Feedlot Management By Dr Theresa Craig May 2011

Feedlot Management By Dr. Theresa Craig May 2011

Dr. Theresa M Craig Ph. D a. Born in Canada on a Feedlot Ranching operation a. Attended Texas A & M University and University of Missouri a. General Manager of Dairy Beef Feedlot Mexico a. Ruminant Nutrition Consulting in Portugal, Spain Mexico, and Guatemala a. Ruminant Specialist Rhone Poulenc Australia a. Established “TARA” a Research and Consulting Business, Australia (1997) a working in feedlot, dairies, abattoirs, governments in Australia and Internationally

Feedlot Management a. Animal Supply a. Feed Supply and Inventory a. Feeding a. Bunk Management a. Integration with Health and Livestock Management a. End game: Profitable

Animal Supply TYPE a. Genetics a. Age a. Weight ------- Market a. Condition Score a. Frame Score a. Prior Nutritional History

Animal Supply – Phenotype & Genotype Nutritional Windowing. Phenotype: a. Weight a. Age a. Condition Score a. Frame Score Genotype: a. Bos Indicus or Bos Taurus a. Beef/ Dairy a. Breed a. Genetic line a. Gender

Animal Supply – Frame Score Predict performance, slaughter date, & carcass composition at slaughter. Information required at entry: a. Date measurement taken a. Animal identification number a. Animal estimate age a. Hip height in mm across hips a. Weight a. Breed a. Gender a. Condition score Adjustable parallel bar with level Ruler with mm measurement scale

Feed Supply and Inventory “Dynamic” Feed Supply Feed Inventory a Feed Type a Quality a Nutrient Specifications a Cost/tonne a Consistency of Supply and Nutrient levels a Associative Effects a a a a Moisture Colour Odour Foreign Material Uniformity and Texture Evidence of heating Biotoxins

Feed Supply and Inventory - Storage a Storage Principles a Moisture a Temperature a Air movement a Contaminants a Feed Type a Forages a Grains a Protein Meal a By-products a Liquids a Pre-mixes a Special Products a Climatic Factors a Relative Humidity a Temperature a Season a Expansion Capacity a Logistics a Labour a Feed Quality a Changing a Nutrient Variability a Oxidative loss a AA to NPN a Pest Management a Rodents a Insects a Fire Management a Plan

Feed Supply: By-Products a Type a Energy a Protein a Roughage a Nutrients a Dry Matter a Consistency of Nutrient specifications a Creation of Imbalances a. Correction with knowledge a Interactions a. Binding a Non – Nutrients Factors a Toxins a Phytochemicals a Palatability a Limits intake a Supply Consistency a Logistics a Storage a Moisture/ Climate a Flow a. Silos a. Bunkers a Performance a Feed Intake a ADG, F/G a Associative effects a Carcass Composition a Cost Effective a Cost per nutrient a Effect on performance

Feed Supply and Inventory – Storage Guidelines PEnsure facility cleanliness PMoisture levels of most dry commodities need to stay below 13 % PMoisture level of high moisture feed to be used immediately or stored anaerobically PMonitor Feed Temperature and Moisture constantly PMonitor Feed for Insects and Rodents and have program to eliminate these pests PIf unsure test for Micotoxins PAeration / Turning helpful in long-term storage of large quantities of grain

Feeding a. Ration Consistency a. Formulation a. Nutrients a. Moisture a. Processing a. Mixing a. Delivery

Ration Mixing - Consistency a. Factors Affecting a. Particle Size a. Particle Shape a. Particle Density a. Adhesion a. Electrostatic a. Hygroscopic a. Segregation a. Liquid Addition a. Process a. Time a. Monitor a. Test a. Communication

Ration Mixing

Bunk Management a. Amount to Feed a. Percentage body weight a. Challenge a. Weather a. Ration Changes a. Limited a. Commodity changes a. Bunk Cleanliness a. Consistent a. Communication a. Accurate a. Constant a Delivery Assured a Consistency a Ration a Amount a Location a Entire bunk a Timeliness a 10 – 20 minutes

Bunk Management a Calls / Monitoring a Consistency 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Example Initial A. M. call Monitor during delivery P. M. verification call Monitor P. M. call Late call

Bunk Management and Feed Intake Erratic feed intake Feed intake stabilized Performance improved by approximately 30 %

Bunk Management Codes a Identical for Everyone a Timely a Utilization Example: Bunk S = Slick E = Excellent F = Full Animals A = Aggressive N = Normal L = Lazy

Bunk Management - Feed Intake

Bunk Management - General Rules a Increase feed given at P. M. feeding when required a Do not increase feeding amount per day above 10 % a Feed decreases done in A. M. feeding to allow close monitoring a Decrease feed allowance by greater than 10 % only when needed to clean bunk a Do not skip feeding a Proportion of feed given needs to equate to time between feeding therefore is not an equal amount

Bunk Management - Communication a Key to successful Bunk Management a Timely a Involves a Feed Manager a Cattle Manager a Truck Drivers a Cattle Handlers a Nutritionist

Bunk Management Focus Areas a a a Starting Cattle Ration Transition Sick Animals Storm Front Extreme Weather Long / Short Term Cattle

Heat Stress Warnings a. Temperature Humidity Index a. Panting Score a Feed Intake a. Restlessness a. Crowding water trough a. Grouping of cattle

Heat Stress Nutrition a. Decreasing the fermentative heat load by: a Ionophores a Minimum roughage rations (use high digestive fibre) a Inclusion of fat with low fibre diets a Mineral intake a (DO include electrolyte mix) a Increase K, Na, Cl, Mg a Increase maintenance requirement (7 to 25%) a Water consumption a Increase 76 to 132 litres per day

Heat Stress - cont’d Feed Management a Altered to match the animals eating pattern. a Do - Morning feed delivered predawn a Do - Last feed of the day later in the day a Do - Feed more than twice/day Management a Lesson pen density a Use a sprinkler system a Providing shade a Without shade: a feed intake decreased by 8 to 20% a decrease weight gain by 12 to 25% a Shade 4 – 4. 2 m high and provide 2 – 4 m 2 space/animal

Water Trough Management a Nutrient a Water restriction reduces feed intake a Quantity a Back–up system a Quality a Influences consumption a Components / Contaminants a Cleanliness a Monitor a Space a 30 mm/head

Integrations with Health and Livestock Management a Enhance immune system through nutrition a Feed management and rations effect nutritional disorders a a a Acidosis Bloat Urinary Calculi (Urolithiasis) Toxins Nutritional imbalances a Sick rations

Integrations with Health and Livestock Management a Acidosis a Acute: possible dead animal a Chronic loss in performance Faeces of animal with acidosis Faeces of animal that is normal

Performance Enhancement a Increase Dry Matter Intake a Consistent ration a a Nutrient levels Moisture levels Texture Energy a Improving Efficiency a Management a Animal a Physiology a Nutrient requirements a Behaviour

Feed Efficiency More Efficient a Younger animals a Large mature size a Genetics a Body Composition - leaner Less Efficient a Older animals a Heavier animals a Genetics with dairy influence

Performance Criteria

Performance Checklist a. Weather a. Temperature a. Humidity a. Erratic a. Cattle a. Genetics a. Health a. Gender a. Age a. Prior nutritional history a. Feed a. Erratic rations changes a. Insufficient or poor quality water a. Poor mixing a. Management a. Bunk management a. Excessive handling of cattle

Critical Control Points Critical Limits Monitor Action c. v. 5 – 10 % Weekly 90 – 95 % 10 % of feedlot None During monthly maintenance Feed intake monitor All pens Monitor by Feed Manager weekly Feed inventory 2% Visual vs. predicted Monitor monthly Feed Mixing test Animal Treatment Implant accuracy Facilities Check for sharp objects Record System

Relative Effect on Performance Beef Bulls Beef Steers Beef Heifers ADG 1. 33 1. 16 0. 94 F/G 5. 96 6. 35 6. 42 Fat levels % Lean levels % 30. 8 40. 1 52 44 Considered to put on more fat than steers or bulls

Performance and Profit $220/tonne ADG F/G $/gain 1. 2 9. 41 2. 07 1. 5 7. 53 1. 8 2. 0 $230. 00/tonne F/G $/gain 1. 65 6. 64 1. 45 6. 64 1. 53 4. 78 1. 10 6. 28 1. 38 5. 53 1. 21 5. 53 1. 27 5. 32 1. 22 5. 65 1. 24 ADG improves $/gain improves ADG stable, F/G improves $/gain improves Ration cost increase, no change in ADG or F/G $/gain decreases Ration cost increase, no change in ADG, F/G improves $/gain improves

Performance Benchmarking - Example Feedlot Data Australia Beef Steers (non implant) Beef Steers Short fed Dairy Bulls Beef Steers (implant) Entry weight (kg) 387 363 340 - 360 349 422 447 430 Exit weight (kg) 533 499 467 447 641 651 705 Days on feed 70 65 54 59 132 161 213 ADG 2. 1 1. 87 2. 06 1. 67 1. 94 1. 45 1. 31 F/G 7. 7 7. 4 5. 63 6. 06 6. 39 7. 9 9. 4 10. 9 Beef Steers Mid fed

Performance – Seasonality ADG

Performance – Seasonality F/G

Factors Affecting Carcass Outcomes a. Input Factors a. Age a. Initial weight a. Sex a. Genetic potential a. Health a. Pre nutrition & management a. Management a. Ration / Feed intake a. Implants a. End Point Selection a. Days on feed a. Weight a. Fat thickness a. Carcass composition a. Marketing a. Seasonality a. Sorting a. Market place conditions a. Branded a. Value for standards

Marbling Ø Prolong high energy feeding Ø Physiological stage of growth Ø Traditional feeding Ø Genetic capacity of animal Ø Jersey, Murray Gray, Shorthorn, Wagyu, Belmont Red Ø Prior nutritional history Ø Weaning > Yearlings Ref. MSA Australia 2011

Performance for Profit - Bottom Line Consistent End Product to Suit Market Control Inputs Monitor – Protocols and Systems Animal incoming specifications Feed Commodities consistency Weight gain Daily feed intake Know How specific rations affect performance (ration codes) How specific animal specification affect performance Result Increase or Decrease Cost of Gain = Profitability

“Success Is Timely Attention to Detail”