Published September 1966. Facts and recommendations in this publication may no longer be valid. Please look for up-to-date information in the OSU Extension Catalog: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalo

Kennick, W. H. (Walter Herbert), 1920-

Oregon State University. Agricultural Experiment Station

Ralston, A. T. (Allen Thurman), 1915-

Taylor, Norton O.

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

The Effect of Feed Grain PreparationUpon Feedlot Performance andCarcass Characteristics of SteersSPECIAL REPORT 221SEPTEMBER 1966Agricultural Experiment StationOregon State UniversityCorvallisAUTHORS: A. T. Ralston is Professor of Animal Science, N. O. Taylor isUmatilla County Extension Agent and W. H. Kennick is Assistant Professorof Animal Science, Oregon State University.THE EFFECT OF FEED GRAIN PREPARATION UPON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCEAND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF STEERSA. T. Ralston, N. O. Taylor and W. H. KennickThe mechanization of beef production has opened new areas forinvestigation. Foremost of these new areas is that of feed preparation.The older methods of grinding, rolling, and/or steam rolling of feedgrains are now being challenged by prolonged steaming, flaking, cooking,and tempering. Tempering, a water soaking, can be done at less expenseand with much less complicated machinery than the other new preparations.As each new method is tried, impressive claims for its superiority arereported. Many of these claims are not based upon valid comparisonswith proven methods.The objectives of this experiment were: (1) to compare theeffects of tempering, dry rolling, and steam rolling of grains onaverage daily gain, feed efficiency, and carcass characteristics; and(2) to determine if certain interactions between grain and preparationexist.MethodsThe feeder cattle used in this trial were from a wintering experiment,so they were stratified as to previous treatment and weight and randomlyallotted to 12 pens of 11 steers per pen. The experimental design usedwas a 2 x 3 factorial with two replicates.Total digestible nutrient (TDN) values were estimated fromMorrison's Feeds and Feeding.The grain preparations consisted of dry rolling (dry grain througha roller), steam rolling (commercial type), and water tempering. Thetempering process consisted of soaking grain for approximately 12 hoursand then running it through a roller. The moisture content of thetempered grain was about 20%, and the flatness of the flake was inter-mediate between steam rolling and dry rolling.The grains used were soft white wheat and barley. The concentrateportion of the ration consisted of 75% grain, either wheat or barley,15% beet pulp, 5% molasses, and 5% OSU supplement. The total rationconsisted of 82% concentrate mixture and 18% chopped alfalfa hay.Because of urinary calculi problems in other cattle in the lots atthat time, ammonium chloride (1.25 ounces per head daily) was added tothe OSU supplement (Appendix, Table 1). The cattle were fed twice dailyat a level calculated so that a small amount of uneaten feed remainedprior to each feeding.The steers were implanted with 12 mg. of stilbestrol at thebeginning of the trial. The steers weighed 640 pounds initially andfinished at 1,010 pounds in approximately 167 days. Equal numbers fromeach pen were slaughtered at each slaughter date (140, 154, and 174 daysafter the start of the trial) so that comparisons of carcass characteristicswould be valid.Results and DiscussionThe real advantage to any treatment of grain where heat andmoisture are involved is not realized in most experimental work becausethe feed is usually stored for some time prior to feeding. The fresh-ness of the product consumed is usually related to the animal's intake,and this in turn controls average daily gain, feed efficiency, andsubsequent carcass characteristics. However, in this trial the useof steam rolled grain, either wheat or barley, resulted in significantlygreater gains (P < .01) than the dry rolling of these grains (Table 1).The animals fed tempered grain were intermediate in growth response butnot significantly different, There were no significant differences ingains due to either grains used or replicate effect. The effect of theinteraction of grain and treatment was significant (P < .05). Thisindicates that the response of all grains to a particular treatmentmay not be the same.The physical properties of the grain play an important role indetermining the characteristics of the finished manufactured product.The crude fiber content or the type of outside covering on one grainmay hold it together during dry rolling, whereas another grain maypulverize to a much greater extent. Past experience at this feedlothas shown there are even varietal differences within grains. Forexample, Alpine barley does not flake well in the steam rolling processand tends to resemble ground material. From these data it seems thatit may be more important to steam roll or temper wheat than barley.This could be explained by the fact that there are more fines in thedry rolled wheat than in barley.These differences in animal response to grain x treatment interactionmay best be illustrated by considering the utilization of estimatedTDN from various sources. In the case of wheat, the efficiency of TDNutilization from dry rolled wheat is less than from steam rolled. Onthe other hand, the dry rolling of barley resulted in TDN utilizationcomparable to that of steam rolling. In all cases the tempered grainswere less efficient in TDN utilization. This could be the result ofsome losses in soluble carbohydrates.Two steers died from bloat on the steam rolled barley, one fromeach replicate. Corrections in feed consumed were made by averagedaily consumption per animal. (This approach may be subject to bias,)Although significant differences in average daily gains resultedfrom different treatments of grain, the carcass characteristics measuredwere very similar. In fact, pens of animals on identical treatmentswould be expected to show greater variations than were found, It wasalso interesting to note that although gains were not as high asusual, 'the carcasses graded low choice. This was no doubt due to theextra time on the finishing ration.The extra time on finishing rations of considerable roughageusually produces "barky" carcasses. This was not the case, as only thecattle that were fed steam rolled barley produced over .5 inches ofbackfat.Summary One hundred and thirty-two steers of known background were fedwheat or barley prepared by steam rolling, dry rolling, or tempering.The use of steam rolled grains produced significantly greater gains thandry rolled grain (P < .01). Tempered grain was intermediate in gainsproduced but was less efficient in pounds of beef produced per poundof feed consumed. There was a significant grain x treatment interaction(P < .05) in gains produced. This was more apparent when the totaldigestible nutrient utilization was compared. The steam rolling ortempering of wheat was of greater value than identical treatments ofbarley.44 '0$4 4)4) 4-4a•044 040C)C)4..)g5E.r4 C4 1.•  el .4 C4• •	 •	 •	 •	 •P. CU Cu Cu CU C40 a) 0 0 0 004 c:4	 cZ 04 04e4 C4 .4 el e40. fa. 04 P. P. fa.0 C) 0 0 0 a)c:Gladc4c4cLWera)"0LL,•ct '0cad1-4a o40)>.	•.0 N. NO NO VD t--ri .4 .4 e4 .4 .4C4	 Ps ND	 r.-1•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •e4 .4	 .4 .4 .4.4 .4 .4 .4 .• 	 .4nC)Lf)fe4r's r•••	 0 •0	 rs-1-4 .4 1..4	 r..4C, CD Ul CO MN•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •.4 n4 .4 CD .4 .4.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 ri.1"•••4t--	 .0.4 .4 .4et gd.•	 •	 •16.4 .4 4-4.4 .4 .44.44444-r44-4cd•	 1-4In1-4cd 44•444-) Va4-1cf)44	 $40	 csicd44	 •R'.•.4crjet 4001 .4 C4 r•-•et et Met et et•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •V)etC4 .4., r-4 C41 C4 4.4Ul LA et et et et•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •01 .4et et•	 •	 •rn1-4td$0U• 14	 04.'41)	 4-41:14g44cdO1-1 0gc.)cd4 r4	 4)•••4	 ;•4.0 0I-4CS	 inma* IA t'n .4' .1- 0•••n•1	 n•••I 	 r.•4	 r.4U) et et U) el et.4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4Ul e- et1440$.4C)1-4	 a)cd	 1.4.0 0rq 4-4tn	 0.)cn 1-4U1-4	 0U•44cdbaZ 4-4Ems-+-4t41 C4 00 CD .4 tn00 00 .4 C) M .4to to .0 .0 NO v)LfO01 CNI cNI 0 VDCh 00 Ch 00 C4 C4Ul ul Ul Ul 0 VD•••10000 to/0001 C4Ln 0 %.001-40444444-1"0 a)g 4-40)c4gE4-)U.4	 •cnU al al	 .0 al	 alC4 t, 00 C4 CA ul$41 to .4 VI V) etCA C4 C4 eq C4 C41-4C4c.)cd 4	 c) ad .0fd 4 .0	 cdC.. CD C.. et et CAUl Ns- C4 C4 INA•	 •	 •	 •	 •	 •C4 C4 C4 Cl C4 C4••0cd .0 	alC4	 ChLn Cl t.41•	 •	 •CA C4 C4tr) 'Cr4)00•r1	 E• -4	vi	 04-) Ln 4•rgi g 4-4cd(0 •4	 °^ II1-4 v4• z al .4g g v)	 • ^ai 0	 n1bO •4 n 00>. ••4-4 (N1	 bO▪ 4.►.H V)Vi 0bl) • • .4'	.1-4	 a)	 4-4O hbO	 0cd	 4-4	 t.)	 • •1-•	 g4)	 4-1	 :30 b0 cd	cd> 4.)	 g	 1-4baII	 11.10Ca al (41AppendixTable 1. OSU Protein SupplementPounds per tonCottonseed meal (41-43%) 100Alfalfa meal 150Urea 130Peas 1,520Limestone 50Steamed bonemeal 40Vitamin A (10,000 IU/gram or equivalent) 10Ammonium chloride 1.25 oz./lb. of supplement

The effect of feed grain preparation upon feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of steers

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/k930bx96n

The effect of feed grain preparation upon feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU