Effects of dietary energy level and intake of corn by-product-based diets on newly received growing cattle: antibody production, acute phase protein response, stress, and immunocompetency of healthy and morbid animals

Effect of traditional roughage-based or limit-fed, high-energy diets on growth performance and digestion in newly received growing cattle and subsequent implications on feedlot growth performance and carcass characteristics

The objective was to determine the effects of ad libitum-fed roughage-based diets or limit-fed high-energy diets on growth performance, behavior, health, and digestion in newly received growing cattle and subsequent implications on feedlot growth performance and carcass characteristics. In experiment 1, 409 crossbred heifers (initial body weight [BW] = 279 ± 24 kg) in 32 pens were used in a randomized block design. Heifers were fed one of two dietary treatments: a total mixed ration with 0.99 Mcal net energy for gain (NEg)/kg dry matter (DM) fed ad libitum (0.99AL) or 1.32 Mcal NEg/kg DM limit-fed at 85% of intake of heifers fed 0.99AL (1.32LF85%). Both diets contained 40% DM as a branded wet corn gluten feed. In experiment 2, 370 crossbred heifers (initial BW = 225 ± 20 kg) were used in a randomized block design and were fed a diet formulated to contain 0.99 Mcal of NEg/kg DM for ad libitum intake or a diet formulated to contain 1.32 Mcal of NEg/kg DM and fed at 2.2% of BW daily (DM basis; 1.32LF2.2). For experiments 1 and 2, treatment integrity was maintained through the finishing phase where cattle were fed a common diet. Cattle were sorted by BW into heavy and light groups prior to finishing, with light cattle fed longer than heavy cattle to reach similar harvest BW. In experiment 3, eight ruminally cannulated heifers (average BW = 305 ± 23 kg) were used in a 2-period cross-over design and fed treatments from experiment 1 to assess digestibility and ruminal fermentation characteristics. Gain:feed was 47% and 35% greater (P < 0.01) in experiments 1 and 2, respectively, for limit-fed heifers compared with 0.99AL heifers. Rumination time was greater (P < 0.01) for 0.99AL compared with limit-fed treatments in experiments 1 and 2. Activity was greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF2.2 than for 0.99AL in experiment 2. In experiment 1, more (P = 0.03) carcasses from light-sort heifers than carcasses from heavy-sort heifers had livers with large, active abscesses. In experiment 2, finishing phase morbidity was greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF2.2 than for 0.99AL. Light-sort groups had fewer (P < 0.01) edible livers than heavy-sort groups, suggesting that greater number of days on feed may increase the risk of liver abscess prevalence and condemnation. In experiment 3, apparent total-tract DM and organic matter digestibilities were greater (P < 0.01) for 1.32LF85% than for 0.99AL. Overall, dietary treatments during the growing phase had little carryover effect on feedlot growth performance, carcass characteristics, or liver abscesses prevalence at harvest.

Galyean Appreciation Club Review: Revisiting nutrition and health of newly received cattle - What have we learned in the last 15 years?

Our objective was to review the literature related to the health and management of newly received cattle published since a previous review by Duff and Galyean (2007). Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) continues to be a major challenge for the beef industry. Depending on disease severity, animals treated for BRD have decreased performance and lowered carcass value. Diagnosis of BRD is less effective than desired, and progress on developing real-time, chute-side methods to diagnose BRD has been limited. Systems that combine lung auscultation with temperature and BW data show promise. Assessment of blood metabolites and behavior monitoring offer potential for early identification of morbid animals. Vaccination and metaphylaxis continue to be important tools for prevention and control of BRD, but antimicrobial resistance is a concern with antibiotic use. Dietary energy concentration and roughage source/level continue to be important topics. Mineral supplementation has received considerable attention, particularly the use of organic vs. inorganic sources and injectable minerals or drenches given on arrival. Use of probiotics and prebiotics for newly received cattle has shown variable results, but further research is warranted. Health and nutrition of newly received cattle will continue to be an important research area in the years to come.

BEEF SPECIES-RUMINANT NUTRITION CACTUS BEEF SYMPOSIUM: Energy and roughage levels in cattle receiving diets and impacts on health, performance, and immune responses1

Transition of newly received feedlot cattle from a forage- to grain-based diet is challenging, and the appropriate roughage level in receiving diets is debatable. Nutritionists must consider the paradox of dietary transition and roughage level to mitigate ruminal acidosis, yet concomitantly low feed intake presents difficulty in achieving nutrient requirements when metabolic demand is increased due to inherent stress and disease challenge during the receiving period. Previous research suggests that performance is improved at the expense of increased morbidity for newly received cattle consuming diets with less roughage and greater starch concentration. The clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) and acute acidosis are analogous; therefore, it is probable that acidotic cattle are incorrectly diagnosed with BRD in both research and production settings. Additional research efforts have attempted to elucidate alterations in microbial populations and digestion, physiological response to inflammatory challenge, and immunological response to infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus challenge in cattle consuming diets of various roughage levels. Furthermore, our understanding of the rumen microbiome is improving rapidly with culture-independent assays, products such as direct-fed microbials are available, and increased availability and use of fibrous byproduct ingredients requires further attention. Beef cattle nutritionists and producers should consider that the health benefit of receiving diets containing greater levels of roughage and lower energy may not compensate for the reduction in performance compared with feeding receiving diets with lower roughage and greater energy.