Ross, Cassidy

Rusche, Warren

Smith, Zachary

English

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange

 South Dakota State University Animal Science Research Report 2024 © 2024, South Dakota Board of Regents 42 Animal Science Research Report 2024 Effects of partial or total replacement of dried distillers plus solubles with soybean meal on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and dietary net energy utilization in finishing beef steers Cassidy Ross, Warren Rusche, Zachary Smith Rationale and Approach The average inclusion of distillers in American feedlot diets is 19.9% dietary DM (Asem-Hiablie et al., 2016) with 86.7% of nutritionists choosing to use wet distillers grains with solubles (WDGS) or dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) as their primary grain by-product (Samuelson et al., 2016). Recent expansion in oilseed crush capacity should increase supplies of soybean meal (SBM) with potentially lower prices. The objective of this study was to determine if partial or complete substitution of DDGS with SBM influences growth performance, efficiency, or carcass characteristics in finishing beef steers. Continental × British crossbred steers (n = 189; 7 or 8 steers/pen; 8 pens per treatment) were utilized in a 139-d finishing experiment at the South Dakota State University Ruminant Nutrition Center (RNC) in Brookings, SD using three treatments (Table 1): DDGS fed at 20% DM (15.4% CP, 8% RDP, and 1.90% NPN; DDGS), SBM replacing 50% of DDGS (16.4% CP, 9% RDP, and 0.96% NPN; SBM50), and SBM replacing 100% of DDGS (17.4% CP, 10% RDP, and 0.05% NPN; SBM100). Findings In the first 35 d of the study, ADG linearly increased with greater inclusions of SBM (Table 2; P = 0.01), but treatment did not affect DMI (P = 0.39). Feeding SBM as a replacement of DDGS linearly increased G:F in the first 35 d (P = 0.01). For the entire feeding period, steers fed SBM had greater final body weight (P = 0.03), ADG (P = 0.05), and G:F (P = 0.01). Dry matter intake was unaffected by soybean meal substitution (P = 0.60). Dietary treatment did not influence carcass-adjusted final BW (P = 0.32), ADG (P = 0.77), or DMI (P = 0.38). We noted a tendency for improved G:F (Quadratic; P = 0.10) for SBM50. Feeding SBM in replacement of DDGS linearly decreased dressing percentage (P = 0.03), but linearly increased ribeye area (P = 0.02). Treatment did not affect hot carcass weight, ribfat, marbling score, or USDA Yield or Quality grade distribution (P ≥ 0.22). Replacing DDGS with SBM altered the distribution of liver scores (P = 0.05). Steers from SBM100 had fewer livers classified as normal and a greater proportion of severely abscessed livers. However, steers fed SBM50 had the fewest severe abscesses and greatest proportion of normal livers.   South Dakota State University Animal Science Research Report 2024 © 2024, South Dakota Board of Regents 43 Feeding SBM quadratically increased apparent dietary net energy values (P = 0.03) and the ratio of observed to expected dietary energy (P ≤ 0.04). The total and partial substitution NEg values for SBM were 17.0 and 27.5% greater than DDGS respectively. Implications The use of SBM as a partial or complete replacement of DDGS resulted in greater daily gain and gain efficiency compared to DDGS when measured on a live basis. Feeding soybean meal altered the distribution of liver scores, increased REA, and decreased DP, with no other differences observed in carcass characteristics. Acknowledgements  The authors wish to thank the Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council for providing financial support for this study. References Asem-Hiablie, S., Rotz, C. A., Stout, R., Stackhouse-Lawson, K. 2016. Management characteristics of beef cattle production in the Northern Plains and Midwest regions of the United States. The Professional Animal Scientist, 32(6): 736–749. doi: 10.15232/pas.2016-01539 Samuelson, K. L., Hubbert, M. E., Galyean, M. L., Löest, C. A. 2016. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New Mexico State and Texas Tech University survey. Journal of Animal Science, 94(6), 2648–2663. doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-0282   South Dakota State University Animal Science Research Report 2024 © 2024, South Dakota Board of Regents 44 Table 1. Diet Composition (DM basis)a.   d 1 to 16 d 17 to 21 d 22 to 103 d 104 to 139 Itemb DDGS SBM50 SBM100 DDGS SBM50 SBM100 DDGS SBM50 SBM100 DDGS SBM50 SBM100 Ingredient Composition, %             HMEC 65.40 65.51 65.61 74.90 74.88 74.85 14.47 14.48 14.49 13.93 13.95 13.97 LS 1c 4.96 2.48 0.00 5.08 2.54 0.00 4.80 2.40 0.00 4.80 2.40 0.00 LS 2d 0.00 2.48 4.97 0.00 2.54 5.07 0.00 2.40 4.81 0.00 2.40 4.81 SBM  0.00 9.77 19.57 0.00 10.04 20.08 0.00 9.55 19.12 0.00 9.64 19.31 DDGS 19.82 9.93 0.00 20.02 10.00 0.00 19.25 9.63 0.00 19.54 9.78 0.00 DRC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.31 16.32 16.34 55.95 56.03 56.11 HMC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.28 39.31 39.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 GH 9.81 9.83 9.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.88 5.89 5.89 5.79 5.79 5.80 Nutrient Compositione             DM, % 74.52 74.40 74.28 71.01 71.04 71.07 79.90 79.83 79.77 84.35 84.23 84.11 CP, % 15.08 16.08 17.07 15.16 16.22 17.28 15.45 16.48 17.51 15.37 16.36 17.35 RDP, % 8.34 9.37 10.41 8.11 9.35 10.47 8.00 9.03 10.06 7.96 9.00 10.05 NDF, % 25.24 22.81 20.38 20.53 18.06 15.58 19.72 17.29 14.86 17.73 15.36 12.99 ADF, % 12.94 11.96 10.98 10.01 9.01 8.02 8.71 8.01 7.31 7.33 6.73 6.12 Ash, % 5.98 6.16 6.34 5.33 5.52 5.70 5.68 5.82 5.97 5.50 5.63 5.77 EE, % 4.15 3.57 2.98 4.22 3.63 3.04 3.77 3.22 2.68 3.82 3.25 2.69 NEm, Mcal/lbsf 1.97 1.90 1.89 1.97 1.96 1.96 2.07 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.05 2.04 NEg, Mcal/lbsg 1.26 1.25 1.24 1.34 1.33 1.32 1.40 1.39 1.38 1.38 1.37 1.36 a All values except dry matter are on a DM basis b HMEC = high moisture ear corn; LS = molasses-based liquid supplement; SBM = soybean meal; DDGS = dried distillers grains plus solubles; DRC = dry rolled corn; HMC = high-moisture corn; GH = grass hay; DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber; EE = ether extract; NEm = net energy for maintenance; NEg = net energy for gain. c Liquid supplement 1 contained (DM basis): 44.46% CP, 38.78% non-protein nitrogen, 41 Mcal/cwt of NEm, 26 Mcal/cwt of NEg, 0.90% ether extract, 16.52% total sugars, 50.77% ash, 11.00% calcium, 0.38% P, 7.07% K, 0.13% Mg, 6.00% NaCl, 3.54% Na, 0.41% S, 4.30 ppm Co, 200.00 ppm Cu, 12.11 ppm I, 6.91 mg/lb EDDI, 525.35 ppm Fe, 404.93 ppm Mn, 2.93 ppm Se, 1,800 ppm Zn, 20,195.12 IU/lb Vitamin A, 201.95 IU/lb Vitamin E, and 585.37 g/ton monensin sodium. d Liquid supplement 2 contained (DM basis): 7.32% CP, 1.03% non-protein nitrogen, 54 Mcal/cwt of NEm, 35 Mcal/cwt of  NEg, 1.36% ether extract, 27.18% total sugars, 50.77% ash, 11.00% calcium, 0.38% P, 7.07% K, 0.12% Mg, 6.00% NaCl, 2.94% Na, 0.46% S, 4.38 ppm Co, 200.00 ppm Cu, 12.11 ppm I, 6.91 mg/lb EDDI, 436.14 ppm Fe, 409.87 ppm Mn, 2.93 ppm Se, 1,800 ppm Zn, 20,195.12 IU/lb Vitamin A, 201.95 IU/lb Vitamin E, and 585.37 g/ton monensin sodium e Tabular NE from Preston (2016) and actual nutrient compositions  f Net energy for maintenance  g Net energy for gain   South Dakota State University Animal Science Research Report 2024 © 2024, South Dakota Board of Regents 45 Table 2. Influence of dietary treatment on growth performance and carcass trait responses deads and removals excluded.  Treatmentsa   P-value Item DDGS SBM50 SBM100 SEMc F-test Linear Quadratic Pens, n 63 61 63     Steers, n 8 8 8     Initial BWb, lbs  842 844 844 2.2 0.84 0.57 0.91 d 1 to d 35        BW d35b, lbs 983 992 1008 2.9 0.01 0.01 0.33 ADG, lbs 4.01 4.21 4.63 0.079 0.01 0.01 0.35 DMI, lbs 21.8 21.7 22.0 0.13 0.31 0.39 0.21 G:F 0.185 0.196 0.211 0.0033 0.01 0.01 0.61 F:Gc 5.41 5.10 4.74 - - - - d 36 to d 77        BW d77b, lbs 1193 1197 1206 4.2 0.08 0.03 0.81 ADG, lbs 4.96 4.89 4.74 0.097 0.33 0.16 0.63 DMI, lbs 24.2 23.8 23.4 0.24 0.08 0.03 0.85 G:F 0.205 0.207 0.204 0.0032 0.77 0.69 0.55 F:Gc 4.88 4.83 4.90 - - - - d 78 to d 105        BW d105b, lbs 1276 1283 1287 4.2 0.19 0.07 0.98 ADG, lbs 3.00 3.00 2.91 0.090 0.66 0.43 0.67 DMI, lbs 24.3 24.1 24.1 0.29 0.88 0.65 0.83 G:F 0.124 0.125 0.121 0.0038 0.71 0.58 0.55 F:Gc 8.06 8.00 8.26 - - - - d 106 to d 139        BW d139b, lbs 1369 1391 1391 6.6 0.04 0.03 0.14 ADG, lbs 2.69 3.24 3.04 0.165 0.10 0.18 0.09 DMI, lbs 25.5 25.4 25.2 0.22 0.60 0.33 0.87 G:F 0.106 0.128 0.120 0.0059 0.05 0.10 0.06 F:Gc 9.43 7.81 8.33 - - - - Cumulative (live-basis)        ADG, lbs 3.77 3.95 3.92 0.051 0.06 0.05 0.15 DMI, lbs 23.9 23.7 23.6 0.17 0.38 0.18 0.72 G:F 0.158 0.167 0.167 0.0173 0.01 0.01 0.05 F:Gc 6.33 5.99 5.99 - - - - Cumulative (HCW/0.625)        Final BW, lbs 1413 1429 1420 6.6 0.32 0.60 0.16 ADG, lbs 4.10 4.21 4.12 0.053 0.42 0.77 0.21 G:F 0.172 0.178 0.175 0.0020 0.14 0.26 0.10 F:Gc 5.81 5.62 5.71 - - - - Applied Energeticse        NEmf, Mcal/cwt 91.2 95.3 95.3 0.73 0.01 0.01 0.03   South Dakota State University Animal Science Research Report 2024 © 2024, South Dakota Board of Regents 46   NEgg, Mcal/cwt 61.2 64.9 64.9 0.64 0.01 0.01 0.03 O/Eh NEm 0.98 1.03 1.03 0.008 0.01 0.01 0.03 O/Eh NEg 0.99 1.04 1.04 0.011 0.01 0.01 0.04 Carcass Traitsi        HCW, lbs 884 893 886 4.2 0.32 0.60 0.16 DPj, % 64.60 64.10 63.75 0.251 0.09 0.03 0.80 REA, in2 14.0 14.3 14.4 0.12 0.05 0.02 0.54 RF, in 0.55 0.59 0.57 0.018 0.22 0.28 0.17 Marblingk 519 531 524 14.9 0.85 0.83 0.60 Calculated YG 3.25 3.30 3.19 0.078 0.63 0.60 0.42 EBFj, % 31.02 31.61 31.23 0.349 0.49 0.68 0.27 AFBWl, lbs 1279 1272 1276 11.9 0.91 0.87 0.69 Quality Grade Distribution, %        Select 6.3 5.0 6.5 - 0.92   Low Choice  39.7 40.7 38.7     Average Choice 33.3 30.5 33.9     High Choice 17.5 17.0 16.1     Prime 3.2 6.8 4.8     Yield Grade Distribution, %        1 0.0 3.3 3.2 - 0.36   2 41.2 30.1 46.0     3 55.6 63.3 44.4     4 3.2 3.3 4.8     5 0.0 0.0 1.6     Liver Abscess Prevalence, %        Normal 74.6 81.7 63.5 - 0.05   A- 4.8 8.3 9.5     A  3.2 5.0 0.0     A+ or greater 17.4 5.0 27.0     a DDGS = 100% DDGS; SBM50 = 50 % DDGS, 50% SBM; SBM100 = 100% SBM b A 4% pencil shrink was applied to BW measures to account for gastrointestinal tract fill. c Calculated as; 1/G:F d Pooled SEM e Calculated from live BW shrunk 4% f Net energy for maintenance g Net energy for gain h Observed to Expected ratio (calculated net energy value/tabular net energy estimate) i HCW = hot carcass weight; DP = dressing percent; REA = ribeye area; RF = rib fat; EBF = empty body fat; AFBW = adjusted final body weight j Calculated as: (HCW/Final BW shrunk 4%) × 100. k Small00 = 400 l Calculated according to Guiroy et al. (2002). 

Effects of Partial or Total Replacement of Dried Distillers Plus Solubles with Soybean Meal on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Dietary Net Energy Utilization in Finishing Beef Steers

https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=ans_report_2024

Effects of Partial or Total Replacement of Dried Distillers Plus Solubles with Soybean Meal on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Dietary Net Energy Utilization in Finishing Beef Steers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange