In North American beef production systems, the entire spectrum of restriction and compensation is found. The area of  compensatory gain is complex and not well understood, but critically important to the economics of cattle feeding. Several compensatory gain studies from the University of Nebraska have been compiled. The range in compensation  observed with cattle grazing season-long is 19-88 percent with a mean of 53 percent. From these grazing studies, days of restriction appear to be related to percentage compensation. In the feedlot, even relatively short restrictions trigger compensatory gain; however, feed efficiency response to compensatory gain i

Jordon, D. J.

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

Milton, Todd

Rush, Ivan G.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department January 1999 Predicting Amount of Compensatory Gain Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu D. J. Jordon University of Nebraska-Lincoln Ivan G. Rush University of Nebraska-Lincoln, irush1@unl.edu Todd Milton University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Animal Sciences Commons Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Jordon, D. J.; Rush, Ivan G.; and Milton, Todd, "Predicting Amount of Compensatory Gain" (1999). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 412. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/412 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Animal Science Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1999 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 26Predicting Amount of Compensatory GainCompensatory Gain on GrassIn the mid-1980’s, a two-year study on compensatory gain was conducted, with objectives to establish three levels of gain over the winter on crop residues and measure steer gains the following summer on grass. The cattle made 88 percent compensation (Table 1). Cattle restricted more in the winter made up 88 percent of the gain they did not make relative to the higher gaining winter calves. All calves were restricted to some degree. Five years of research from the Panhandle Research and Extension Center at Scottsbluff involved calves fed for two rates of winter gain. Slow gaining calves grazed cornstalks and fast gaining calves were limit-fed a high-en-ergy diet. Calves then grazed (summer) for two or four months. Calves grazing season long (four months) made 56.5 percent compensation (Table 2), while those grazing only two months made 41.5 percent compensation (Table 3). During the last two years of the study, British breed steers were compared to Continental cross steers. Compensation was similar (53.9 and 52.8 percent; Table 4), suggesting frame size does not affect degree of compensation.Over the past two years, three addi-tional trials have been completed. Wet corn gluten feed was used as the supple-ment on cornstalks to increase winter gain. Wet corn gluten feed as a supple-ment is of interest because of cost and Terry KlopfensteinD. J. JordonIvan RushTodd Milton1Compensatory gain is variable, by intake of NEg above maintenance and may be reduced by longer re-strictions.SummaryIn North American beef production systems, the entire spectrum of restriction compensatory gain is complex and not well understood, but critically impor-tant to the economics of cattle feeding. Several compensatory gain studies from the University of Nebraska have been observed with cattle grazing season-long is 19-88 percent with a mean of 53 percent. From these grazing studies, days of restriction appear to be related to percentage compensation. In the feedlot, even relatively short restrictions trigger -ciency response to compensatory gain is Introductionentering the feedlot usually experience some degree of compensatory gain. How well cattle perform, and how well performance can be predicted, are criti-cally important to the economics of cattle feeding. Compensatory gain is complex and not well understood. Our article is a summary of recent compensatory gain research conducted at University of Nebraska locations.Table 2. Rate of winter gain and compensation on grass and in the feedlot.Winter gaina (lb/d)Item .68 1.75Grass gain, lb/db 1.96 1.27Compensation, %c 56.5 —Feed/gaind 6.63 7.11a200 calves/treatment, 5 years, 137 days, 1996 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp 51-53 and 1997 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp 52-55.b120 days.cDifference in total pounds of summer gain divided by difference in total pounds of winter gain.d123 days.Table 1. Rate of winter gain and compensation on grass and in the feedlot.Winter gaina (lb/d)Item .62 .84 1.10Grass gain, lb/db 1.41 1.23 1.03Compensation, % 88 88 —Feed/gainc 7.3 7.09 7.09a40 calves/treatment, 2 years, 106 days, 1989 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp 34-35.b116 days.c112 days.Table 3. Rate of winter gain and compensation on grass and in the feedlot.Winter gaina (lb/d)Item .67 1.75Grass gain, lb/db 2.46 1.47Compensation, % 41.5 —Feed/gainc 6.41 7.05a200 calves/treatment, 5 years, 137 days (see Table 2 for references).b62 days.c130 days.Table 4. Winter gain Item Britisha Continental×bWinter gain: lb/dc .60 1.66 .55 1.49SummerGrass gain lb/dd 1.87 1.18 2.03 1.43Compensation, % 53.9 — 52.8 —FinishingFeed/gaine 6.23 6.59 6.27 6.66a56 hd/treatment, 1997 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp 52-55..b36 hd/treatment.c145 days.d120 days.e118 days.Page 27 — 1999 Nebraska Beef Reportnutrients it contains. In 1996 and 1997, two similar trials were conducted where yearlings grazed bromegrass or Sandhills range. Year-by-treatment interactions weight. Therefore, data are presented by year (Tables 5 and 6). Yearly variations in grass quality and quantity are believed to be responsible for both interactions. Quality of bromegrass in year one was below average due to abundant rainfall and early season growth. Cattle were un-able to consume the forage and it quickly matured. Gains in year two were closer to what is typically observed when cattle graze full season bromegrass. Differ-ences in weight gains over the summer period were carried through the feedlot period, resulting in the interaction with gains at each location were markedly different in year one, compensation was similar across the Sandhills and bromegrass locations (19.9 and 18.7 percent; Table 5). In year two, gains and compensation were similar across locations (49.5 and 53.9 percent; Table 6); however, compensation was greater compared to year one. Why degree of compensation differed between years is unclear, as cattle were managed similarly through the winter period both years. However, slow gaining cattle in year one gained more weight compared to slow gaining cattle in year two, which may have affected compensation. The differences in winter gains were due to differences in corn residue quality. Ad-ditionally, there were obvious differences in forage quality and quantity within location across the two years. Degrees of compensation from these trials are certainly different from those of trials conducted in the 1980’s. In a third trial in 1997, yearlings grazed bromegrass, warm-season grass or Sandhills range. Compensation was 45 percent (Table 7). Some cattle were removed from bromegrass after 53 days. Cattle removed early made 19.5 percent compensation compared to 46.9 percent for animals grazing 130 days (Table 8).The range in compensation for sea-son-long grazing was 19 percent to 88 percent with a mean of 53 percent. Still, the question remains about what factors might include days of restriction, rate of gain of faster gaining cattle, rate of gain of slower gaining cattle and degree of restriction. Number of days of restriction appears to be the only variable related to percentage compensation (88 percent, 106 days; 57.6 percent, 137 days; 45 percent, 161 days; 19.9 percent; 163 days).Based on these data, some generaliza-tions may be drawn:1) Compensatory gain on grass -dict.Item  Sandhills range Bromegrass pastureWinter gain lb/da: .20 1.50 .18 1.53SummerGrass gain, lb/db 2.01c 1.16d 1.91c 1.14dCompensation, % 49.5 — 53.9 —FinishingDays 99 99 99 99ADG, lb/d 4.06 4.42 4.37 4.40DMI, lb/d 28.4 29.7 28.1 29.6Feed/gain 6.97 6.73 6.43 6.73Final weight, lb 1236c 1375d 1259c 1371da16 hd/treatment, 163 days.b124 days.c,dMeans with unlike superscripts within a row differ (P<.05).Item  Sandhills range Bromegrass pastureWinter gain lb/da: .70 1.67 .68 1.68SummerGrass gain, lb/db 1.92c 1.66d .73e .48fCompensation, % 19.9 — 18.7 —OM Intake, % BW 2.53 2.14 2.32 1.82FinishingDays 99 71 124 99ADG, lb/d 4.17c 4.57cd 4.48c 5.03dDMI, lb/d 28.8c 31.3cd 28.6c 31.7dFeed/gain 6.91c 6.84c 6.40d 6.31dFinal weight, lb 1262cd 1309cd 1249c 1323da20 hd/treatment, 163 days, 1998 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp 63-65.b123 days.c,d,e,fMeans with unlike superscripts within a row differ (P<.05).Grazing: 53 days 130 daysItem Winter lb/d: .22 1.52 .22 1.52Grass gain, lb/day 2.26 1.49 1.84 1.09Compensation, % 19.5 — 46.9 —Feed/gain  6.80 6.64 6.42 6.72Table 7. Rate of winter gain and compensation on grass and in the feedlot.Winter gain, lb/daItem .22 1.52Grass gain, lb/db 1.92 1.18Compensation, % 45.0 —Feed/gainc 6.56 6.58a60 hd/treatment, 161 days.b132 days.c99 days.(Continued on next page)1999 Nebraska Beef Report — Page 28-ing performance.Entry to feedlotItem September NovemberSummer gain, lb/day 1.84 1.55Fall gain, lb/day — 2.44Feedlot wt., lb 840 987Intake, lb/day 30.8 31.0Gain, lb/day 4.58 3.78Feed/gain 6.73 8.20Table 9. Finishing performance for calves versus yearlingsa.Item Calf YearlingInitial weight, lb 537 821Final weight, lb 1103 1199 (1305)bDays on feed 207 108 (139)bFeed intake, lb/d 17.4 24.9% of weight 2.1 2.5Daily gain, lb 2.78 3.39Feed/gain 6.19 7.33Backfat, inches .48 .38Choice, % 76.0 64.9a5 years, 489 head, 48 pens, 1991 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report pp 42-43.bAdjusted to .48 inches fat.2) Longer restriction may reduce compensatory gain.3) Full season grazing gives 50 to 60 percent compensation on average.4) Most of the compensation on grass can be explained by in-take of NEg above maintenance (Table 5).5) Partial season grazing reduces percentage of compensation.Compensatory Gain in the FeedlotPredicting compensatory gain in predicting it on grass. In fact, gain is probably less important than feed conver-sions; therefore, feed conversion will be used as the criterion for evaluating com-pensation in the feedlot in this paper.was compiled. Yearlings entered the 100 pounds heavier (Table 9). It is esti-mated they would have been 200 pounds heavier at equal fatness. Yearlings ate more feed and gained faster than calves which would be characteristics of cattle exhibiting compensatory gain. However, (7.33 versus 6.19). As a broad generaliza-tion, the heavier cattle are entering the feedlot, the lower the feed conversions. This extreme is shown in Table 10. In this case similar cattle entered the feedlot in September or November. November cattle gained well in the fall and entered the feedlot 150 pounds heavier. Their feed conversions were poorer than cattle that entered in September (8.20 versus 6.73). Most would agree with this generalization: heavier cattle entering lighter cattle with comparable genetic potential.The problem is predicting the responseto previous rates of gain. With the year-lings in the 1980’s, cattle made 88 percent compensation on grass and entered the feedlot at essentially equal weights. Feed conversions were similar, even though previous rates of gain differed (Table 1). On the other extreme, the cattle in 1996 made only 19 percent compensation on grass and entered the feedlot 130 pounds different in weight, but still had similar feed conversions (Table 3). Interestingly, cattle on bromegrass pasture gained much less than those on range and had better feed conversions. Steers wintered at 1.68 lb/day and grazed on bromegrass entered the feedlot at about the same weight (830 pounds) as those wintered at .7 lb/day and grazed on range (846 pounds). However, bromegrass grazed steers had better feed conversions (6.31 versus 6.91).Cattle on experiments at Scottsbluff made 57.6 percent compensation during the summer (Table 2) and had differences in feed conversion. In this case, cattle gaining faster during the summer were cattle gaining faster in the summer were lighter entering the feedlot because their compensation from lower winter gains was only 57.6 percent.Two experiments have been con-ducted where cattle were restricted and placed directly into the feedlot without experiment (1985 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp 20-24), calves were wintered 137 days on crop residues and placed on grass or into the feedlot. They were compared to calf-feds. As discussed pre-in the feedlot. However, calves placed in the feedlot after restriction had similar faster and ate more feed, but conversions were similar.In the second experiment (1992 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp 31-34), calves were placed on cornstalks for 74 days before entering the feedlot. Calves grazed at two stocking densities that gave two rates of gain (.45 and .64 lb/d), and as calf-feds. Restricted calves ate more feed and gained more rapidly, but were These two experiments, although not completely consistent, give some insight into relatively short restrictions before entering the feedlot. Compensatory gain consume more feed but are not more restriction.Following are some generalizations about compensatory gain in the feedlot.compensatory gain is variable 2) Even relatively short restrictions produce compensatory gain. This and gain but not increased ef-3) Yearlings gain more, eat more feds.4) As a broad generalization, the heavier cattle are entering the feedlot, the lower their feed ef-exceptions to this generaliza-tion.5) Rapid gain on grass prior to entering the feedlot does not necessarily reduce feed effi-ciency and often increases it.of extra winter gain produced 71 1Terry Klopfenstein, professor; D. J. Jordon, research technician, Animal Science, Lincoln; Ivan Rush, professor, Animal Science, Panhandle Research and Extension Center, Scottsbluff; Todd Milton, assistant professor, Animal Science, Lincoln.

Predicting Amount of Compensatory Gain

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Predicting Amount of Compensatory Gain

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska