Steer calves grazing irrigated corn residue were supplemented dried distillers grains plus solubles (DGS) or allowedcontinuous access to a commercial lick tub. Dried DGS was fed at 2.94 lb/steer/day and the lick tubs were consumed at 2.04 lb/steer/day (DM basis). Gain was greater for cattle supplemented with dried DGS (1.36 lb/day) compared to those with access to lick tubs (0.83 lb/day). Supplement efficiency varied between calves receiving dried DGS (46%) and those with continuous access to the lick tub (43%) when expressed on a DM basis. Values for dried DGS supplementation (48%) were not different for supplement efficiencyon an OM basis when compared to cattle on the lick tub treatment (50%). Economic analysis shows that as the price of DGS increases, the difference in profit between supplementation strategiesis reduced

Bondurant, Robby

Brooks, Kathleen R.

Burken, Dirk B.

Erickson, Galen E., Erickson

Jones, Mandi

Klopfenstein, Terry J.

MacDonald, James C.

Watson, Andrea K.

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports Animal Science Department 2015 Comparison of Commercial Lick Tubs to Distillers Grains Supplementation for Calves Grazing Corn Residue Mandi Jones University of Nebraska-Lincoln James C. MacDonald University of Nebraska-Lincoln, jmacdonald2@unl.edu Galen E. Erickson Erickson University of Nebraska-Lincoln, gerickson4@unl.edu Terry J. Klopfenstein University of Nebraska-Lincoln, tklopfenstein1@unl.edu Kathleen R. Brooks University of Nebraska-Lincoln, kbrooks4@unl.edu See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr  Part of the Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine Commons, Meat Science Commons, and the Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health Commons Jones, Mandi; MacDonald, James C.; Erickson, Galen E. Erickson; Klopfenstein, Terry J.; Brooks, Kathleen R.; Burken, Dirk B.; Bondurant, Robby; and Watson, Andrea K., "Comparison of Commercial Lick Tubs to Distillers Grains Supplementation for Calves Grazing Corn Residue" (2015). Nebraska Beef Cattle Reports. 831. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/831 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. Authors Mandi Jones, James C. MacDonald, Galen E. Erickson Erickson, Terry J. Klopfenstein, Kathleen R. Brooks, Dirk B. Burken, Robby Bondurant, and Andrea K. Watson This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscinbcr/831 © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  — Page 27 (Continued on next page)Comparison of Commercial Lick Tubs to Distillers Grains Supplementation for Calves Grazing Corn Residue(95% TDN; 2011 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report, pp. 20-21). Other forms of supplementation are available as lick tubs and may result in similar perfor-mance while improving convenience for producers. The commercial lick tubs (Sweet Pro, Walhalla, N.D.) uti-lized for this trial are made during the proprietary fermentation process. A pressing technique is used to give the product its characteristic hardness which assists in controlling intake. However, performance relative to a common supplementation strategy is unknown. The objective of this trial was to compare the use of commercial lick tubs to daily byproduct supple-mentation of dried DGS for calves grazing corn residue.ProcedureOne hundred twenty five crossbred steers (529 ± 5.82) were backgrounded on irrigated corn residue for a 70 day grazing period at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Agricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Neb. The trial was rep-licated over two consecutive years. Each year, an irrigated corn residue field was divided into eight paddocks, with four replications receiving dried distillers grains plus solubles (DGS) and four having continuous access to lick tubs. The dried DGS treatment received supplementation in a bunk at 2.94 lb/steer daily on a DM basis. Lick tubs were replaced in each paddock when less than 10% remained and the plastic tray was removed once the sup-plement was consumed. Each lick tub was weighed prior to placement in the field and upon removal was corrected for DM to determine the amount of supplement consumed. Cattle were limit-fed at 2% of BW for five days prior to the initiation of the trial. The diet consisted of 50% Sweet Bran, 25% alfalfa, and 25% grass hay. Three day weights were taken on day -1, 0, and 1 in order to reduce variation due to gut fill. Cattle were assigned to each paddock based on day -1 and day 0 weights. Paddock was then assigned randomly to treat-ment. At the conclusion of the trial, steers were limit-fed the same diet at 2% of BW and three-day weights were collected. Steers were implanted with Ralgro® on day 1 of the trial, prior to being turned out to graze.Stocking rate was calculated based on yield of the field at harvest and previous research quantifying the amount of residue consumed per acre. The yield (bu/ac), estimated for-age availability (8 lb/bu available due to trampling, weathering and leav-ing adequate ground cover), grazing efficiency factor (85% for irrigated), and number of acres were multiplied together to estimate the total available forage for each field. Total available forage was then divided by estimated DMI (10 lb/steer daily) of all steers allotted to graze each respective pad-dock in order to calculate days of available grazing. Using this calcula-tion, the 60 acre irrigated field would allow 125 steers to graze for 70 days based on a yield of 250 bu of grain/acre. The field was then divided into eight paddocks to allow four replica-tions of each treatment.Samples of supplementation types were collected and dried in a forced air oven at 60oC for 48 hours and were then dried in an ash oven for 4 hours at 600oC to determine the mineral content.Forage intake was not estimated during this trial. In order to compare the change in gain to the amount of supplement intake, supplement efficiency was estimated. This allows for the difference between supplement types to be accounted for. Supplement efficiency was calculated by dividing gain by supplement intake.Mandi JonesJim C. MacDonaldGalen E. EricksonTerry J. KlopfensteinKathleen R. BrooksDirk B. BurkenRobby BondurantAndrea K. Watson1SummarySteer calves grazing irrigated corn residue were supplemented dried dis-tillers grains plus solubles (DGS) or allowed continuous access to a com-mercial lick tub. Dried DGS was fed at 2.94 lb/steer/day and the lick tubs were consumed at 2.04 lb/steer/day (DM basis) . Gain was greater for cattle supplemented with dried DGS (1.36 lb/day) compared to those with access to lick tubs (0.83 lb/day). Supplement efficiency varied between calves receiv-ing dried DGS (46%) and those with continuous access to the lick tub (43%) when expressed on a DM basis. Values for dried DGS supplementation (48%) were not different for supplement efficiency on an OM basis when com-pared to cattle on the lick tub treatment (50%). Economic analysis shows that as the price of DGS increases, the differ-ence in profit between supplementation strategies is reduced.IntroductionCorn residue is an abundant forage source that is low in energy and crude protein to meet the needs of calves. Providing protein supplementation to calves grazing corn residue opti-mizes gain of the calves and improves intake of low-quality forages. Various methods of supplementation exist although dried distillers grains plus solubles (DGS) are among the most common. Dried DGS have a high protein (30% CP) and energy content Page 28 — 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  © The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved.Economic AnalysisEconomic analysis was applied to performance values and days of graz-ing from year 1 and year 2.Initial purchase price was calcu-lated as a five-year average from the first week of November in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 for 500-540 lb large-framed, number 1 steers. Feeder cattle weighted average sale data were collected from the archives at USDA Agricultural Marketing Ser-vice (AMS) at the Huss-Platte Valley location. The price of distillers grains was calculated at three different corn prices ($4/bu, $5.50/bu, and $7/bu) and priced at 120% the value of corn. The lick tub was priced at $80 per tub and was not adjusted with the price of corn. Selling price was calculated as a five-year average of the last week of January in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 for large-framed, number 1 steers from the archives at USDA AMS. Ending weights varied by treat-ment and year.Irrigated corn residue was charged at $15 per acre and approximately half an acre was allotted per steer for the grazing period. Yardage was set at $0.30/steer when feed was delivered daily and $0.15/steer on days when feed was not delivered. Dried DGS was supplemented daily while the lick tub was replaced every four days. Net return was calculated as total revenue (selling price of the calf) minus total costs (initial price of the calf, total price of supplement, price of grazing residue, and transportation costs). Cost of gain was calculated as total costs divided by the gain of the calf. Total feed costs were calculated as the price of supplement plus the price of grazing residue.Data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX with year as a random effect and treatment included in the model statement.ResultsAverage daily gain of steers supple-mented with dried DGS was greater (1.36 lb) than those with access to lick tubs (0.83 lb; P < 0.01, Table 1). On a DM basis, steers receiving dried DGS consumed 2.94 lb DM per day com-pared to 2.02 lb DM for steers offered lick tubs (P < 0.01). As a percentage of BW on a DM basis, steers on the lick tub treatment consumed less supple-ment (0.36%) than those receiving DGS (0.52%; P < 0.01). Supplement efficiency on a DM basis for the DGS treatment was 46% compared to 43% for the cattle on the lick tub treatment (P < 0.01). The OM content of the lick tubs was 76%. Analysis on an OM basis shows similar results for gain (Table 2). Calves consumed 2.82 lb/steer daily on the DGS treatment compared with 1.68 lb/steer daily for the lick tub (P < 0.01). As a percentage of BW, calves consumed 0.50% for the DGS and 0.30% for the lick tub (P < 0.01). Supplement efficiency was not differ-ent on an OM basis for the dried DGS (48%) and lick tub treatments (50%; P = 0.64). The lick tubs were designed to provide mineral supplementa-tion. Differences seen when values are expressed on a DM or OM basis are expected due to the high mineral content of the tub. The high mineral content of the tub appears to dilute the energy available from OM.Economic AnalysisIn scenario 1, corn was priced at $4.00 per bushel and a difference exists between treatments for price of supplementation with the price of dried DGS at $28.40/steer compared to $55.89/steer for the lick tub  (P < 0.01; Table 3). There are differ-ences in net return when comparing dried DGS to the lick tubs at $103.54 and $44.63, respectively (P < 0.01). The cost of gain was greater for the Table 2. Comparison of dried distillers grains and lick tub supplementation for calves grazing corn residue on a dry matter and organic matter basis.Dried DGS Lick tub S.E. F-testInitial BW, lbFinal BW, lbADG, lb/dayDM Supplemental Intake, %BW Supplemental Intake, lb/head/day Supplemental Efficiency, %OM Supplemental Intake, %BW Supplemental Intake, lb/head/day Supplemental Efficiency, %5296081.360.522.94460.52.82485295780.830.362.02430.31.68505.829.20.060.030.210.150.010.080.030.6<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.010.64Table 1. Comparison of dried distillers grains and lick tub supplementation for calves grazing corn residue on a dry matter basis.Dried DGS Lick Tub S.E. F-testInitial BW, lbFinal BW, lbADG, lb/daySupp. Intake, %BWSupp. Intake, lb/head/daySupp. Efficiency, %5296081.360.522.94465295780.830.362.02435.89.20.060.030.210.150.62<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01© The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska.  All rights reserved. 2015 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report  — Page 29 lick tub treatment at $1.47 compared with $0.75 for dried DGS (P < 0.01). Total feed costs were higher for calves on the lick tub treatment at $63.10 in comparison to those supplemented with dried DGS at $25.95 (P < 0.01).In scenario 2, the price of corn  was set at $5.50 per bushel (Table 3).  A difference exists between treat-ments for price of supplementation with dried DGS costing $29.52 com-pared with the lick tub at $55.89  (P < 0.01). Differences were found for net return , with the dried DGS treatment at $102.42 and the lick tub at $44.63, respectively (P < 0.01). The cost of gain was higher for the lick tub treatment at $1.47 compared with dried DGS at $0.77 (P < 0.01). Total feed cost was lower for those supple-mented with dried DGS at $36.63 Table 3. Economics of feeding distillers grains at 120% the value of corn when compared to a commercial lick tub.Item$4.00 Corn $5.50 Corn $7.00 CornDried Dgs Lick Tub S.E. F-Test Dried Dgs Lick Tub S.E. F-Test Dried Dgs Lick Tub S.E. F-Test$/Steer steer cost supplement cost yardage cost grazing cost total feed cost total steer cost revenue net return792.7428.4020.257.1125.95852.37955.91103.54793.6855.8912.667.2263.10862.89907.5244.633.575.147.590.187.129.4334.9126.730.4<0.01<0.010.7<0.010.2<0.01<0.01792.7429.5220.257.1136.63853.49955.91102.42793.6855.8912.667.2263.10862.89907.5244.633.575.337.590.185.436.4834.9129.260.4<0.01<0.010.7<0.010.3<0.01<0.01792.7433.5420.257.1140.66857.52955.9198.40793.6855.8912.667.2263.10862.89907.5244.633.575.127.590.185.227.1434.9128.960.4<0.01<0.010.7<0.010.5<0.01<0.01$/lb cost of gain 0.75 1.47 0.14 <0.01 0.77 1.47 0.16 <0.01 0.82 1.47 0.16 <0.01compared with $63.10 for the lick tub treatment.In the third scenario, corn was priced at $7.00 per bushel (Table 3). Differences were found in price when supplementing dried DGS ($33.54) compared to the lick tubs ($55.89;  P < 0.01). Differences were found in net return with dried DGS treatment at $98.40 and the lick tub at $44.63, respectively (P < 0.01). The cost of gain was higher for the lick tub treat-ment at $1.47 compared with $0.82 for the dried DGS treatment (P < 0.01). Differences were present for total feed costs, with dried DGS at $40.66 and the lick tub at $63.10, respectively  (P < 0.01).In all scenarios, it appears to be more profitable to supplement with dried DGS when compared with the lick tubs. Calves receiving DGS had greater gain and lower supplementa-tion costs, resulting in greater net return and lower cost of gain. Eco-nomic differences were smaller when the price of corn was higher assum-ing the price of the lick tub does not change.1Mandi Jones, graduate student; Jim C. MacDonald, associate professor; Terry J. Klopfenstein, professor; Galen E. Erickson, professor, University of Nebraska–Lincoln  (UNL) Department of Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb.; Kathleen R. Brooks, assistant professor, UNL Department of Agricultural Economics, Lincoln, Neb.; Dirk B. Burken, research technician; Andrea Watson, research technician; Robby Bondurant, research technician, UNL Department of Animal Science, Lincoln, Neb.

Comparison of Commercial Lick Tubs to Distillers Grains Supplementation for Calves Grazing Corn Residue

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1849&amp;context=animalscinbcr

Comparison of Commercial Lick Tubs to Distillers Grains Supplementation for Calves Grazing Corn Residue

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska