|
|
||||||||

* University of Nebraska, Lincoln 68583-0908 and
and
Cargill Corn Milling, Blair, NE 68008-0530
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: Cattle Feeding Feedlots Maize Byproducts Maize Gluten Maize Starch
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Inclusion of wet corn gluten feed (WCGF) in place of corn grain in finishing diets replaces dietary starch with highly digestible fiber. The resultant effect can be increased feed intake, daily gain, and feed efficiency (Stock et al., 2000
) as well as decreased incidence and severity of acidosis in finishing cattle (Krehbiel et al., 1995
). Limited information is available about the effects that different grain processing methods may have in diets containing WCGF.
Our hypothesis is that diets containing WCGF may be enhanced when corn is processed more intensely due to lower incidence and severity of acidosis in diets containing WCGF. The objective of this research was to evaluate different corn processing methods with or without wet corn gluten feed on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Weekly samples of DRC, SFC, FGC, HMC, WC, WCGF, and alfalfa hay were composited, analyzed for DM by drying in a 60°C oven for 48 h, ground to pass a 0.85-mm screen, and analyzed for N using a combustion N analyzer (Perkin-Elmer, model PE 2410 Series II, Norwalk, CT). Crude protein values for other dietary ingredients were based on NRC (1996)
tabular values. Values for Ca, P, K, and S were based on NRC (1996)
tabular values. Net energy for gain of each diet was calculated from performance using the iterative procedure outlined by Zinn (1987)
. In DRC and SFC diets without WCGF, NEgvalues were calculated from performance by difference for DRC and SFC, with tabular NEg values (NRC, 1996
) assumed for ingredients other than DRC and SFC. The following formula was used: NEg [DRC or SFC] = (NEg [Diet] - NEg [dietary ingredients other than DRC or SFC])/% DRC or SFC in the diet. The calculated NEg values for DRC and SFC then were used to allow calculation of the NEg value for WCGF when fed in combination with either DRC or SFC. The following formula was used: NEg [WCGF] = (NEg [Diet] - NEg [dietary ingredients other than WCGF])/% WCGF in the diet.
On d 170, two fecal grab samples were taken from fresh feces available on the pen surface from two pens receiving each treatment for fecal starch analysis. Fecal samples were analyzed for DM by drying in a 60°C oven for 48 h and analyzed in triplicate for starch content using enzymatic hydrolysis and glucose oxidase (Murphy et al., 1994
). Laboratory DM of fecal samples was determined by drying in a 100°C oven for 12 h.
Trial 2
Two hundred eighty-eight English x Continental yearling steers (382 ± 26 kg initial BW) of mixed origin and purchased through sale barns were stratified by weight and assigned randomly to 1 of 24 pens (12 steers/pen) similar to Trial 1. Each pen (four pens/treatment) was assigned randomly to one of six dietary treatments. Treatments were finishing diets (Table 3
) that contained the following: 1) DRC without; or 2) with WCGF; 3) SFC without; or 4) with WCGF; 5) finely rolled corn with WCGF; and 6) high-moisture corn with WCGF.
|
Particle Size Analysis
Samples of corn grain from each of the processing methods used in Trials 1 and 2 were taken weekly, dried in a 60°C oven and composited for particle size analysis (ASAE, 1969
). Samples were measured in triplicate to determine corn particle size distribution, geometric mean diameter, and geometric standard deviation for each processing method.
Statistical Analyses and Animal Care
Animal care and procedures used in Trial 1 and Trial 2 were approved by the University of Nebraska Institute for Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC #98-04-021).
Trial 1 and Trial 2.
Performance, carcass, and fecal starch data from Trial 1 were analyzed as a completely randomized design experiment with the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Treatment means were separated using a Bonferroni t-test and the LSMEANS statement and PDIFF option of SAS when protected by an F-value of P < 0.05. In both analyses of variance for performance and carcass data, pen was the experimental unit and treatment was included as the model effect. For fecal starch data in Trial 1, sample was the experimental unit and treatment was included as the model effect. Percentage of carcasses grading USDA Choice or higher was analyzed using chi-squared analysis and FREQ procedures of SAS. Individual carcass was used as the experimental unit for USDA quality grade with carcasses assigned quality grade based on marbling score.
Particle Size Analyses.
Particle size data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS for a completely randomized design. Treatment means were separated using the LSMEANS statement and PDIFF option of SAS when protected by an F-value of P < 0.05. Laboratory replicate was the experimental unit and treatment was included as the model effect.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
Feed efficiency was 11% poorer (P < 0.10) in steers fed WC + WCGF compared with the average of all other treatments (Table 5
). Similarly, feed efficiency was 9% poorer (P < 0.10) in steers fed DRC + WCGF compared with the average of treatments other than WC + WCGF. Gain:feed was greater (P < 0.10) in steers fed SFC and SFC + WCGF than in steers fed DRC, DRC + WCGF, and FGC + WCGF. Gain:feed was similar in steers fed SFC, SFC + WCGF, SFC + DRC, and HMC + WCGF and in steers fed DRC, SFC + DRC, FGC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF.
Dietary NEg was 12% lower (P < 0.10) in steers fed WC + WCGF compared with the average of all other treatments (Table 5
). Likewise, dietary NEg was 9% lower (P < 0.10) in steers fed DRC + WCGF compared with the average of steers receiving treatments other than WC + WCGF. Dietary NEg in steers fed SFC was similar to that of steers fed SFC + WCGF and SFC + DRC and greater (P < 0.10) than that of steers fed DRC, FGC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF. Dietary NEg was similar among steers fed SFC + WCGF, SFC + DRC, and HMC + WCGF and among steers fed DRC, SFC + DRC, FGC + WCGF, HMC + WCGF.
Hot carcass weights for steers fed DRC were 13 kg lighter (P < 0.10) compared with the average of all other treatments (Table 5
). Averaging 393 kg, steers fed DRC + WCGF, SFC + WCGF, FGC + WCGF, HMC + WCGF, and WC + WCGF had hot carcass weights that were similar to each other but heavier than steers fed SFC or SFC + WCGF. No statistical differences were observed among treatments for marbling score, USDA yield grade, 12th-rib fat thickness, or longissimus muscle area. The averages across treatments were a marbling score of 538, a USDA yield grade of 2.9, with 1.51 cm of 12th-rib fat, and an 86.4-cm2 longissimus muscle area. Based on chi-squared analysis, no differences (P > 0.50) were detected in carcasses grading USDA Choice across treatments, averaging 69%.
Fecal starch values were greater (P < 0.10) in steers fed WC + WCGF compared with all other treatments. Steers fed DRC had greater (P < 0.10) fecal starch values than steers fed SFC, SFC + WCGF, FGC + WCGF, or HMC + WCGF. Fecal starch values were similar among steers fed DRC, DRC + WCGF, and SFC + DRC. Steers fed DRC + WCGF and SFC + DRC had greater (P < 0.10) fecal starch values than steers fed SFC, SFC + WCGF, or HMC + WCGF. Fecal starch values were similar among steers fed SFC, SFC + WCGF, FGC + WCGF and HMC + WCGF.
Trial 2
Steers fed DRC + WCGF, FRC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF consumed similar amounts of feed and averaged 11 kg/d (Table 6
). Steers fed DRC + WCGF or FRC + WCGF consumed 10, 9, or 4% more (P < 0.10) DM, respectively, than steers fed DRC, SFC, or SFC + WCGF. On average, steers fed SFC + WCGF or HMC + WCGF consumed 7% more (P < 0.10) DM than steers fed DRC or SFC. Steers fed DRC or SFC consumed similar quantities of DM.
|
Feed efficiency was greater (P < 0.10) in steers fed SFC or SFC + WCGF compared with each of the other treatments (Table 6
). The improvement in feed efficiency in steers fed SFC or SFC + WCGF was approximately 10% compared with the average of the other treatments. Steers fed DRC, DRC + WCGF, FRC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF exhibited similar feed efficiency.
Dietary NEg was 9% greater (P < 0.10) in steers fed SFC or SFC + WCGF compared with all other treatments (Table 6
). Dietary NEg in steers fed DRC or HMC + WCGF was similar to that of steers fed DRC + WCGF and greater (P < 0.10) than that of steers fed FRC + WCGF. Steers fed DRC + WCGF or FRC + WCGF had similar dietary NEg.
Hot carcass weights in steers fed SFC + WCGF were similar to those of steers fed HMC + WCGF and were approximately 12 kg heavier (P < 0.10) than the average of steers fed DRC, DRC + WCGF, SFC, and FRC + WCGF. Hot carcass weights among steers fed DRC + WCGF, SFC, FRC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF were similar. Hot carcass weights of steers fed DRC were approximately 16 kg lighter (P < 0.10) compared with hot carcass weights of all other treatments. Steers fed SFC + WCGF had higher (P < 0.10) yield grades than steers fed DRC, SFC, or FRC + WCGF. Steers fed DRC + WCGF, SFC, FRC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF had similar yield grades. Steers fed DRC had lower (P < 0.10) yield grades than all other treatments. Steers fed SFC + WCGF had greater (P < 0.10) 12th-rib fat thickness compared with all other treatments except HMC + WCGF. Steers fed DRC + WCGF, SFC, FRC + WCGF, and HMC + WCGF had similar fat thickness. Steers fed DRC had lower (P < 0.10) 12th-rib fat thickness compared with all other treatments except DRC + WCGF. Marbling scores and longissimus muscle area were not statistically different among treatments. The averages across treatments were 505 and 90.8 cm2 for marbling score and longissimus muscle area, respectively. Based on chi-squared analysis, no differences were observed across treatments (P > 0.74) with an average of 56.9% grading USDA Choice or better.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Theurer (1999)
and Owens et al. (1997)
reported that cattle fed SFC finishing diets could be expected to consume 8 and 11.6% less feed, respectively, than cattle fed DRC finishing diets. In contrast, feeding SFC resulted in similar DMI compared with feeding DRC in both Trials 1 and 2. In fact, DMI was numerically increased by feeding SFC compared with DRC in Trial 2. In both Trials 1 and 2, steers fed SFC gained significantly faster than steers fed DRC. Theurer (1999)
reported that cattle fed SFC finishing diets could be expected to have numerically greater ADG (2%) than cattle fed DRC finishing diets. In contrast, Owens et al. (1997)
suggested that feeding SFC resulted in a 1.4% decrease in ADG. Both Theurer (1999)
and Owens et al. (1997)
reported that feeding SFC-based finishing diets improved feed conversion, which is in agreement with the results of both Trials 1 and 2.
Addition of WCGF to diets containing DRC or SFC increased DMI in both Trials 1 and 2 compared with diets containing DRC or SFC without WCGF. Likewise, addition of WCGF to diets containing DRC or SFC increased ADG when compared with feeding DRC or SFC alone. Increased DMI and improved ADG are consistent with previously observed performance responses when feeding WCGF (Stock et al., 2000
).
In Trial 1, feed efficiency was 3.2% poorer for steers fed DRC + WCGF than for steers fed DRC without WCGF, whereas in Trial 2 feed efficiency was similar in steers fed DRC with or without WCGF. Feed efficiency among steers fed SFC with or without WCGF was similar in both Trials 1 and 2. In contrast, Stock et al. (2000)
summarized five finishing trials and suggested that finishing diets that contained an average of 34.8% WCGF resulted in a 5.1% improvement in feed efficiency. However, in support of the decreased feed efficiency response observed in this study, Scott et al. (2001)
observed a 4.8% improvement in feed efficiency with DRC control diet vs. a DRC diet containing 35% WCGF.
A portion of the improvement in feed efficiency when feeding WCGF in DRC finishing diets has been attributed to a reduction in subacute acidosis (Krehbiel et al., 1995
). Our hypothesis was that when subacute acidosis is controlled, increased processing of corn grain would increase starch availability and feed efficiency. However, if acidosis occurs, the improvement in feed efficiency response to increased processing of corn grain would not be expected to be as great. Thus, corn-based finishing diets that contain WCGF might allow corn grain to be more extensively processed without increasing the risk of acidosis.
In finishing diets containing WCGF, the data from these trials indicate that, in general, efficiency was improved as the degree of processing was increased. Processing methods such as steam-flaking, high-moisture ensiling, and fine-grinding improved feed efficiency compared with either minimal processing methods (i.e., rolling) or no processing. Feeding SFC has been shown to improve feed efficiency compared with feeding DRC (Zinn, 1987
; Barajas and Zinn, 1998
; Zinn et al., 1998
) or WC (Lee et al., 1982
). Feeding HMC has generally resulted in feed efficiency similar to that observed when feeding DRC (Owens, et al., 1997
; Stock et al., 1987b
) or WC (Stock et al., 1987a
). In contrast, feed efficiency was improved in steers fed HMC + WCGF in Trial 1 when compared with steers fed DRC + WCGF or WC + WCGF.
Although rate of gain was not affected, feeding WC + WCGF increased DMI and decreased feed efficiency compared with each of the other processing methods in Trial 1. In contrast, Owens et al. (1997)
indicated that feeding WC resulted in DMI and feed efficiency similar to that of steers fed SFC and reduced DMI and improved feed efficiency compared with steers fed DRC or HMC.
In Trial 2, steers fed FRC + WCGF had feed efficiency similar to that observed in steers fed DRC + WCGF, which is consistent with the data of Secrist et al. (1996a)
, who reported similar feed conversion between steers fed coarsely or finely rolled corn having a geometric mean diameter of 3,100 and 1,550 µm, respectively. In Trial 1, steers fed FGC + WCGF were more efficient than steers fed DRC + WCGF or WC + WCGF, which is in contrast to Turgeon et al. (1983)
, who reported similar feed efficiency among steers fed DRC, FGC, or WC. Therefore, feeding FGC may be possible in diets containing WCGF due to more uniform diets in the bunk (i.e., preventing small particles from accumulating) and a reduction of subacute acidosis associated with faster rates of starch digestion with FGC.
During Trials 1 and 2, we observed more whole corn kernels in the feces of steers fed WC and more whole and large broken kernels in the feces of steers fed DRC than those fed SFC, HMC, or finely processed corn. Fecal starch analysis indicated that feeding SFC decreased fecal starch compared with feeding WC or DRC. These results are consistent with previous research results in which fecal starch values were decreased with SFC vs. DRC (Barajas and Zinn, 1998
) and SFC vs. WC (Lee, et al., 1982
). Also, fecal starch tended (P < 0.11) to be reduced in steers fed FGC + WCGF and was reduced (P < 0.08) in steers fed HMC + WCGF compared with DRC + WCGF The differences in fecal starch when feeding DRC + WCGF compared with FGC + WCGF and HMC + WCGF indicate that fecal starch could be reduced by finely grinding or high-moisture ensiling corn when compared with dry-rolling. Because fine grinding and high-moisture ensiling increase the rate of starch digestion (Huntington, 1997
), inclusion of WCGF in these diets may minimize challenges associated with more rapid rates of starch digestion. Passage rate has been shown to increase with the addition of WCGF to corn-based finishing diets (Montgomery et al., 2001
). Thus, when corn is less extensively processed, feeding WCGF may increase rate of passage such that starch digestion of the large grain particles is reduced. A reduction in starch digestion would presumably decrease feed efficiency despite similar ADG. Based on animal performance, the NEg calculated for WCGF (Table 7
) was 16.7 and 24.1% greater in steers fed SFC-based finishing diets than in steers fed DRC-based finishing diets in Trials 1 and 2, respectively. The greater NEg estimates for WCGF in SFC- vs. DRC-based finishing diets supports the hypothesis that more extensively processing corn can serve to further improve feed efficiency in corn-based finishing diets that contain WCGF.
|
| Implications |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
2 Present address: Alltech Biotechnology Inc., 3031 Catnip Hill Pike, Nicholasville, KY. ![]()
3 Correspondence: C220 Animal Science (phone: 402-472-6443; fax: 402-472-6362; E-mail: tklopfenstein1{at}unl.edu).
Received for publication January 11, 2002. Accepted for publication July 30, 2003.
| Literature Cited |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
N. A. Cole and R. W. Todd Opportunities to enhance performance and efficiency through nutrient synchrony in concentrate-fed ruminants J Anim Sci, April 1, 2008; 86(14_suppl): E318 - E333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. L. Archibeque, D. N. Miller, H. C. Freetly, and C. L. Ferrell Feeding high-moisture corn instead of dry-rolled corn reduces odorous compound production in manure of finishing beef cattle without decreasing performance J Anim Sci, July 1, 2006; 84(7): 1767 - 1777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. R. Krehbiel, J. J. Cranston, and M. P. McCurdy An upper limit for caloric density of finishing diets J Anim Sci, April 1, 2006; 84(13_suppl): E34 - E. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. C. Block, C. N. Macken, T. J. Klopfenstein, G. E. Erickson, and R. A. Stock Optimal wet corn gluten and protein levels in steam-flaked corn-based finishing diets for steer calves J Anim Sci, December 1, 2005; 83(12): 2798 - 2805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |