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.
A 2 × 2 factorial digestion study using seven ruminally cannulated steers evaluated the effect of feeding diets containing 70% (dry matter-basis) high-moisture (HMC) or dry corn (DC), processed with either a hammer mill or Automatic Ag Roller Mill (Pender, NE), 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 either milling treatments fed as HMC (P ≥ 0.69), but the hammer mill DC diet was more digestible than the roller mill DC (P = 0.05). There was no effect on NDF digestibility, but there was a tendency for an interaction between grain type and processing method for ADF digestibility, with the roller mill DC diet having the lowest (P = 0.02) ADF digestibility and no differences (P ≥ 0.15) among the other treatments. As expected, HMC based diets had greater (P < 0.01) starch digestibility compared to DC, but milling method had no effect (P = 0.56). High moisture corn diets had greater (P = 0.01) DE intake (Mcal/kg), and hammer mill DC tended to be greater (P = 0.07) than roller mill DC. There tended (P = 0.07) to be an interaction for minimum pH, with roller mill HMC and hammer mill DC having the lowest average pH, but not different from hammer mill HMC (P ≥ 0.32). There were no differences (P = 0.56) in average pH, but HMC diets had greater variance (P = 0.04) and greater area under pH 5.6 (P = 0.05) compared to DC based diets. Feeding cattle HMC compared to DC increases nutrient digestibility but milling process had little impact.
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.