Growth promotants reduce beef's environmental impact

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Corn as cattle feed vs. human food

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Animal health and welfare are vital to beef sustainability

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Carbon footprint comparison between grass- and grain-finished beef

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Impact of consuming beef on greenhouse gas emissions

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Beef production and carbon sequestration

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Is local beef more sustainable?

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Carbon footprint of U.S. beef compared to global beef

The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service periodically issues revisions to its publications. The most current edition is made available. For access to an earlier edition, if available for this title, please contact the Oklahoma State University Library Archives by email at [email protected] or by phone at 405-744-6311

Environmental effects on water intake and water intake prediction in growing beef cattle

Water is an essential nutrient, but there are few recent studies that evaluate how much water individual beef cattle consume and how environmental factors affect an individual’s water intake (WI). Most studies have focused on WI of whole pens rather than WI of individual animals. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of environmental parameters on individual-animal WI across different seasons and develop prediction equations to estimate WI, including within different environments and management protocols. Individual daily feed intake and WI records were collected on 579 crossbred steers for a 70-d period following a 21-d acclimation period for feed and water bunk training. Steers were fed in 5 separate groups over a 3-yr period from May 2014 to March 2017. Individual weights were collected every 14 d and weather data were retrieved from the Oklahoma Mesonet’s Stillwater station. Differences in WI as a percent of body weight (WI%) were analyzed accounting for average temperature (TAVG), relative humidity (HAVG), solar radiation (SRAD), and wind speed (WSPD). Seasonal (summer vs. winter) and management differences (ad libitum vs. slick bunk) were examined. Regression analysis was utilized to generate 5 WI prediction equations (overall, summer, winter, slick, and ad libitum). There were significant (P \u3c 0.05) differences in WI between all groups when no environmental parameters were included in the model. Although performance was more similar after accounting for all differences in weather variables, significant (P \u3c 0.05) seasonal and feed management differences were still observed for WI%, but were less than 0.75% of steer body weight. The best linear predictors of daily WI (DWI) were dry mater intake (DMI), metabolic body weights (MWTS), TAVG, SRAD, HAVG, and WSPD. Slight differences in the coefficient of determinations for the various models were observed for the summer (0.34), winter (0.39), ad libitum (0.385), slick bunk (0.41), and overall models (0.40). Based on the moderate R2 values for the WI prediction equations, individual DWI can be predicted with reasonable accuracy based on the environmental conditions that are present, MWTS, and DMI consumed, but substantial variation exists in individual animal WI that is not accounted for by these models

Test duration for water intake, ADG, and DMI in beef cattle

Water is an essential nutrient, but the effect it has on performance generally receives little attention. There are few systems and guidelines for collection of water intake (WI) phenotypes in beef cattle, which makes large-scale research on WI a challenge. The Beef Improvement Federation has established guidelines for feed intake (FI) and ADG tests, but no guidelines exist for WI. The goal of this study was to determine the test duration necessary for collection of accurate WI phenotypes. To facilitate this goal, individual daily WI and FI records were collected on 578 crossbred steers for a total of 70 d using an Insentec system at the Oklahoma State University Willard Sparks Beef Research Unit. Steers were fed in five groups and were individually weighed every 14 d. Within each group, steers were blocked by BW (low and high) and randomly assigned to one of four pens containing approximately 30 steers per pen. Each pen provided 103.0 m2 of shade and included an Insentec system containing six feed bunks and one water bunk. Steers were fed a constant diet across groups and DMI was calculated using the average of weekly percent DM within group. Average FI and WI for each animal were computed for increasingly large test durations (7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 63, and 70 d), and ADG was calculated using a regression formed from BW taken every 14 d (0, 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 d). Intervals for all traits were computed starting from both the beginning (day 0) and the end of the testing period (day 70). Pearson and Spearman correlations were computed for phenotypes from each shortened test period and for the full 70-d test. Minimum test duration was determined when the Pearson correlations were greater than 0.95 for each trait. Our results indicated that minimum test duration for WI, DMI, and ADG were 35, 42, and 70 d, respectively. No comparable studies exist for WI; however, our results for FI and ADG are consistent with those in the literature. Although further testing in other populations of cattle and areas of the country should take place, our results suggest that WI phenotypes can be collected concurrently with DMI, without extending test duration, even if following procedures for decoupled intake and gain tests