A survey to describe current cattle feedlot facilities in the High Plains region of the United States

Simroth, J. C.; Thomson, Daniel U.; Schwandt, E. F.; Bartle, S. J.; Larson, C. K.; Reinhardt, C. D.

doi:10.15232/pas.2016-01542

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aside from this statistic, there is little to no aggregate industry information about how commonly used shade provisions are within the beef cattle supply chain. A survey study conducted in the High Plains region of the United States (TX, OK, NM, CO, KS, and NE) reported that 17% of participating feedlot managers ( n = 43) utilized shade in feeding pens and 47% provided shade in hospital pens ( Simroth et al, 2017 ). Only 5% utilized shade in the receiving pens.…”

Section: What Do We Know About Shade Use In the United States?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of shade on cattle well-being in the beef supply chain

Edwards‐Callaway

Cramer

Cadaret

et al. 2020

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shade is a mechanism to reduce heat load providing cattle with an environment supportive of their welfare needs. Although heat stress has been extensively reviewed, researched, and addressed in dairy production systems, it has not been investigated in the same manner in the beef cattle supply chain. Like all animals, beef cattle are susceptible to heat stress if they are unable to dissipate heat during times of elevated ambient temperatures. There are many factors that impact heat stress susceptibility in beef cattle throughout the different supply chain sectors, many of which relate to the production system, i.e. availability of shade, microclimate of environment, and nutrition management. The results from studies evaluating the effects of shade on production and welfare are difficult to compare due to variation in structural design, construction materials used, height, shape, and area of shade provided. Additionally, depending on operation location, shade may or may not be beneficial during all times of the year, which can influence the decision to make shade a permanent part of management systems. Shade has been shown to lessen the physiologic response of cattle to heat stress. Shaded cattle exhibit lower respiration rates, body temperatures, and panting scores compared to un-shaded cattle in weather that increases the risk of heat stress. Results from studies investigating the provision of shade indicate that cattle seek shade in hot weather. The impact of shade on behavioral patterns is inconsistent in the current body of research, some studies indicating shade provision impacts behavior and other studies reporting no difference between shaded and un-shaded groups. Analysis of performance and carcass characteristics across feedlot studies demonstrated that shaded cattle had increased ADG, improved feed efficiency, HCW, and dressing percentage when compared to cattle without shade. Despite the documented benefits of shade, current industry statistics, although severely limited in scope, indicate low shade implementation rates in feedlots and data in other supply chain sectors do not exist. Industry guidelines and third party on-farm certification programs articulate the critical need for protection from extreme weather but are not consistent in providing specific recommendations and requirements. Future efforts should include: updated economic analyses of cost versus benefit of shade implementation, exploration of producer perspectives and needs relative to shade, consideration of shade impacts in the cow-calf and slaughter plant segments of the supply chain, and integration of indicators of affective (mental) state and preference in research studies to enhance the holistic assessment of cattle welfare.

show abstract

Section: What Do We Know About Shade Use In the United States?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of shade on cattle well-being in the beef supply chain

Edwards‐Callaway

Cramer

Cadaret

et al. 2020

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, very little research has been reported that evaluates the amount of shade required to optimize this effect. It is generally con sidered that the provision of 2 m 2 /animal of shade is sufficient to optimize feedlot performance [23]. The basis for this rec ommendation is uncertain.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of shade allocation or total shade plus overhead fan on growth performance, efficiency of dietary energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions

Castro-Pérez

Ríos-Rincón

Núñez-Benítez³

et al. 2020

Asian-Australas J Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of shade allocation and shade plus fan on growth performance, dietary energy utilization and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditionsMethods: Two trials were conducted, involving a total of 1,560 young bulls (289±22 kg BW) assigned to 24 pens (65 bulls/pen and 6 pens/treatment). Pens were 585 m2 with 15 m fence line feed bunks. Shade treatments (m2 shade/animal) were: i) limited shade (LS) to 1.2 m2shade/animal (LS1.2); ii) limited shade to 2.4 m2 shade/animal (LS2.4); iii) total shade (TS) which correspond to 9 m2/animal, and iv) total shade equipped with fans (TS+F). Trials lasted 158 and 183 days. In both studies, the average weekly maximum temperature exceeded 34°C.Results: Increasing shade allocation tended (p = 0.08) to linearly increases average daily gain (ADG), and dry matter intake (DMI, quadratic effect, p = 0.03). This effect was most apparent between LS1.2 and LS2.4. Shade allocation, per se, did not affect gain efficiency or estimated dietary net energy (NE). Compared with TS, TS+F increased (p<0.05) ADG, gain efficiency, and tended (p = 0.06) to increase dietary NE. There was a quadratic effect of shade on longissimus area and marbling score, with values being lower (p<0.01) for LS2.4 than for LS1.2 or TS. Likewise, marbling score was lower for TS+F than for TS. Percentage kidney, pelvic, and heart (KPH) linearly decreased with increasing shade. In contrast, KPH was greater for TS than for TS+F.Conclusion: Providing more than 2.4 m2 shade/animal will not further enhance feedlot performance. The use of fans in combination with shade increases ADG and gain efficiency beyond that of shade, alone. These enhancements were not associated with increased DMI, but rather, to an amelioration of ambient temperature humidity index on maintenance energy requirement.

show abstract

“…More recently, Boyd et al (2015) found no advantages in growth performance or carcass characteristics when cattle fed ZIL were provided 3.0 m 2 of shade. According to a recent survey conducted by Simroth et al (2016), only 7 of 42 (17%) feedlots provided shade. Furthermore, only 1 feedlot provided more than 2.3 m 2 shade area per animal.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, only 1 feedlot provided more than 2.3 m 2 shade area per animal. Based on our field experiences and the findings of Simroth et al (2016), the scenario presented in the current study where cattle were provided 1.5 m 2 shade area is typical of situations feedlot managers face in regards to decision-making with large lots of heavy cattle prone to heat stress and a limited number of pens with shade due to the cost of implementation. As a result, feedlot managers may be inclined to stage lots in a manner that maximizes number of animals with availability to shade as long as bunk space and pen size are adequate.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Samuelson et al (2016) reports 84.8% of feedlots consulted by surveyed nutritionists use βAA in their finishing cattle. Yet, Samuelson et al (2016) and Simroth et al (2016) both report only 17% of feedlots provide shade in finishing pens. Together, these findings indicate an opportunity for future shade implementation and highlight the need for current research to better appreciate the effects of shade on animal welfare and performance in cattle fed βAA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of shade on animal welfare, growth performance, and carcass characteristics in large pens of beef cattle fed a beta agonist in a commercial feedlot1

Hagenmaier

Reinhardt

Bartle

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedlot cattle ( = 1,395; BW = 568 ± 43 kg) were used to evaluate the effects of shade on animal welfare, growth performance, and carcass quality during the summer of 2013 in a Kansas commercial feedlot. Seven lots of predominately black steers and heifers (4 and 3, respectively) visually determined to be approaching the final mo on feed were identified, randomly gate-sorted, and allocated to pens located across the feed alley from each other to receive 1 of 2 treatments: 1) Shade (mean shade area = 1.5 m/ animal) or 2) No shade. Shade was provided using a 13-ounce polyethylene fabric and pens were oriented northwest to southeast. The mean starting date was June 13 and the mean days on feed for lots while on the study was 38 d. Cattle were fed a 77.67% DM steam-flaked corn-based diet and had ad libitum access to water throughout the duration of the trial. Zilpaterol hydrochloride (ZIL) was included in the finishing ration at an inclusion rate of 8.3 mg/kg of DM for the last 20 d on feed with a 3 d withdrawal period. Pen floor temperatures (PFT) were measured using an infrared thermometer and prevalence of cattle open-mouth breathing (OMB) was recorded on a pen basis. In addition to shade treatment, the effect of temperature humidity index (THI) on PFT and OMB was analyzed by classifying days as either "Alert" (THI < 79) or "Danger" (THI > 79). On the day of slaughter, pens within a replicate were kept separate through all stages of the marketing channel from loading at the feedlot until stunning at the plant. Pen served as the experimental unit for all measurements. There was a THI × shade treatment interaction for PFT and OMB ( < 0.001) where days classified as "Danger" increased PFT and prevalence of OMB compared to "Alert" days in unshaded but not shaded cattle. Shaded cattle had greater DMI ( = 0.01); however, unshaded cattle had greater G:F ( = 0.05) and therefore no differences were observed in ADG ( = 0.39). Shaded cattle had greater dressing percentage ( = 0.01), although HCW, LM area, fat thickness, marbling score, and quality grade did not differ between treatments ( > 0.05). Heat stress, a significant animal welfare concern and cause of reduced performance in feedlot cattle during the final phase of the feeding period, was alleviated in shaded cattle and illustrates the importance of shade provision as 1 tool to protect the welfare and increase feed consumption in large pens of feedlot cattle during hot summer months.

show abstract

A survey to describe current cattle feedlot facilities in the High Plains region of the United States

Cited by 9 publications

References 23 publications

Impacts of shade on cattle well-being in the beef supply chain

Impacts of shade on cattle well-being in the beef supply chain

The influence of shade allocation or total shade plus overhead fan on growth performance, efficiency of dietary energy utilization, and carcass characteristics of feedlot cattle under tropical ambient conditions

Effect of shade on animal welfare, growth performance, and carcass characteristics in large pens of beef cattle fed a beta agonist in a commercial feedlot1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About