FEEDING STRATEGIES FOR WINTER FINISHING

Dr. Siobhn Kavanagh Teagasc Kildalton SUMMARY 1. Establish realistic targets for finish weight, sale date and the length of the finishing period. The length of the finishing period and target daily gains will influence diet type. 2. Feed efficiency is at its greatest when animals are fed to high levels of gain, all else being equal. At a target gain of 100 kg live weight, a feed cost differential of 102 is possible when comparing animals growing at 0.5 or 1.0 kg per day. 3. For finishing steers, the feed costs associated with 120kg of live weight gain or 80 kg carcass gain ranges from 216 to 233 per animal finished. The traditional system of good quality grass silage + concentrates based system is approximately 7.5% more expensive than other systems. At a concentrate price of 200 / t, there are relatively small differences in the cost of finishing steers on a high concentrate diet, a mixed diet of grass silage, fodder beet and protein balancer or a diet based on forage maize and concentrates. 4. The high cost of grass silage is shifting the economics of winter feeding strategies towards high concentrate input, even at relatively high prices for concentrate feeds. 5. It is critically important that intake is recorded on a weekly basis in a finishing unit to illuminate any issues around intake and performance. If possible, animals should be weighed on a regular basis, or at the very least at the beginning and the end of the finishing period. 6. A compound feed is best defined by its energy, (UFV), protein, mineral and fibre content. Once these criteria are being met in a concentrate feed, ingredient content is of little consequence. 7. Limit starch + sugar content of the complete diet (i.e. forage + concentrate) to 30-40%. The form of starch will affect the safe level of starch in the diet. Feeding management is more critical than the level of starch + sugar in the diet. 8. The potential savings with preserved grains is dependent on a number of factors including cost of the grain, preservation and processing costs, ensiling costs, cost of working capital, storage costs and losses in storage. In many cases, the difference in cost between buying dried rolled grain as required and storing grain on-farm is small.

Animal Targets Animal Selection It is important to set realistic targets with regard to the start and finish weight, sale date and the length of the finishing period. These need to be considered in relation to your feed options and production costs. Use animals with a high rate of carcass gain relative to live weight gain. These are the more high growth rate beef cattle that divert a higher proportion of feed intake towards carcass gain. In this regard, young bulls of the continental breeds are at the top of the league and heifers of traditional breeds are at the other end of the scale, since they fatten at a relatively low weight. Suitable finishing weight depends on the breed and type of animal. For continental steers it can range from 660 kg to 720 kg, non-continental steers from 580 kg to 650 kg, continental heifers from 540 kg to 600 kg. For bulls, optimum slaughter weight will be dictated by the demands of the marketplace. A bull finishing system should not be entered into without prior knowledge of the demands of the processor in terms of carcass size. A study by AFBI, Hillsborough examined a range of finishing weights (500 to 800 kg) for bulls from the suckler herd. Increasing slaughter weight increased feed intake but daily gain and carcass gain remained constant at 1.4 kg and 0.9 kg / day, respectively. Consequently, feed efficiency (kg feed DM per kg carcass gain) declined but was still excellent at 9.6 kg feed Dm per kg carcass gain at a slaughter weight of 800 kg live weight (LW). Increasing slaughter weight from 500 kg to 800 kg improved carcass conformation by a grade and resulted in a greater proportion of carcasses grading as fat class 3 rather than 2. However, there was a tendency for some carcasses grading as fat class 4H at the heavier weights. Initial weight and target slaughter date/ weight will dictate the most appropriate feeding system. For example, light heifers (400 kg) with a target slaughter weight of 570 kg LW are not suitable for high concentrate feeding. The pattern of concentrate supplementation for these animals should be such that the animals are offered a growing diet (forage & concentrate) until they reach 470 kg and then offered a high concentrate diet.

Target Weight Gain Table 1 outlines guidelines for live weight gain (LWG) on different classes of finishing animal. At best, this is a guideline to target gains as gain will be dictated by a number of factors including the previous history of the animal, weight for age, diet type, feeding management, husbandry etc. There is increased interest in finishing bulls from the suckler herd. This system is attractive because of the potentially high rates of live weight gain and good feed conversion efficiency. Research to Steen in Hillsborough showed that when animals are slaughtered at a constant age, bulls had increased carcass weights of 43 kg and 69 kg, relative to steers and heifers, respectively. The scope for compensatory growth depends on the previous nutritional history of the animal. Lifetime performance to the start of the finishing period will have a major bearing on animal performance over the finishing period. The lighter an animals weight for age, the greater the animals potential for compensation. Differences in compensatory growth potential can result in big variations in response to concentrates. Animals with little compensatory growth tend to have poorer performance and efficiency. Table 1. Suggested Target Weight Gains for Finishing Cattle for Different Proportions of Concentrates Proportion of Concentrate : Forage 50:50* 90 : 10 LWG kg / day LWG kg/day Steers Friesian Continental Cross Heifers Continental Cross Bulls Friesian Continental Cross 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.20 1.30 1.2 1.35 1.5

*Assumed silage quality of 72 DMD plus 4-5 kg meals for steers and heifers, for bulls it is assumed that silage is constituting 35% of the total DM content with the remainder as concentrates.

Carcass Fatness Given the introduction of the quality payment scheme, carcass fatness has become an important issue. Factors affecting carcass fatness include breed type, finishing system and slaughter weight with slaughter weight and breed having the

biggest effect. Carcass weight at a constant level of fatness varies from 340 kg carcass for limousines to 410 kg carcass for Belgian Blues. The level of carcass fatness increases with increasing slaughter / carcass weight. High concentrate diets tend to reduce fat score by approximately 1/ 2 score, compared to the conventional grass silage + concentrates based system. The effect of individual ingredients in the diet on fat score is limited. While claims are made that ingredients like maize meal will affect carcass fat, the scientific literature would not support this. Studies on the effect of protein level in the diet on carcass fatness show varied results. Some suggest that increasing protein level will increase carcass fatness while others suggest that increasing protein level has no effect on carcass fatness. Finishing heavier cattle has the advantage of more saleable meat, better conformation and better kill out but fat deposition will increase and the cost associated with fat deposition is high. Work by Keane at Teagasc Grange showed that a change in fat score from 3 to 4L can increase the cost of carcass gain by up to 0.70 per kg. If slaughter date needs to be delayed, keep cattle on a low- cost growing diet and then go for a short finishing period which will give a higher carcass weight without a change in fat score. Send cattle for slaughter when acceptably finished. Duration of Finishing It is often assumed that the rate of gain is constant over the finishing period. This is not the case. High rates of gain are achievable at the start of the finishing period but this decreases with time. Gain decreases over time for a number of reasons including increased gut fill, static intake, increased fat content in the gain. The energy cost associated with increased fat content in the gain reduces feed efficiency at a fixed energy intake. The effect of duration of the finishing period is particularly evident with high concentrate feeding systems. Table 2 outlines the performance of Charolais Cross steers on a high concentrate feeding system for 12 weeks or 23 weeks. A live weight gain of 1.42kg / day was recorded for the first 84 days but declined by 19% over the next 77 days. Consequently, c. 40% more concentrates was required to produce each kg of carcass gain during weeks 12 to 23 than the first 12 weeks.

Table 2.

Effect of Feeding Period on Live Weight / Carcass Gain and Efficiency Start to 12 weeks 1424 1036 10.2 12 to 23 weeks 1158 840 11.4

Finishing Period Live weight gain (g/day) Carcass gain (g/day) Concentrate intake (kg DM / day) Feed Efficiency* (Concentrate DMI to gain) Live weight Carcass
Source: Teagasc Grange

7.16 9.85

9.85 13.57
*Silage not included

This data clearly indicates that where high concentrate feeding is practiced the feeding period should be kept as short as possible. Thus, steers and heifers should be within 100kg to 120kg of final slaughter weight, when fed on a high concentrate diet. Unlike steers, where performance starts to decline after 80-90 days on ad-lib meals, young bulls have been successfully fed for up to 240 days, achieving rates of gain. However, the duration of the meal feeding period will be dictated by the start weight, carcass weight required, level of fatness and other factors such as lameness, particularly for bulls on slats. A maximum feeding period of 170-180 days is preferable. Starting weight for high concentrate feeding of bulls will be dictated by target slaughter weight but assuming a live weight gain of 1.5 kg / day, animals should be within 260 kg of slaughter, when high concentrate feeding begins. Pattern of Concentrate Supplementation Altering the pattern of concentrate supplementation throughout the finishing period has been shown to have no effect on performance or efficiency of feed utilization in finishing steers, while total concentrate input is the same. Thus animals could be fed a fixed concentrate allowance over the entire finishing period or they could be fed all the concentrates towards the end of the finishing period. This might be used where animals may not be targeted for sale until late spring. It might also facilitate some control over the fatness of animals at slaughter. Work from both Grange and Hillsborough showed that animals offered silage only for the first part of the finishing period and high concentrate input thereafter had a lower fat classification than cattle offered a fixed quantity of concentrates throughout the finishing period.

Feeding Systems While there are many permutations of feedstuffs used in diets for finishing cattle in this country, there are just 5 basic feeding systems: 1. Grass silage plus concentrates. Meal feeding level will be dictated by silage quality but there is no role for bad silage (less than 70 DMD) in finishing systems. On silage based diets, the silage digestibility and the preservation both affect intake. It is difficult to consistently harvest good quality grass silage, making alternative options more attractive. 2. Forage maize plus concentrates. High dry matter yields of forage maize (12-13 t DM / ha, without plastic) and good quality (28-30% DM, 25% starch) are essential elements of this system. It is a forage, not a concentrate and must be adequately supplemented with concentrates. There is a potential concentrate saving effect of 1.5-2 kg per animal per day. 3. Whole crop cereal silage (WCCS) plus concentrates. Again, high dry matter yields of WCCS (12-13 t DM / ha) and good quality (28-30% DM, 25% starch) are essential elements of this system. Whole crop cereal silage is not a concentrate and must be adequately supplemented with concentrates. There is a potential concentrate saving effect of 1.5-2 kg per animal per day. Feed efficiency is slightly poorer with WCCS, relative to a forage maize based system. 4. Grass silage plus fodder beet plus concentrates. It is a high energy feed (UFV = 1.12 kg / DM) which is comparable to other concentrate feeds, but not superior. Fodder beet is a replacement for concentrates. Fodder beet is an attractive crop for many farmers due to its high yield and energy content. However, labour associated with harvesting, handling and feeding fodder beet can often mitigate against the economical production of beet. Fodder beet is primarily fed as a conserved crop (although it can also be grazed in-situ). Recorded performance on diets based on fodder beet have not always been good. Buckley et al. reported on an on-farm study of feeding practices and performance on 10 specialised winter finisher units in 1998. 80% of the farms used 15-25 kg of fodder / sugar beet. Across the 10 farms, an average daily gain of 0.90 kg was recorded, with a range of 0.73 1.06. Considerable variation in feed intake and animal growth was observed. Daily gains were similar to that recorded on conventional grass silage + concentrates based diets. 5. High concentrate diet, with minimal roughage. The high concentrate feeding system offers the advantage of shorter finishing periods, eliminating poor quality silage from finishing diets, more predictable performance, gives better kill-out %, lower carcass fat and because of

earlier finishing reduces labour, interest charges and slurry storage / handling requirements. This system is suitable for steers, heifers and bulls. Heifers have less potential to benefit from high concentrate feeding but heifers of high growth potential (continentals and animals with potential for compensatory growth) can be economically finished on high concentrate diets The feed costs associated with 120 kg live weight gain (80 kg carcass gain)on each of the feeding systems, with finishing continental steers is presented in Table 3. The traditional system of good quality grass silage plus concentrates based system is approximately 7% more expensive than other systems. At a concentrate price of 200 / t, there are relatively small differences in the feed cost of finishing cattle on a high concentrate diet, a mixed diet of grass silage, fodder beet and protein balancer or a based on forage maize and concentrates. A system based on WCCS and concentrates is slightly more expensive because of the higher cost of whole crop cereal silage and poorer feed efficiency. The conclusions drawn on this systems comparison are based on the assumptions used. Any change in forage costs, concentrate price or animal performance will alter these conclusions. Forage costings used include storage losses as well as a feeding out costs.

Table 3.
Forage

Feed Costs Associated with 120 kg live weight or 80 kg carcass gain for finishing continental steers at a concentrate price of 200 / t
72 DMD Grass Silage Forage Maize Whole Crop Cereal Silage Grass Silage + Fodder beet Ad Lib Meals

Initial weight, kg Live weight gain, kg / day Concentrate fed, kg/day Fodder beet input, kg/day Total Energy Intake, UFV Days of finish Carcass gain, kg / day Feed costs, per kg carcass gain Relative cost of feeding

550 1.0 5 9.8 125 0.64 2.91

550 1.2 5 10.6 100 0.8 2.65

550 1.2 5 10.8 100 0.8 2.78

550 1.2 2.3 20 11.4 100 0.84 2.72

550 1.35 11.5 12.4 85 0.95 2.70

1 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.93 Includes a land charge for all forages ( 300 / ha); Storage losses & feeding out costs are included; Grass silage = 140 / t DM ( 28 / t fresh); Forage maize = 133 / t DM ( 37 / fresh);
Whole crop cereal silage 144 / t DM ( 58 / t fresh); Fodder beet = 217 / t DM ( 41 / t fresh)

Nutritional Targets Intake Performance is driven by intake. High intakes of high digestibility forage and / or concentrate feeds are essential to achieve high levels of performance in winter finishing. Unlike the dairy farmer, the beef finisher does not have the luxury of a bulk tank reading to gauge animal performance. In many cases, he / she must rely on a measure of intake, observation of the animals and in some cases weighing of stock into and out of the sheds. It is critically important that intake is recorded on a weekly basis in a finishing unit to illuminate any issues around intake and performance. If possible, animals should be weighed on a regular basis, or at the very least at the beginning and the end of the finishing period. This can provide very useful information on the productivity of the unit. Typical intake on grass silage based diet for finishing steers and heifers is 1.6-1.8 % of live weight (LW). For example, a finishing steer on grass silage + concentrates at 600 kg LW might be expected to consume 10.2 kg DM: 1.7% of LW: 600 * 0.017 = 10.2 kg DM

If grass silage is used as a component of a finishing diet, then it must be high digestibility high dry matter material. Grange research has shown that silage intake declines by 25-30% as silage DMD goes from 75 to 60%. The inclusion of alternative forages such as forage maize or whole crop cereal silage will increase intake by 10-15%, while ad lib meal feeding will raise intake further (Table 4). Table 4. Guideline Intakes for Various Classes of Stock, expressed as a % of live weight (LW) Intake as a % LW Finishing Steers & Heifers Grass silage + concentrates Maize silage + concentrates High concentrate diet Finishing bulls (high concentrate diets) 1.7 (1.6-1.8) 1.85 (1.7-1.95) 1.9 (1.8-2.0) 2.0 (1.9-2.1)

Energy Energy is the most limiting nutrient for a finishing animal. Table 5 outlines the energy costs associated with maintaining the animal at two levels of gain 0.5 and 1.0 kg live weight gain (LWG). Maintenance costs are a significant proportion of the feed costs of an animal, particularly at low to moderate production levels. For example, for a 600 kg animal growing at 0.5 kg LWG, energy for maintenance constitutes 80% of the energy requirements of the animal, while the same animal growing at 1.0 kg LWG, energy for maintenance makes up 59% of the energy requirement of the animal. Feed efficiency is highest at the high level of gain. In real terms, for an animal growing at 0.5 kg LWG per day, the energy cost associated with 100 kg will be 1,360 UFV or 1.43 tonnes of concentrates (UFV = 0.95). While at a growth rate of 1.0 kg per day, the cost will be 920 UFV or 0.97 tonnes of concentrates. Assuming a price for concentrates of 200 / t, the cost difference is 102 / animal.

Table 5.

Energy Requirements of Beef Cattle at Two Levels of Gain

Energy for Maintenance UFV Total Energy Requirement UFV % energy used for maintenance Total Energy Requirements for 100 kg gain - UFV

LWG kg/d Live Weight 400 kg 600 kg No. of days

0.5 4.0 5.4 5.0 6.8

1.0 6.6 9.2

0.5 80% 80%

1.0 61% 59%

0.5 1,000 1,360 200

1.0 660 920 100

The energy (UFV) requirements of a beef animal will be dictated primarily by gender, breed, live weight and live weight gain (LWG) (Table 6). Energy is required for maintenance and live weight gain, both of which change over time as the animal live weight increases and tissue deposition changes from lean to fat. To use these tables, select sex of the animal, live weight, target live weight gain and diet type to get an estimate of the energy requirements of the specified animal. For example, finishing continental cross heifers at 500 kg live weight on a high concentrate diet (90: 10, concentrates : forage) with a target gain of 1.2 kg LWG, the energy requirements will be approximately 9.6 UFV. Table 6. Energy Requirements of Bulls, Heifers and Steers At Different Proportions of Concentrate, Breed and Live weight
Average Daily Live weight Gain kg Continental Cross 50:50 Concentrates : Forage Continental Cross 90:10 Concentrates : Forage

HEIFERS

400 kg

500 kg

1.2
600 kg

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 0.8 1 1.4 0.8 1 1.2

6 6.6 7.3 8 7.3 8.3 9.2 10.2 9.3 10.6 12.1

9.6
10.7 9.6 11 12.5

6.3 6.9 7.7 8.5 7.7 8.5

STEERS

Average Daily Live Weight Gain kg

Friesian 50:50 Concentrates : Forage

Friesian 90:10 Concentrates : Forage

Continental Cross 50:50 Concentrates : Forage

Continental Cross 90:10 Concentrate s : Forage

500 kg

600 kg

700 kg

1 1.2 1.4 1 1.2 1.4 1 1.2 1.4

8.4 9.4 10.6 10.5 12.3 14.0 -

8.8 9.8 10.9 10.9 12.5 14.5 14.4 Friesian

90:10 Concentrates : Forage

7.8 8.5 9.3 9.2 10.3 11.6 13.4 15.5

8.1 9 9.8 9.7 10.9 12.3 11.9 14 16

BULLS

Average Daily Live Weight Gain, kg 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Continental Cross
90:10 Concentrates : Forage

400 kg

500 kg

600 kg

700 kg

7 7.3 8.3 9 10 7.9 8.9 9.8 11.1 9.2 10.5 11.8 10.8 13 14.5 -

6.5 7 7.7 8.6 9.2 7.5 8 9 10 8.6 9.6 10.7 11.8 10.1 11.5 13 14.7

Protein The protein requirements of bulls are higher than steers, which in turn are higher than heifers. This is because of the greater lean meat deposition in bulls than steers and heifers. The specifications defined in Table 6 below relate to the complete diet specification i.e. forage + concentrates. Table 6. Dietary Protein Requirements for bulls, steers and heifers Crude protein % / kg diet DM 14-15 12-13 11-12 11-12

Category Bulls (growing) Bulls (finishing) Heifers Steers

Minerals Cattle need minerals to maintain good health. It is recommended that minerals be fed to all finishing animals. Feeding rate will vary from supplier to supplier but as a rule of thumb finishing animals should be offered 20g minerals per 100 kg LW i.e. 500 kg animal will need 20 * 5 = 100 grams of mineral per day. Particular attention to minerals is needed in a number of areas: 1. Feeding high levels of straights such as barley, which is low in calcium 2. Feeding alternative forages such as forage maize and whole crop cereal silage mineral content is low 3. High concentrate feeding It is important that a standard beef ration is not used for high concentrate feeding as the mineral specification will be in excess of requirements and may lead to poor performance and the risk of toxicity and severe diarrhea. 4. High moisture grains are low in vitamin E Starch & sugar The finishing animal has a requirement for energy, but there is no specific requirement for starch and sugar in the diet. Energy supply is important, not source of energy i.e. starch or digestible fibre. However, most high energy feeds are based on starch or sugar or readily digestible fibre or a combination of all three. Type of starch will have an impact on the risk of digestive upsets in finishing animals. Starch in maize is broken down more slowly than barley which is more slowly than wheat in the rumen. Starch in forage maize is slowly digested. While the sugar in fodder / sugar beet is more rapidly digested. A combination of sources reduces the risk of digestive upset but this is no substitute for good feeding management.

In terms of reducing the risk of digestive upsets, feeding management is more important than the level or type of starch in the diet. Fibre Beef cattle are ruminant animals and as such require a fibre source to sustain healthy rumen function. The minimum roughage requirement of a finishing animal is 10-15% of total dry matter intake. On a conventional diet of grass silage + 5.5. kg meals, forage intake is 50% of total dry matter intake (TDMI). On a high concentrate diet, 10-15% of TDMI must be supplied as a roughage source. Grass silage, hay, straw, maize silage and whole crop cereal silage are all suitable sources of fibre. For ad lib concentrate diets, hay, haylage or straw are most suitable but care should be taken that animals dont over-consume high quality hay / haylage as this will limit animal performance. Opinion differs as to whether the roughage source should be mixed with the concentrate in a total mixed ration (TMR) or fed separately. Offering the roughage source separately allows the animal to gauge their requirement for roughage (Table 7). Table 7. Effect of Offering Straw Separately or Mixed in Ad Lib Diets on Animal Performance Straw Offered Separately Yes No 1.38 1.26 6.31 6.18 4.48 4.88

Live weight gain kg / d Concentrate intake kg /d Feed efficiency kg feed / kg gain

Proportion of forage The breakeven point on concentrate : forage ratio is based on concentrate price, cost of forage production, carcass gain and carcass price (Table 8). At a concentrate price of 220 / t, the feed costs associated with 1 kg of carcass gain for finishing steer ranges from 2.95 to 3.06, depending on the proportion of concentrates utilized, with the high concentrate system being most economical. Grass silage at 140 / t DM is shifting the economics towards high concentrate input, even at relatively high prices for concentrate feeds. But as concentrate price increases the benefit of the high concentrate system delines. Table 8. The effect of concentrate supplementation rate on the feed costs ( ) associated every kg of carcass gain, at a range of concentrate costs ( /t) Concentrate Price, / tonne 160 2.59 2.22 180 2.75 2.46 200 2.91 2.70 220 3.06 2.95 240 3.22 3.19

Concentrate (kg/day) 5 11.5

*Grass silage 140 / t DM ( 28 / t fresh)

While the general principles for bull finishing systems are similar to those of other cattle systems, it is more important to achieve a high rate of gain with bulls in order to achieve suitably finished animals. Because of the high potential growth rate of bulls compared to other animals, a good response to additional concentrates can be expected. The traditional system for finishing suckler bulls has been an intensive system where animals are offered high concentrates with minimum forage to maintain rumen function. But is there a role for high quality forages in bull diets? Keady & Kilpatrick (2006) evaluated a high concentrate diet compared to a diet of 50:50 high quality grass silage (D-value = 70) and concentrates. Replacing 50% of the high concentrate diet with high quality grass silage had little impact on live weight gain, carcass conformation or fat classification. Similar work by Patterson in 2000 showed that carcass gain was optimized at a concentrate to forage ratio of 68:32, assuming high forage quality but feed efficiency was higher at 55:45 (Table 9).

Table 9.

The Effect of Concentrate : Forage Ratio on Efficiency in Finishing Bulls

25:75 Ratio of Concentrate : Forage 40:60 55:45 68:32 75:25

Daily carcass gain kg Carcass weight kg Dry matter intake per kg carcass gain Source: Patterson et al. 2000

0.60 382 12.8

0.83 389 9.7

0.91 384 9.5

0.98 380 10.1

0.99 385 9.4

Concentrate Feeds Energy Feeds There are three primary sources of energy in beef diets starch, sugar and digestible fibre. Many practical feeding trials suggest that carbohydrate composition has little effect on growth rate or feed efficiency. Work by MeGee et al. 2006 showed no difference in performance or efficiency of animals fed cereal based or digestible fibre based diets that differed greatly in starch and digestible fibre concentrations (Table 10). Table 10. Effect of concentrate Energy Source on Performance of Finishing Bulls RFS 3.8 6.5 10.3 582 537 3.5 56.8 Concentrate Type SFS RFS+F 4.0 6.5 10.5 570 514 3.4 54.6 3.8 6.9 10.7 584 540 3.5 55.6 Fibre 3.6 6.5 10.1 520 539 3.5 52.0 Significance ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Intake Silage Concentrates Total Carcass Gain g/day Kill out % Fat FCE g carcass / kg DMI
Source: McGee et al. 2006

*RFS = Rapidly fermentable starch e.g. barley, wheat, **SFS = Slowly fermentable starch e.g. maize meal; ***F = Fibre e.g. citrus pulp, beet pulp

Barley, wheat and maize grain rarely show differences in feed intake, animal performance or feed efficiency of beef animals fed high concentrate diets. A summary of a number of experiments from Teagasc Grange support the view that there is no difference in animal performance on wheat or barley based diets. Similarly Steen (1993) concluded that as a supplement to grass silage based diets for finishing cattle, the feeding value of wheat was proportionally 0.98 that of barley. Experiments from AFBI Hillsborough show that the feeding value of maize meal, when included as a component of high concentrate diets for beef cattle, is on average 5% above that of barley and wheat. Cereal beef production experiments from Teagasc Grange suggest no differences in performance between barley and maize based diets. Anecdotal experience would suggest that maize meal is good to put fat cover on bulls. Much of the research would not support this theory. The high content of rapidly digested starch in wheat increases the risk of digestive upsets. Consequently, wheat should be introduced slowly and it is preferable to used rolled rather than ground wheat. Digestible Fibre Sources The three primary digestible fibre sources available on the market are beet pulp, citrus pulp and soya hulls (Table 11). These are commonly used as energy sources and as sources of fibre to maintain a healthy rumen and reduce the risk of digestive upsets. Beet pulp and citrus pulp have very similar energy values at 0.92 and 0.91, respectively. Beet pulp has the advantage of slightly higher protein. Soya hulls is a good source of digestible fibre but its energy value is limited for finishing cattle and therefore its inclusion should be limited so as to retain a high energy density in the diet. Soya hulls has the advantage of relatively high crude protein. Soya hulls is a suitable ingredients in diets with high levels of cereal and / or beet. Table 11. Sources of Digestible Fibre for Beef Cattle Energy UFV 0.92 0.91 0.87 Crude Protein % 8.8 6.0 10.5

Beet pulp Citrus pulp Soya hulls

In terms of monetary value, beet pulp is worth 5% more than either citrus pulp or soya hulls. Citrus pulp and soya hulls are attributed similar monetary value because of the high protein in soya hulls.

There has been some interest in using oats as a digestible fibre source. The energy content of oats is 0.86 UFV. Oats have the same crude fibre (13%), higher NDF (34 vs 16%) and lower ADF (16 vs 23%) to citrus pulp. As with soya hulls, high inclusion levels should be avoided. Oats, where competitive, may have a role to play in replacing a proportion of other digestible fibre sources, but not all due to their high starch content. Protein Feeds The requirement of finishing beef cattle for protein is easily satisfied. However there are situations where extra protein is necessary such as when feeding low protein feeds and feeding growing bulls. Soyabean meal is the Rolls Royce of protein feeds but the finishing animal does not have a requirement for a high quality protein. Soya should only be used if it is cost effective relative to other protein feeds (See Table 15 below). It is not the most suitable protein feed to balance fodder beet because of the lack of fibre in it. Rapeseed meal is a more suitable protein feed for fodder beet based diets. Cereal by-products ( corn gluten and maize distillers grains) are characterized by protein levels between 20-25%. Its inclusion level should be based on its monetary value and required energy density of the diet. Maize distillers should be restricted to 30-33% of the diet due to the high oil content (8.6% oil), less if other high oil feeds are being used. Corn gluten is relatively low in energy and its inclusion should be limited. Rapeseed meal is a good and reasonably priced protein source but is relatively low in energy (UFV = 0.85), so that inclusion should be limited. All rapeseed meal now used in this country is double zero so that the risk of anti-nutritional factors associated with it are limited but there can be palatability issues. Its inclusion should be limited to 2 kg per head per day. Urea may be used as a protein source when low protein feeds are being fed but extreme caution is advised in using it there is a risk of poisoning and rapid death, if used incorrectly. It is best used with rapidly degradable energy sources such as fodder / sugar beet. Under new DAF regulations, urea is viewed as a feed additive and approval is needed for its use at farm level. Home-grown peas and beans and rapeseed cake are available in some parts of the country and are a good source of energy and protein. Utilisation should be based on price relative to other protein feeds. Co-Products There is a lot of interest in co-products from the food industry, particularly surplus vegetables, confectionary including bread. It is important that these ingredients are valued correctly. Questions that should be asked in relation to these ingredients include:

Is the supplier licensed to sell this product for animal feed What is the DM of the feed? What is the nutritive value & how variable is this? What particular nutrients is it high / low in e.g. starch or oils How much, when and where is the feed available? Is the material palatable? How is it stored? What extra handling and storage facilities are needed on the farm? Are there large storage losses associated with it? Does it contain chemical residues or other banned compounds? E.g. waste oil from chippers Processing

High Moisture Grains The on-farm preservation and storage of grains has become increasingly popular and provides an opportunity to reduce feed costs. These options include crimping & ensiling, organic acid treatment & rolling, urea treatment & rolling as well as alkali treatment (soda grain). Research from AFBI Hillsborough compared the performance of finishing beef cattle offered grain processed by alternative means propionic acid, urea treatment and crimping (Table 12). The results of this trial suggest that urea treated grain increased forage intake by 14% but tended to decrease carcass gain by 8% due to increased grain loss in the faeces (grain was not rolled prior to feeding). Crimped grain did not alter feed intake or carcass gain, relative to propionic acid treated grain. Table 12. The Effect of Grain Processing Method on Feed Intake and Animal Performance Propionic acid Feed Intake (kg DM / day) Forage Total Animal Performance Final live weight kg Live weight gain kg/day Carcass gain kg/day
Source: Keady et al. 2008

Processing Method Urea Crimped 4.7 9.4 618 0.98 0.55 4.4 9.0 625 1.04 0.61

Significance ** ** ns ns P=0.09

4.2 8.9 625 1.04 0.6

The potential savings with preserved grains is dependent on a number of factors including cost of the grain, preservation and processing costs, ensiling costs, cost of working capital, storage costs and losses in storage. In many cases the difference in cost between buying dried rolled grain as required and storing grain on-farm is marginal (Table 13). For the producer using 50 tonne of feed where 50% of that is cereal, the potential cost saving could as little as 250 / year over purchased cereal. However, for a winter finisher using large quantities of feed, 10 / t saving may be significant. Home stored grains are a storage option, which offers feed security particularly when there is volatility in the feed market, as well as control over the diets fed. In a year when grain prices rise after the harvest, there may be a cost saving but the cost of storage and wastage should not be ignored. Home mixing of raw materials has the potential to reduce overall feed costs but only if the raw materials can be purchased competitively. Costs including transport, labour, machinery costs as well as storage and storage losses are often ignored when examining the cost of home mixing. Table 13. Costs Associated with Treating Grain (Crimping), Relative to Buying Rolled Grain Crimping Grain 109 5 15 0.3 2.5 6 138 174 212 Buying Rolled Grain 185 / t @ 18% MC

Costs / t Grain @ 35% MC* Additive Crimping Ensiling Working capital Storage losses Total Costs @ 35% moisture @ 18% moisture @ 0% moisture (/t DM)

185 225

*Compared to green grain price at 135 / t @ 20% moisture

Grinding High feeding levels of ground cereal increase the risk of digestive upsets in high concentrate diets. Limiting the level of rapidly digestive starch and maintaining fibre levels will help alleviate this problem. Pelleted rations are generally manufactured with ground cereals and should not be fed in high concentrate feeding systems.

Coarse vs pellet Work by Keady et al. (2004) showed that when the same feed ingredients are included in a concentrate mix, similar levels of performance are obtained when the concentrate mix is fed either as a pelted or coarse mix (Table 14). Purchasing a coarse mix has the potential to reduce the cost per tonne of ration by 10 15 / tonne.

Table 14.

Effect of Concentrate Form on Animal Performance Concentrate Form Pellet 4.5 0.5 Coarse 4.5 0.52

Feeding rate kg/day Carcass gain kg / day

Source: Keady et al. 2004

Complete Diet Feeding The effects of mixing the forage with concentrates in a mixer wagon (TMR) has been examined in a number of studies. The most recent data from Teagasc Grange suggest that where concentrate levels were up to 75% of daily dry matter intake are offered, there was no animal production advantage to TMR over separate feeding of the dietary constituents. In 2 experiments from Hillsborough, feeding a complete diet rather than feeding concentrates once per day had little effect on animal performance at moderate feeding rates (2.5- 3.5kg) but at higher feeding rates (6 7 kg) silage intake increased and carcass gain increased by 15%. It is noteworthy that concentrates were only offered once daily in this experiment. Valuing Feed Ingredients The economic value of the different ingredients can be determined relative to barley and soyabean meal using, for example, the programme available to Teagasc clients on the Teagasc client web site (Relative Value of Feeds @ www.client.teagasc.ie). Because the dry matter content of most of these feeds are similar, generally between 85 and 89 %, their relative value doesnt change much whether expressed on an as-fed or dry matter basis. If barley is costing 185 / t, then wheat is worth the same (Table 15). Maize meal is worth 4-5% more than barley, while beet pulp and citrus pulp are worth 10-15% less than barley. Soya hulls is a good source of digestible fibre but its energy value is 13% less than barley for finishing cattle and is valued at 15% less than barley. Assuming a price of 340 for soyabean meal, rapeseed meal is worth 25% less. It is a relatively low energy feed but high in protein. It works well in finishing rations, particularly where high levels of high starch / sugar ingredients are used. The value of distillers grains is similar, even though hits protein is lower but its energy value is higher than rapeseed meal.

Table 15.

The Value of Feed Ingredients Relative to Barley ( 185 /t) and Soyabean Meal ( 340 / t) Energy UFV as fed 1.00 1.02 1.00 0.86 1.04 0.92 0.73 0.91 0.82 0.85 1.01 0.85 1.01 1.03 Crude Protein % as fed 9.8 48 9.7 9.7 8.7 8.8 4.5 6.0 10.5 20.3 26.6 33.8 24.6 21.1 Value / tonne 185 340 185 164 188 169 125 158 161 202 249 252 243 232

Barley Soya Wheat Oats Maize Unmolassed beet pulp Molasses, cane Citrus pulp Soya hulls Maize gluten feed Distillers grains Rapeseed meal Beans Peas

The relative values of alternative forages and fodder beet are assessed, relative to what a high energy concentrate mix (UFV=0.96+, CP=13%) can be purchased for (Table 16). In the case of these feeds their energy, protein, DM content and likely losses to be suffered during storage must be taken into account. If buying a standing crop an estimate of quality may have to be assumed but an estimate of harvested yield should be made either by taking cuts in representative areas of the crop or by weighing the trailers as delivered. In this case in-silo losses will have to be taken into account when calculating the purchase value. Table 16 presents the value of forage maize, whole crop cereal silage and fodder beet, relative to a concentrate mix at 190 or 210 per tonne. This is the breakeven price for these wet feeds. Above these prices, the high concentrate feeding system is more cost effective. Below these prices, there may be some competitive advantage from using alternatives but the additional labour, handling equipment, storage losses all need to be considered. Table 16. Value of Wet Feeds and Forages, Relative to High Energy Concentrates 190 36 51 30 210 40 56 36

Maize silage Whole crop wheat silage Fodder beet

*Maize silage = 28% DM, Whole crop cereal silage = 40% DM, fodder beet = 19% DM.

Choosing a Concentrate Type Any compound feed is best defined by its energy, (UFV), protein, mineral and fibre content. Once these criteria are being met in a concentrate feed, ingredient content is of little consequence. Is there a difference between concentrate types i.e. standard beef mixes, specials (i.e. ingredient content specified) and home-mixed concentrates. The nutrient content of the compound feed is more critical than the individual ingredients that make up the compound feed, provided low quality ingredients are not included at high levels. Typically, concentrate feeds in this country are purchased solely on the basis of crude protein content which is incorrect unless a protein balancer is required. Energy is the most limiting nutrient when finishing cattle. Always ask for the energy content of the ration. Target energy density of concentrate mixes should be 0.94+ UFV / kg as fed, for finishing cattle. For finishing steers and heifers, 11% crude protein in the ration is adequate. For growing and finishing bulls, 14% and 12% crude protein in the concentrate mix, respectively, is adequate. It is important to specify the basis on which these nutrients are defined by your feed supplier i.e. fresh weight or DM basis. Energy (UFV), expressed on a DM basis, is considerably higher but can be misleading. For example, a beef ration with a UFV of 1.07 / kg DM is actually 0.93 UFV / kg as fed. A ration with a UFV of 0.93 has an energy value of 93% of the value of barley. Raw material prices are inflated right now and it is difficult to predict the future. Given the volatility in ingredient prices right now, producers should shop around. There will be variation in price between suppliers as some are well covered for raw materials while others are less well covered. If raw materials are traditionally purchased for home mixing, consider the cost of buying straights in comparison to buying a standard mix or a special. Rations 1 and 2 is suitable for finishing steers and heifers as well as finishing bulls. Ration 2 is suitable for growing bulls because of the higher crude protein content. If purchasing these rations, minerals and molasses will be added which will drop the energy content by approximately 0.02 UFL. Table 16. Sample Rations Ration 1 50 30 20 0.97 12.0 Ration 2 50 15 15 20 0.99 12.4 Ration 3 40 15 15 30 0.99 14.0

Barley Citrus pulp Maize meal Distillers Grains Energy (UFV / kg as fed) Crude Protein %