| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ANIMAL NUTRITION |
* Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lennoxville, QC, J1M 1Z3, Canada;
and
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada;
and
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Kapuskasing, ON, P5N 2Y3, Canada
1 Corresponding author: berthiaumer{at}agr.gc.ca
Forty Angus-cross steers were used to evaluate 5 beef cattle management regimens for their effect on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and cost of production. A 98-d growing phase was incorporated using grass silage with or without growth promotants (trenbolone acetate + estradiol implants, and monensin in the feed) or soybean meal. Dietary treatments in the finishing phase were developed, with or without addition of the same growth promotants, based on exclusive feeding of forages with minimal supplementation or the feeding of barley-based diets. Overall, ADG for animals treated with growth promotants or fed supplemented diets (soybean meal and barley) was increased (P < 0.01) by 25 and 21%, respectively, compared with steers reared on grass silage alone and not treated with growth promotants. Except for HCW (P < 0.01), the use of growth promotants did not affect carcass measurements. Increasing the proportion of barley in the diet of steers finished on forage produced a heavier HCW (P < 0.01) and a greater (P < 0.01) quality grade. Because of their lower HCW and quality grade, cattle targeted to a forage-fed, nonimplanted beef market would need to garner a 16% premium to be economically competitive with cattle finished conventionally.
Key Words: beef production system • feedlot performance • forage finishing • production cost
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. W. Wileman, D. U. Thomson, C. D. Reinhardt, and D. G. Renter Analysis of modern technologies commonly used in beef cattle production: Conventional beef production versus nonconventional production using meta-analysis J Anim Sci, October 1, 2009; 87(10): 3418 - 3426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Faucitano, P. Y. Chouinard, J. Fortin, I. B. Mandell, C. Lafreniere, C. L. Girard, and R. Berthiaume Comparison of alternative beef production systems based on forage finishing or grain-forage diets with or without growth promotants: 2. Meat quality, fatty acid composition, and overall palatability J Anim Sci, July 1, 2008; 86(7): 1678 - 1689. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Plourde, F. Destaillats, P. Y. Chouinard, and P. Angers Conjugated {alpha}-Linolenic Acid Isomers in Bovine Milk and Muscle J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2007; 90(11): 5269 - 5275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. P. S. Neel, J. P. Fontenot, W. M. Clapham, S. K. Duckett, E. E. D. Felton, G. Scaglia, and W. B. Bryan Effects of winter stocker growth rate and finishing system on: I. Animal performance and carcass characteristics J Anim Sci, August 1, 2007; 85(8): 2012 - 2018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
