The 2015 feedlot consulting nutritionist survey is a collaborative project between New Mexico State University and Texas Tech University that focuses on summarizing the professional practices of consulting feedlot nutritionists and updates a 2007 survey. Forty-nine consulting feedlot nutritionists were asked to participate, of which 24 completed the survey. The nutritionists surveyed service over 14,000,000 cattle annually and were representatives from individual consulting practices (54.2%), corporate cattle feeding companies (20.8%), corporate feed manufacturing companies (20.8%), or a combination of consulting practices (4.2%). The survey was completed using a web-based survey tool and contained 101 questions that were divided into sections regarding general information about the consulting practice; general cattle management; receiving cattle management, diet adaption; mixers, feed mills, and feeding management; grains and grain processing; grain by-product use; roughage use; information about supplements and microingredients; liquid feed use; nutrient formulation; feed additive use; and information used as a basis for nutritional recommendations. In most cases, the results of the current survey were similar to those reported for the 2007 survey, with a few notable exceptions such as shifts in cattle numbers and preferences for specific feedstuffs. The present study introduced a number of new questions not included in the 2007 survey that focused on management strategies used in the receiving period. Data from this survey provide insight into current nutritional and management practices of consulting nutritionists and, as in past surveys, should be useful for informing national committees that make nutritional recommendations for cattle, as well as nutrition and management strategies employed within university research settings.
Transition of newly received feedlot cattle from a forage- to grain-based diet is challenging, and the appropriate roughage level in receiving diets is debatable. Nutritionists must consider the paradox of dietary transition and roughage level to mitigate ruminal acidosis, yet concomitantly low feed intake presents difficulty in achieving nutrient requirements when metabolic demand is increased due to inherent stress and disease challenge during the receiving period. Previous research suggests that performance is improved at the expense of increased morbidity for newly received cattle consuming diets with less roughage and greater starch concentration. The clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and acute acidosis are analogous; therefore, it is probable that acidotic cattle are incorrectly diagnosed with BRD in both research and production settings. Additional research efforts have attempted to elucidate alterations in microbial populations and digestion, physiological response to inflammatory challenge, and immunological response to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus challenge in cattle consuming diets of various roughage levels. Furthermore, our understanding of the rumen microbiome is improving rapidly with culture-independent assays, products such as direct-fed microbials are available, and increased availability and use of fibrous byproduct ingredients requires further attention. Beef cattle nutritionists and producers should consider that the health benefit of receiving diets containing greater levels of roughage and lower energy may not compensate for the reduction in performance compared with feeding receiving diets with lower roughage and greater energy.
The study objective was to determine the effects of Bacillus subtilis PB6 and/or chromium propionate supplementation on health, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of high-risk beef cattle during a 56-d feedlot receiving period and the subsequent finishing period. Four truckload blocks of crossbred beef bulls (n=300) and steers (n=84; BW = 220 ± 16.2 kg) were sourced from regional auction markets and assigned randomly to treatments arranged in a 2 × 2 factorial. The generalized complete block design consisted of 12 pen replications per treatment with pen as the experimental unit. Treatments were: 1) placebo control (CON); 2) 13 g/animal daily of B. subtilis PB6 (CST); 3) 450 ppb DM chromium propionate (CHR); and 4) 13 g/animal daily of B. subtilis PB6 and 450 ppb DM chromium propionate (CST+CHR). Treatments were top dressed in feed bunks daily using 0.45 kg/animal ground corn carrier immediately following feed delivery. Data were analyzed using mixed models. During the receiving period, DMI increased (P ≤ 0.03) for CST during each interim period. Overall receiving period daily DMI was 0.35 kg/animal greater for CST (P = 0.01). Cattle fed CST had greater (P ≤ 0.06) BW on days 14, 28, and 56. Likewise, ADG was improved for CST from day 0 to 14 (P = 0.04) and for the overall receiving period (day 0 to 56; P = 0.04). From days 0 to 14, CST tended (P = 0.08) to increase G:F. During the finishing period, CHR reduced (P = 0.02) final BW and ADG (day 56 to final; P = 0.01) and ADG was less for CHR over the entire feeding period (day 0 to final; P = 0.03). Main effect of both CST (P = 0.02) and CHR (P = 0.03) decreased the overall treatment rate for bovine respiratory disease (BRD), and CST reduced overall antimicrobial treatment cost by $3.50 per animal compared to CON (P = 0.03). Hot carcass weight decreased (P = 0.01) in cattle fed CHR. Percentage of edible livers tended to increase (CST × CHR; P = 0.08) in the CST treatment. Feed intake and growth performance outcomes during the receiving period were improved by CST but not CHR supplementation. However, both CST and CHR supplementation decreased BRD morbidity rate. During the finishing period, performance and HCW were reduced in cattle supplemented with CHR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.