Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of different corn milling methods for high-moisture and dry corn on finishing cattle performance, carcass traits, and nutrient digestion. In experiment 1, steers (N = 600 [60 pens]; initial body weight [BW] = 402 ± 17 kg) were fed for 134 d to evaluate the effect of milling method and corn type on performance and carcass characteristics. Treatments were evaluated as a 2 × 3 factorial design with factors being milling method (Automatic Ag roller mill [ROLL] or hammer mill [HAMMER]) and corn type (high-moisture [HMC], dry [DC], or 50:50 blend of HMC and DC [BLEND]). There were no milling method × corn type interactions for final BW, gain (ADG), or dry matter intake (DMI; P ≥ 0.32), but there tended to be an interaction for G:F (P = 0.09). Cattle fed ROLL HMC had 4.7% greater gain:feed (G:F; P ≤ 0.01) with 55% lower fecal starch (P < 0.01) compared to HAMMER HMC, whereas processing did not impact (P = 0.74) G:F in DC diets. There were no further effects (P ≥ 0.14) on performance or carcass traits regardless of milling method or corn type. In experiment 2, seven ruminally fistulated steers were utilized in a 4 × 7 incomplete Latin rectangle to evaluate the effects of DC or HMC processed with either ROLL or HAMMER (2 × 2 factorial treatment design) on nutrient digestion. Feeding HMC decreased the amount of excreted dry matter (DM) and organic matter (OM; P ≤ 0.01) regardless of mill type, but there was a tendency (P ≤ 0.13) for an interaction between corn type and mill type for DM and OM digestibility. There was no difference between milling treatments fed as HMC (P ≥ 0.69), but the HAMMER DC diet was more digestible than the ROLL DC (P = 0.05). As expected, HMC-based diets had greater (P < 0.01) starch digestibility compared to DC, but milling method had no impact on starch digestibility (P = 0.56). There were no differences (P = 0.56) in average ruminal pH, but HMC diets had greater variance (P = 0.04) and greater area less than pH 5.6 (P = 0.05) compared to DC based diets while milling method did not impact either (P > 0.33). Processing HMC with a roller mill improved G:F compared to processing with a hammer mill, but had little effect when corn was fed as dry corn or HMC:DC blend. Furthermore, feeding cattle HMC compared to DC increases nutrient digestibility, but milling method had little impact.
Supplementation of glucogenic precursors in roughage diets may increase production responses due to improved efficiencies of nutrient utilization. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of source of supplemental glucogenic potential (GP) on forage digestibility, serum metabolites, energy utilization, and rumen parameters of growing wethers consuming a roughage diet (8.8% crude protein, 71.4% ash-free neutral detergent fiber). Crossbred wethers (49.1 ± 4.7 kg initial BW; n = 16) were utilized in a 4 × 4 replicated Latin Square design with four periods of 21 d. Supplements were designed to supplement increasing amount of GP: (1) no supplementation (CON; 0 g), (2) 40 g of calcium propionate (CAP; 30 g of GP), (3) 70 g of blood meal + 100 g of feather meal (BF; 40 g of GP), or (4) combination of CAP and BF (COMBO; 70 g of GP). Total fecal and urine collection was conducted from d 13 – 17 to calculate digestibility estimates and urinary losses. An acetate tolerance test was administered on d 17 to determine the effect of GP on acetate clearance. Blood samples were collected on d 19 and were analyzed for serum concentrations of glucose, urea N (SUN), non-esterified fatty acids, and amino acids. Rumen fluid was collected on d 21 to determine supplementation effects on ruminal volatile fatty acid (VFA) and ammonia concentrations. Wethers receiving BF and COMBO supplementation had greatest (P ≤ 0.01) DM and OM total tract digestibility. Supplementation did not affect (P ≥ 0.37) NDF digestibility or digestible energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was greatest (P = 0.02) for BF and COMBO. Circulating serum essential amino acid concentration was increased (P < 0.01) in BF and COMBO compared to CAP and CON. In addition, BF and COMBO had increased (P < 0.01) SUN concentrations compared to CAP and CON. Acetate half-life was not affected (P = 0.39) by supplementation strategy. However, area under the curve (AUC) for acetate was decreased (P = 0.04) with supplementation of BF and COMBO compared to CON-fed wethers. Ruminal propionate concentration was increased (P ≤ 0.01) for wethers fed CAP and COMBO supplementation, which resulted in decreased (P ≤ 0.01) A:P ratio. Overall, these results indicate that the increased propionate supply by providing propionate salts did not result in a protein sparing impact or increased N retention.
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of feeding biochar in a finishing diet on cattle performance, carcass quality, methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Biochar was sourced from ponderosa pine wood waste (High Plains Biochar, Laramie, WY) and was 83% C with 426 m2/g surface area. Crossbred steers (n = 128; initial BW = 480 kg ± 82 kg) were utilized in a randomized block design (blocked by BW), steers assigned randomly to pen (n = 16), and pen was assigned randomly to treatment. Two treatments were evaluated, a finisher control (CON) without biochar and the same finisher with biochar included at 1.0% of diet dry matter replacing corn (CHAR). Four pen replications per treatment were paired within BW block and rotated randomly through an emissions barn with two chambers (each treatment evaluated simultaneously) to capture average weekly emissions of CH4 and CO2. Pen was experimental unit and chamber was included as a fixed effect for emissions data. Dry matter intake (DMI; P < 0.01) and average daily gain (ADG; P = 0.02) were 2.4 and 5.9% lower for CHAR steers, respectively. Feed efficiency (P = 0.22) and production of CO2 and CH4 (P ≥ 0.60) did not differ between treatments. Methane production was numerically lower for CHAR steers when reported as g per day (1.8% lower) or g per kg of DMI (4.8% lower). Hot carcass weight tended to be lighter (P = 0.10) and calculated USDA yield grade was decreased (P = 0.02) for CHAR steers. There was no difference between treatments for LM area, USDA quality grade, or 12th rib fat (P ≥ 0.12). In conclusion, biochar supplementation at 1.0% of diet DM reduced DMI and ADG and had no effect on CH4 and CO2 emissions in finishing steers.
The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of feeding biochar in a growing diet on cattle performance, methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Biochar was sourced from ponderosa pine wood waste (High Plains Biochar, Laramie, WY) and was 83% C with 426 m2/g surface area. Crossbred steers (n = 160; initial BW = 357 kg ± 44 kg) were utilized in a randomized block design (blocked by BW), steers assigned randomly to pen (n = 16), and pens assigned randomly to treatment. Two treatments were evaluated, a control (CON) without biochar (40% wheat straw, 40% corn silage, 15% modified distillers grains, 5% supplement) and the same diet with biochar included at 0.8% of diet dry matter replacing corn in the supplement (CHAR). Four pen replications per treatment were paired within BW block and rotated randomly through an emissions barn with two chambers (each treatment evaluated simultaneously) to capture average weekly CH4 and CO2 production. Pen was experimental unit and chamber was included as a fixed effect for emissions data. There were no statistical differences in performance outcomes between CHAR and CON steers (P ≥ 0.23). Numerically, average daily gain (ADG) was greater (P = 0.46) and dry matter intake (DMI) was lower (P = 0.23) for CHAR steers, resulting in a 2.8% improvement in feed efficiency for CHAR steers (P = 0.25). Emissions of CO2 and CH4 did not statistically differ between treatments (P ≥ 0.22). Numerically, CO2 and CH4 emissions were lower for CON compared to CHAR steers when reported as g per day (3.6% lower) or g per kg of DMI (2.4% lower). Based on the results from this study, there was no indication that feeding biochar, supplemented at 0.8% of diet, reduces GHG emissions in growing steers when compared to negative control.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.