected to each other by their sides; (2) an animal with a crown, collar or other item around its neck; (3) keys, weapons or other implements placed saltirewise behind the shield in a heraldic display.
    [Show full text]
  • The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes
    For Private Circulation The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes BY A. POLSON, F.S.A., Scot. H./v . 4/^. )12f Ht 4^ J ^X^ ^ m^-t JfiUum,— The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes. This is not a paper on Heraldry, but only a small collec- tion of legends regarding the incidents which are said to account for the crests and mottoes of some of the Highland clans. It is hoped that the recital of these may induce some of the members of the clans not mentioned here to tell any story they may have heard regarding their crests, so that fellow clansmen may take a deeper interest in all that pertains to the crest which many of them so proudly wear. The innate vanity which has prompted men of all races and ages to don ornaments and decorations must, among other things, be held responsible for the armorial bearings which have been, and are, worn by individuals, families, and communities, all of whom seem peculiarly sensitive as to the right of any other to impinge on their privilege of wearing the peculiar design chosen by themselves or an ancestor. Heraldry is not itself an old science, but the desire for some distinguishing ornament accounts, among savages, for the painted designs their bodies and on their shields and on ; men bearing similar designs were, and are, regarded as brethren. There is ample evidence of the antiquity of these emblems. One wonders whether Jacob in blessing his sons had in mind the emblems of the tribes when he said: " Judah is a lion's whelp.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W
    Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W. Rideout, Wildlife Biologist, Texas Parks and Wildlife 1. Do not try to carry more cattle arrowleaf clover and ryegrass to than the land can support over the benefit cattle and deer. long term. Graze native pastures on a rotating basis wherever 5. Minimize use of herbicides in possible, resting pastures for at pastures. Mowing or spot treat- 9. Control feral (wild) hogs by least as long they are grazed. ment of undesirable weeds with shooting or trapping whenever Consider using stocker operation 2-4D (1 pt./acre) is preferred over possible. Winter months are most from March through August broadcast spraying. effective to control these direct instead of continuous cow/calf competitors of deer. operation. 6. In May, plant 1-5% of acreage in summer supplemental food plots 10. Do not try to carry more deer 2. Fence off or exclude wooded areas fenced-off/excluded from cattle. Plots than the land can support over the from cattle wherever possible from should be long and narrow, and at long term. Generally, one deer/ mid August through February, least five acres due to usually heavy 10 acres in bottomland and one especially bottomlands to prevent use by deer. Bottomland plots, not deer/25 acres in upland is the competition with deer for browse. subjected to standing water, are recommended carrying capacity in Include in fenced-off areas, one or more productive. A combination of the Post Oak Savannah, depending more acres of native pasture to iron and clay cowpeas, alyce clover on cattle stocking rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Nebraska's Cattle Feeding Industry
    Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources EC847 Nebraska’s Cattle Feeding Industry: Size, Structure and Related Industries Thomas L. Holman, Extension Educator Kathleen Brooks, Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist Matt Luebbe, Extension Feedlot Nutrition Specialist Galen Erickson, Extension Feedlot Nutrition Specialist With 6.7 million head of cattle and calves in 2007, Ne- port also examines the relationship of the feeding industry braska has the second largest beef cattle herd in the nation. with the cow-calf production sector, beef processing indus- Cash receipts from sales of these cattle and calves totaled try, feedstuff production industry and export market. $6.6 billion in 2006. Nebraska’s 2.7 million head of cattle on feed in January 2007 also makes the state the second Overview of Nebraska’s Beef Cow Industry largest in the number of cattle on feed and commercial cat- tle slaughtered. A number of unique factors and resources The availability of high quality feeder cattle and calves contribute to the large and thriving cattle feeding industry in Nebraska supports the state’s feeding industry. In 2012, in Nebraska. More than half of the state’s land area is com- Nebraska had approximately 6.3 percent of the nearly 30.3 prised of pasture and rangeland, which supports a large million beef cows that calved in the U.S. that year. These 6.4 cow-calf sector and provides a large calf crop to Nebraska million head of beef cows and calves are on 23,280 beef cow feeders. Not only are cattle feeders near an ample supply operations throughout Nebraska for a state average herd of feeder cattle, but they also are close to key feed input size of 275 cows per operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding the Show Steer
    FEEDING THE SHOW STEER Stephen Boyles OSU Extension Beef Specialist Receiving the Animal: Find out what the calf was being fed, and blend that diet as at least part of the new diet. Calves will suffer less stress if you reduce their fed and water intake by 1/2‐2/3 on the day they are shipped. Another calf of similar age and weight in the pen will help make the new arrival feel more at home. Always make changes in diet ingredients and amounts gradually over time. Initially including at least 30% roughage in the diet can reduce digestive problems. Let them have access to some long stem grass hay. The starter ration may include some molasses, about 1/2 rolled corn, 1/2 rolled or crimped oats plus a protein supplement, vitamins, and minerals. Calves that have already been weaned and are consuming grain are easier to start up on feed. Calves that have not been weaned or were weaned only recently need to be brought up on feed gradually over a 2 to 3 week time period. You may want to start with 3 to 6 pounds of your grain mix per feeding (6‐12 lbs per day). Increase the amount of grain they get by 1/2 a pound per day over the next 2 to 3 weeks. Example Starter Ration Feed Pounds Crimped oats 60.0 Cracked or rolled corn 24.5 Protein Pellets (32%) 14.5 Salt/Mineral .6 Feed Additive .4 Total 100.0 Feeding Schedule Week Lbs/Feeding Lbs/Day Amount of Hay 1 3.0‐4.5 9.5 1 flake hay 2 4.0‐5.0 10.0 1 flake hay 3 5.0‐6.0 12.0 1 flake hay *The following table was obtained from: C.
    [Show full text]