| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SPECIAL TOPICS |
Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409
2 Corresponding author: judson.vasconcelos{at}ttu.edu
Forty-two consulting feedlot nutritionists were asked to participate in a survey regarding nutritional recommendations for feedlot cattle. Eleven nutritionists chose not to participate or did not reply to our request. Thirty-one nutritionists agreed to participate, and 29 completed the survey. Their practices were located in the following states: Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (46.43%); Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, and South Dakota (31.25%); Washington and Idaho (8.93%); Arizona and California (6.25%); and other states (7.14%). The survey was conducted using a Web-based system and included 74 questions divided into sections that covered general information about the nutritionist’s practice (n = 8 questions); commodity information (n = 13); use of grain coproducts (n = 5); information regarding roughage sources and levels (n = 4); methods used to adapt cattle to finishing diets (n = 3); information about supplements and micronutrients (n = 7); types of feed mixers (n = 2) and feed mills (n = 1) used by clients; feeding (n = 1) and cattle management (n = 5); liquid feeds (n = 7); recommendations for nutrient formulation (n = 15); information resources used as the basis for nutritional recommendations (n = 2); and perceived needs for additional information on items or nutrients not addressed in the survey. With respect to nutrient formulation practices, the results indicated that the recommended concentrations of major nutrients and trace minerals typically fell within a range of 1 to 2 times the NRC (2000) recommendations for beef cattle; however, some important aspects of the NRC models (e.g., formulation for degradable intake protein) were not applied by the majority of respondents. Data from this survey provide a snapshot of practices used by feedlot nutritionists and should aid in development of future National Research Council models and recommendations.
Key Words: beef cattle • feedlot • nutrient recommendation • nutritionist
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. J. Wagner, T. E. Engle, Jos. J. Wagner, J. L. Lacey, and G. Walker The Effects of ZinMet Brand Liquid Zinc Methionine on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Merit in Crossbred Yearling Steers,, Professional Animal Scientist, October 1, 2008; 24(5): 420 - 429. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Loya-Olguin, L. Avendano-Reyes, A. M. Encinias, D. A. Walker, N. A. Elam, and S. A. Soto-Navarro Influence of slice baling on feeding value of alfalfa hay in receiving and finishing diets for feedlot cattle J Anim Sci, October 1, 2008; 86(10): 2749 - 2755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Kebreab, K. A. Johnson, S. L. Archibeque, D. Pape, and T. Wirth Model for estimating enteric methane emissions from United States dairy and feedlot cattle J Anim Sci, October 1, 2008; 86(10): 2738 - 2748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. T. Vasconcelos and M. L. Galyean ASAS Centennial Paper: Contributions in the Journal of Animal Science to understanding cattle metabolic and digestive disorders J Anim Sci, July 1, 2008; 86(7): 1711 - 1721. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. J. Klopfenstein, G. E. Erickson, and V. R. Bremer BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Use of distillers by-products in the beef cattle feeding industry J Anim Sci, May 1, 2008; 86(5): 1223 - 1231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
