Effects of roughage source and distillers grain ...

Effects of roughage source and distillers grain concentration on beef cattle finishing performance, carcass characteristics, and in vitro fermentation M. J. Quinn, M. L. May, N. DiLorenzo, C. H. Ponce, D. R. Smith, S. L. Parr and M. L. Galyean J ANIM SCI published online March 11, 2011

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2011/03/11/jas.2010-3563

www.asas.org

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on March 14, 2013

Roughage source in distillers grain diets

Effects of roughage source and distillers grain concentration on beef cattle finishing performance, carcass characteristics, and in vitro fermentation1,2

M. J. Quinn, M. L. May, N. DiLorenzo, C. H. Ponce, D. R. Smith, S. L. Parr, and M. L. Galyean3

Department of Animal and Food Sciences Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409-2141

1

Supported in part by a subcontract from Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX, the Jessie W. Thornton Chair in Animal Science Endowment, and Paul Whitfield Horn Professorship funds at Texas Tech University.

2

The authors acknowledge the important contributions of C. S. Abney (Quality Distillers Grains, LLC., Hereford, TX) in procuring the distillers grains and silage used in the experiment. We thank Allflex USA (DFW Airport, TX), DSM Nutritional Products (Belvidere, NJ), Elanco Animal Health (Greenfield, IN), Fort Dodge Animal Health (Overland Park, KS), Intervet/Schering-Plough (Millsboro, DE), and Kemin Industries (Des Moines, IA) for supplying products used in this research. The efforts of K. Robinson and R. Rocha at the Texas Tech University Burnett Center in the daily conduct of this research are greatly appreciated. 3

Corresponding author: [email protected]

Downloaded www.journalofanimalscience.org guest on March 14, 2013 Published Onlinefrom First on March 11, 2011 asbydoi:10.2527/jas.2010-3563

ABSTRACT: Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of wet distillers grains plus solubles (DG) and roughage source on finishing cattle performance, carcass characteristics, and in vitro fermentation. In Exp. 1, crossbred beef steers (n = 224, initial BW = 349 kg) were used in a randomized complete block design with a 2 × 3 + 1 factorial arrangement of treatments. Experimental diets were a standard steam-flaked corn (SFC)-based Control (no DG and 10% alfalfa hay), and either 15 or 30% DG (DM basis) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (15-AH and 30-AH), Coastal bermudagrass hay (15-BG and 30-BG), or sorghum silage (15-SS and 30SS). Within each DG concentration, roughages provided an equivalent percentage of NDF to 7.5% AH. Steers consuming 15% DG had greater (P < 0.04) final BW, ADG, and G:F than those fed 30% DG. Feeding AH as the roughage source with DG resulted in decreased final shrunk BW and ADG (P < 0.02) compared with BG and SS. Feeding SS as the roughage source decreased (P = 0.01) G:F relative to BG. Hot carcass weight was greater (P < 0.01) for steers consuming 15 vs. 30% DG, tended to be least for diets with AH as the roughage source (P = 0.06), and did not differ for the Control vs. the other diets (P = 0.86). Control cattle had an increased (P = 0.05) proportion of USDA Choice or greater carcasses compared with the average of the other treatments. In Exp. 2, the same 2 × 3 +1 factorial arrangement as in Exp. 1 was used to examine the effects of roughage source and DG on IVDMD, culture fluid osmolality, and gas production kinetics. In vitro DMD tended (P < 0.09) to be greater for BG compared with SS at 6 and 36 h of incubation and was greater for AH vs. the mean of BG and SS at 18 h (P = 0.01). Culture fluid osmolality, asymptotic maximal gas production, fractional rate of gas production, and lag time of gas production did not differ among treatments (P > 0.14). Overall, feeding 15% DG in SFC-based diets increased ADG, BW, and HCW relative to 30% DG. In addition, feeding AH tended to decrease ADG, final BW, and HCW relative to the other 2 roughage sources,


whereas BG improved G:F over SS. These data suggest that including the lower concentration of DG and BG as the roughage source resulted in improved performance relative to other combinations, and that substituting roughages on the basis of equivalent NDF concentration might not be ideal for optimizing performance when feeding SFC-based finishing diets that contain DG. Key Words: distillers grains, finishing beef cattle, neutral detergent fiber, roughage source

INTRODUCTION Availability of wet distillers grains plus solubles (DG) has increased in the Southern Plains. Because of the potential economic advantages associated with the use of DG in feedlot diets, research is needed to evaluate DG in combination with feedstuffs that are commonly used by feedlot producers in the region. As a result of its availability and general consistency in quality, alfalfa hay is one of the most common roughage sources in finishing diets in the Southern Plains (Vasconcelos and Galyean, 2007), but several other roughage sources that vary considerably in NDF concentration relative to alfalfa hay also are available in the region. Galyean and Defoor (2003) suggested that roughage NDF in finishing diets plays an important role in explaining differences in DMI that are often noted when different roughage sources are fed at the same concentration. They further suggested that to equalize DMI, roughages in finishing diets could be exchanged on an equivalent NDF basis. When feeding DG in finishing diets, however, the traditional performance responses to roughage NDF might be altered because of the NDF supplied by DG. Benton et al. (2007) evaluated the use of different roughages in dry-rolled corn-based (DRC)


finishing diets containing DG and reported that when replaced on an equivalent NDF basis, different roughage sources (AH, CS, or corn stalks) did not affect ADG and G:F. Our objective was to evaluate the use of different roughage sources included on an equivalent NDF basis in steam-flaked corn-based diets containing DG on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle. Dry matter disappearance, gas production kinetics, and fermentation end products also were evaluated using in vitro batch culture techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS All procedures involving live animals were approved by the Texas Tech University Animal Care and Use Committee. Exp. 1 Beef steers (Angus and Angus crossbred, n = 224; arrival BW = 258 kg) were purchased from a commercial livestock auction in West Plains, MO and transported to the Texas Tech University Burnett Center feedlot in New Deal, TX in December 2009. Following arrival, the steers were housed in soil-surfaced pens (20 steers/pen; 4.9 m wide × 30.5 m in length; 4.9 m linear bunk space) and subsequently processed as follows: individually numbered tag placed in the ear; vaccinations (Pyramid 5, Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, KS; Vision 7 with SPUR; Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health, DeSoto, KS); treatment with a parasiticide (Cydectin; Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, KS); and injection with 10 mg/kg of BW of tilmicosin phosphate (Micotil; Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN). An individual BW measurement (Silencer Chute; Moly Manufacturing, Lorraine, KS, mounted on Avery WeighTronix load cells, Fairmount, MN; readability ± 0.45 kg) also was obtained. Before processing


and before each subsequent use, the scale was validated with 454 kg of certified weights to ensure accuracy. After processing, cattle were housed in the soil-surfaced pens and adapted to a 75% concentrate steam-flaked corn (SFC)-based diet for a growing period (limit fed to gain approximately 0.9 kg/d) of 48 d before the start of the experiment. After the growing period, the cattle were weighed individually (non-shrunk) before the morning feeding, stratified by ascending BW, and then assigned and sorted into 8 weight blocks. Cattle were then moved by block (7 pens/block) into concrete, partially slatted floor pens (4 steers/pen; 2.9 m wide × 5.6 m deep; 2.4 m of linear bunk space), switched to an 85% concentrate, SFC-based diet, and allowed to adapt to the new pens and diet for 21 d. Intake was gradually increased to ad libitum during this time. After the 21-d period, cattle were again weighed individually (non-shrunk) and implanted with Revalor-XS (200 mg of trenbolone acetate and 40 mg of estradiol-17β; Intervet/Schering-Plough Animal Health). The cattle were then stratified by BW in ascending order within each weight block, and assigned randomly to 1 of 7 dietary treatments, which were then assigned randomly to new pens within each block. As a result, there were 4 steers/pen, 7 pens/block, and 8 pens/treatment for a total of 56 pens. Two days after sorting into their assigned treatment pens, the steers were weighed individually (nonshrunk taken before the morning feeding) to start the experiment, and treatment diets (described below) were fed. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a 2 × 3 + 1 factorial arrangement of treatments. Factors included DG at 15 or 30% (DM basis) and dietary roughage source, which consisted of 3 sources: AH, Coastal bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS). The additional treatment was a standard SFC-based Control diet that did not contain DG and had 10% AH as the roughage source. Treatments in the 2 x 3 factorial structure will


subsequently be identified as follows: 15% DG with 7.5% alfalfa hay (15-AH), bermudagrass hay (15-BG), or sorghum silage (15-SS) as the roughage source; or 30% DG with alfalfa hay (30-AH), bermudagrass hay (30-BG), or sorghum silage (30-SS). Based on the results of May et al. (2010c), the inclusion rate for AH was set at 7.5% of the DM, and the BG and SS sources were included in the diet to supply a concentration of NDF equivalent to 7.5% AH (Table 2). All experimental diets used SFC (360 g/L bulk density) as the basal grain source and were formulated to meet or exceed nutrient requirements specified by NRC (2000). A supplement was included in the finishing diets to provide Rumensin and Tylan to each animal (33 and 11 mg/kg, respectively [DM basis]; Elanco Animal Health). Diets were formulated to contain equivalent ether extract and rumen degradable protein (RDP; NRC, 2000), whereas the dietary CP concentration varied among diets (Table 2) because of the differences in DG concentrations. The wet DG used in the experiments was obtained from a commercial ethanol plant located in Plainview, TX (Quality Distillers Grains, LLC) and was a blend of approximately 70% corn and 30% sorghum DG. The DG was produced at the plant during 1 d of operation using the same lot of grain. On delivery to the Burnett Center, the DG was stored in silage bags, and samples from each load of DG were collected for a composite analysis. The SS used in the study was similarly delivered from the stockpile of a local producer and sampled to obtain a representative composite before being bagged and stored for later use. The SS was chopped to a particle length of approximately 2.5 to 3.8 cm. Samples of SS from the face of the silage bag were obtained weekly and analyzed for DM content (100oC forced-air oven). The SS averaged 20.2% DM (Table 1) for the duration of the study, which was considerably less than expected; however, no evidence of offensive odors or acceptance of the SS by the cattle was evident during the experiment. The AH and BG were procured from commercial sources and were tub ground


to approximately a 5.1-cm particle length before delivery. Analysis of the roughage sources and DG (Table 1) were conducted by a commercial laboratory (SDK Laboratories, Hutchinson, KS). Samples collected from randomly selected feed bunks of each dietary treatment were collected weekly and dried at 100°C for 24 h in a forced-air oven to determine DM content of the diet. All weekly feed bunk samples were then composited within treatment at the end of the study and analyzed for chemical components. Dietary ingredients used in the study were sampled every other week (weekly for DG and SS) to determine DM content, and dietary formulations were adjusted for changes in DM content as needed. Feed bunks were managed to target ≤ 0.45 kg of feed remained before delivery of fresh feed for the day. The bunks were evaluated at approximately 0730 h each morning to estimate the feed remaining from the previous day, and daily feed calls were adjusted to reflect residual feed. Mixing of experimental diets was accomplished using a batch milling (1.27-m3 paddle mixer; Marion Mixers Inc., Marion, IA) system, with milled feed conveyed to a tractor-pulled mixer wagon (Roto-Mix 84-8; Roto-Mix, Dodge City, KS; scale readability of ±0.45 kg) used for feeding each pen. The mixer-wagon was cleaned when necessary to ensure minimal cross contamination among dietary treatments. For diets containing DG, the non-DG ingredients were milled in the batching system, and the DG was added directly to the Roto-Mix unit, after which the complete diet was allowed to mix before delivery to pens. Similarly, the SS was added directly to the Roto-Mix unit. All BW measurements were non-shrunk taken before the morning feed delivery. As noted previously, an individual BW measurement was obtained for each animal at the start of the study (d 0). The final BW taken just before shipment to slaughter also was an individual measurement; this value was multiplied by 0.96 to calculate the shrunk final BW. Intermediate


weights (d 35, 70, and 105 are reported) for each pen of cattle were obtained every 35 d until shipment for slaughter by weighing all the cattle in a pen on a scale (readability ±2.3 kg) that was validated with 454 to 907 kg of certified weights. Before collection of intermediate weights, feed bunks were observed, and any residual feed remaining from previous feeding was removed, and samples were analyzed for DM content. The DM delivered to each pen was adjusted for the DM of orts. Pens of study cattle were deemed to be “finished” when visual examination indicated that approximately 60% of the cattle in each pen had reached sufficient external fat cover to grade USDA Choice. Half the cattle (4 of the 8 experimental weight blocks) were shipped to a commercial abattoir in Plainview, TX after 147 d on feed (DOF), whereas the remaining 4 weight blocks were shipped after 159 DOF. Following shipment to the slaughter plant, carcass data were collected by a commercial carcass data collection service. Carcass data included HCW, and after a 36-h chill, 12th rib fat thickness, LM area, KPH, marbling score, USDA yield grade (YG) and USDA quality grade (QG). At the time of slaughter, livers were scored as either not condemned or A-, A, or A+ for the presence of liver abscesses (Brown et al., 1975). Dressing percent (DP) was calculated by dividing the HCW by the non-shrunk final BW of the steers. Adjusted final BW was then calculated by dividing the HCW by the average DP of the individual animals in each slaughter group (61.7 and 62.5% for slaughter groups 1 and 2, respectively) and multiplying by 0.96. The adjusted final BW was then used to calculate adjusted ADG and G:F. Performance data and carcass characteristics were analyzed with pen as the experimental unit using the MIXED Procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Treatment was considered a fixed effect in the model and the block was a random effect. Single-degree-of-freedom


preplanned orthogonal contrasts were used to compare: (1) Control vs. the average of all other treatments; (2) the average of 15 vs. 30% DG; (3) AH vs. the average of BG and SS; and (4) BG vs. SS. A two-degree-of-freedom orthogonal contrast was used to test the interaction of DG concentration × roughage source. The proportions of cattle grading USDA Choice or greater and the proportions of cattle with liver abscesses were analyzed as a binomial distribution using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with block as the random effect and the same contrasts as described above. Tests of fixed effects with P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant and those with 0.05 > P ≤ 0.10 were considered tendencies. Exp. 2 For all in vitro measurements, ruminal fluid was collected approximately 4 h after feeding from 2 Jersey crossbred steers (BW = 635 kg) fitted with 7.62-cm ruminal cannulas. The steers were housed in open-lot, soil-surfaced pens at the Burnett Center and fed a 60% concentrate diet based on SFC, with ground AH, cottonseed meal, cottonseed hulls, and a supplement formulated to contain 33 mg/kg Rumensin and 11 mg/kg Tylan (DM basis; Elanco Animal Health). Feed and water were provided for ad libitum intake, and animal care and use procedures were reviewed and approved by the Texas Tech University Animal Care and Use Committee. Following sampling, ruminal fluid from the 2 steers was blended together in equal proportions, immediately placed in a sealed thermos, and transported to the Texas Tech ruminant nutrition laboratory for inoculation of batch cultures. Cultures were inoculated within approximately 30 min of collecting ruminal fluid. Feedstuffs used for in vitro batch culture measurements were collected at the Burnett Center and were from the same stockpiles as those used in Exp. 1. After collection, each feedstuff was air-dried for 48 h with continuous airflow provided by a standard table-top fan. Air-dried


samples of each feedstuff were ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 2-mm screen and then mixed to provide experimental substrates. Mixed substrate samples were sent to a commercial laboratory for nutrient analysis (SDK Laboratories). Ingredient and nutrient composition values for the in vitro substrates are shown in Table 3. Treatments for Exp. 2 had the same 2 × 3 +1 factorial arrangement as diets in Exp. 1 and included a Control (no DG, and 10% alfalfa hay, DM basis), 15% DG with 7.5% alfalfa hay (15AH, DM basis) bermudagrass hay (15-BG), or sorghum silage (15-SS), and 30% DG with alfalfa hay (30-AH), bermudagrass hay (30-BG), or sorghum silage (30-SS). Also as in Exp. 1, the BG and SS roughage sources were included to supply equal NDF to the 7.5% AH treatment. To provide replication for the in vitro measurements, each in vitro fermentation procedure was replicated on 2 separate days. In vitro DM disappearance was performed using methods described by Galyean (1996). Substrates (500 ± 1 mg) were weighed and placed in duplicate 50-mL centrifuge tubes combined with 36 mL of a 3:1 McDougall’s buffer (McDougall, 1948):ruminal fluid solution, flushed with CO2, and sealed with No. 5½ rubber stoppers with 16-gauge needles puncturing the top to allow for gas release. The tubes were then incubated for 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 h at 39°C with constant oscillation (125 rpm; Lab Line Environ-Shaker, Lab-Line Instruments Inc., Melrose Park, IL). Following removal from incubation, tubes were centrifuged for 30 min at 4°C at 13,000 x g. After centrifugation, the pellet was incubated with 35 mL of acidified pepsin solution at 39° C for 48 h. Following digestion with pepsin, IVDMD was determined as described by Quinn et al. (2010a). The supernatant fluid remaining in the IVDMD cultures was divided into 2 portions following centrifugation, and 10 mL were retained from the 12- and 24-h incubations and analyzed according to the procedures of Goetsch and Galyean (1983) for VFA


(Shimadzu GC-8A; Shimadzu Scientific Instruments Inc., Columbia, MD; Supelco SP-1200, 2 m × 5 mm × 2.6 mm glass column). A second 10-mL aliquot of supernatant fluid was retained and stored for 48 h at 4°C before measurement of culture fluid osmolality. Osmolality was measured at all incubation times, as well as a 0-h sample. The 0-h sample served as an initial reading for the osmolality data and was prepared by inoculating substrates in the same fashion as other incubation times; however, the 0-h sample was immediately placed on ice for 15 min following inoculation and was not incubated with the rest of the samples. At each incubation time, a 250µL sample of the supernatant fluid was used to measure osmolality by determination of freezing point depression (Osmette A; Precision Systems Inc., Natick, MA). Gas production kinetics were measured as described by Quinn et al. (2010a) using a computerized system for detection of gas pressure (Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY). Substrates (1.4 g, as-is basis) were weighed and placed into a 250-mL Ankom fermentation flask, with 100 mL of a 3:1 McDougall’s buffer:ruminal fluid solution. Each flask was then flushed with CO2, sealed with an Ankom pressure module, and incubated for 48 h at 39°C with constant agitation (125 rpm; Model MaxQ 400, Thermo Scientific Inc., Dubuque, IA). Following incubation, data were recorded as pressure units and converted to milliliters of gas produced using the methods of Lopez et al. (2007). The NDF content of the finishing diets and the in vitro substrates was determined by taking a sample of the diet or substrate (0.50 g ± 0.05) and placing it in individual Ankom fiber bags (F57 Filter Bags, Ankom Technology), after which the bags were heat sealed. The NDF analysis was conducted using an Ankom 200 Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology) according to the procedures of Van Soest et al. (1991; as modified by Ankom Technology). A heat stable αamylase (Ankom Technology) and sodium sulfite (1 g/100 mL of NDF solution) were added to


the solution during the analysis. Following analysis, the bags containing the residual were dried for 24 h at 100°C in a standard oven for quantification of the NDF residue. Gas production kinetics parameters were quantified using a modified Gompertz model (Schofield et al., 1994) and were fitted to time-course data obtained from the Ankom wireless module system by the NLIN procedure of SAS. Fractional rate of gas production (k, %/h) was calculated by dividing the absolute rate of gas production (mL/h) by the asymptotic maximal gas production (V) values produced by the Gompertz equation. The IVDMD, osmolality, gas production kinetics, and VFA data were analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS, with day (block) as a random effect. The model for IVDMD, osmolality, and VFA data also included incubation time and its interaction with substrate treatments as fixed effects in the model. The same single-degree-of-freedom preplanned orthogonal contrasts described for Exp. 1 were used to evaluate treatment responses, with P-values ≤ 0.05 considered significant and 0.05 > P ≤ 0.10 considered tendencies.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Exp. 1. The average nutrient composition of the DG and roughage sources used in the study is shown in Table 1. Nutrient composition of the DG was similar to that of May et al. (2010c). As noted previously, the DG used in the present experiment was composed of approximately 70% corn and 30% sorghum as the base grain, whereas in May et al. (2010c), the DG was a blend of 90% corn and 10% sorghum grains, which could account for small differences noted between the studies. Distillers grains used in May et al. (2010c) and the current study were procured from the same source, but May et al. (2010c) reported lower DM (31.2%), greater CP (33.4%), lower ADF (14.5%), and a greater concentration of ether extract (13.1%). Based on the


results of May et al. (2010c) and the similarity of the DG in the current study, we formulated diets containing DG to have 7.5% AH or equivalent NDF to 7.5% AH (for BG and SS roughage sources). The analyses for the roughage sources used in the study indicated that AH had the least NDF, which was similar to tabular values (NRC, 2000) for late-bloom AH (55.9% NDF; Table 1). Likewise, BG was consistent with tabular values for late-vegetative bermudagrass hay (75.8% NDF; Table 1), whereas the SS contained 63.1% NDF (Table 1). The total dietary NDF values are shown in Table 2 and were similar among treatments. The small variation noted in NDF concentration is likely a function of variation associated with sampling of experimental diets from feed bunks. As expected, the dietary NDF concentrations increased with the 30 vs. 15% DG diets, averaging 15.8% for diets with 15% DG and 19.7% NDF for diets with 30% DG. Other nutrient analyses for the 7 diets generally agreed with values expected from formulation. The CP was consistent with our previous studies using 15 and 30% DG (May et al., 2010a and 2010c) in SFC-based diets. Based on the results of Wagner et al. (2009), diets were formulated to contain similar RDP concentrations (8% using tabular estimates from NRC, 2000) to provide sufficient N for ruminal fermentation. Finishing performance data and dietary NE calculations are shown in Table 4. The Control treatment did not differ (P = 0.84) from the average of other treatments for shrunk final BW, but cattle fed 15% DG had a greater (P < 0.01) final shrunk BW than those fed 30% DG in the diet. Cattle fed AH as the dietary roughage source across both DG concentrations had a lower (P = 0.02) final shrunk BW than the average of cattle fed the BG and SS diets. Similar to final shrunk BW, carcass-adjusted final BW was greatest (P < 0.01) for cattle fed 15 vs. 30% DG, and tended to be less (P = 0.06) for cattle fed AH than for those consuming the other 2 roughage sources.


Nonetheless, the average carcass-adjusted final BW of treatments containing different roughage sources and DG concentrations did not differ (P = 0.87) from that of the Control treatment. The lower shrunk and adjusted final BW for 30% DG are attributable to lower ADG observed throughout the feeding period (e.g., d 35, 70 and 105) and overall (P < 0.03) compared with cattle fed 15% DG diets. With respect to the effect of roughage source, cattle fed DG with AH as the roughage source had decreased (P < 0.02) ADG for d 0 to 105 and d 0 to end compared with the average of cattle fed the BG and SS diets. The results of the current study for final shrunk BW and carcass-adjusted final BW are consistent with the findings of May et al. (2010a), who fed finishing steers corn or sorghum wet DG or a 50:50 blend of corn and sorghum DG at 15 or 30% (DM basis) of SFC-based finishing diets. These authors reported decreased final BW and adjusted final BW for steers fed 30 vs. 15% DG, as well as decreased BW and ADG for steers fed DG relative to the Control treatment (no DG). Uwituze et al. (2010) fed SFC-based finishing diets with 0 or 25% corn DDG and either AH or CS as the roughage source and reported decreased shrunk final BW and decreased ADG for steers fed DDG relative to those fed no DG. Maxwell et al. (2010) reported an interaction for ADG when SS was included in diets with 20% DDG, in which steers consuming SS as the roughage source in combination with DDG had greater ADG than those fed sorghum sudangrass hay; however, when DDG was not present in the diets, cattle fed SS had lower ADG. Similar to the results of the current study, Corrigan et al. (2009) fed diets with DG concentrations of 0, 15, 27.5, and 40% corn wet DG with diets based on DRC, high-moisture corn (HMC), or SFC and reported that performance was improved in a quadratic fashion in SFC-based diets when DG was fed at 15% compared with feeding 27.5 and 40%. The optimal range for DG in SFC-based diets has been reported to be 15


to 20% (DM basis; Klopfenstein et al., 2008; Corrigan et al., 2009; Depenbusch et al., 2009), which is consistent with our results. In contrast to our results, Uwituze et al. (2010) reported no difference as a result of roughage source in final BW, adjusted final BW, or ADG with diets containing 25% DDG and either AH or CS as roughage sources. The findings of Uwituze et al. (2010) are supported by results of Benton et al. (2007), in which no differences were observed among treatments with DRC-based diets containing DG with different roughage sources replaced on an equivalent roughage NDF basis. In our study, feeding AH in combination with DG led to decreased final BW and ADG compared with BG and SS. For the first 70 d (d 0 to 35 and d 0 to 70) of the feeding period, cattle fed diets with 15% DG consumed more DM (P < 0.01) than those fed diets containing 30% DG (Table 4). That trend was maintained throughout the study, but there was a DG concentration × roughage source interaction (P = 0.02) for DMI from both d 0 to 105 and d 0 to end. For the overall feeding period (d 0 to end), cattle fed the 15-SS diet had the greatest DMI, but with the 30% DG diets, DMI did not differ among roughage sources. Defoor et al. (2002) reported tendencies for increased ADG and G:F in heifers consuming 7.1% forage sorghum silage compared with those fed 12.5% AH; however, heifers consuming the sorghum silage diets had slightly greater NDF from roughage in the diet. The heifers fed the silage diets had a greater energy intake (kcal/kg of BW0.75) relative to those fed the AH diets. Along with our results, these data suggest that inclusion of SS and BG (or roughages with a presumably greater physically effective NDF content than AH) might stimulate DMI to a greater extent than what would be expected based on NDF content relative to AH. This finding could imply that a physically effective component of


NDF, perhaps reflecting differences in particle density and size, might be important with some roughage sources in SFC-based finishing diets that include DG. Similar to final BW and ADG results, the DMI by cattle fed the Control treatment did not differ (P = 0.21) from the average of the other 6 treatments. This finding contrasts the results of Maxwell et al. (2010), who reported that cattle fed SFC-based diets using SS as the roughage source with 20% corn DDG had greater DMI than cattle fed a diet containing no DDG. In contrast, dietary inclusion of DDG did not affect DMI over the feeding period with cattle fed sudangrass hay as the roughage source. Results of May et al. (2010a) and May et al. (2010c) also conflict with ours, in that overall DMI was not affected in their studies by concentration of DG. Uwituze et al. (2010) reported increased DMI by steers fed diets with CS vs. AH as the roughage source, but as stated previously, dietary roughage was not balanced on a NDF basis, so the response in DMI noted with CS might have resulted from greater NDF in the CS diets relative to AH diets. Benton et al. (2007) reported no differences in DMI across different roughage sources in DRC-based diets containing 30% DG (DM basis). In our study, cattle on the AH treatments had numerically lower DMI than cattle fed the other 2 roughage sources. Likewise, DMI data coupled with final BW and ADG results indicated that performance was decreased for cattle consuming the diets containing DG with AH as the roughage source. It should be noted that the AH used in the current study had NDF and CP concentrations that were higher and lower, respectively, than expected, corresponding to mature AH values from the NRC (2000). Thus, the lower quality of the AH used during the experiment might have, in part, contributed to the differences in performance observed with AH as the roughage source in DG diets. As noted previously, our choice of 7.5% AH as the basal roughage concentration was based on the results of May et al. (2010c). Because our AH was lower in quality than expected,


it is possible that differences between the results of our experiment and theirs in terms of responses in DMI with increasing DG concentration reflect differences in quality of AH. Formulating addition of roughage on the basis of a target NDF supplied by the roughage rather than roughage concentration in the DM would seem to be the preferred approach, but further research is needed to define the optimal NDF concentration from roughage. In addition, as suggested previously, the effective NDF concentration of different roughage sources also might be an important consideration. Early in the feeding period (d 0 to 35 and d 0 to 70), G:F for cattle fed 15 and 30% DG in finishing diets did not differ (P > 0.11), despite differences noted previously in DMI and ADG between DG concentrations during those same periods (Table 4). Likewise at 105 DOF, no differences were detected (P > 0.16) between DG concentrations for G:F. Nonetheless, over the entire feeding period, cattle fed 15% DG had increased (P < 0.02) G:F relative to those fed 30% DG either on a shrunk BW basis or a carcass-adjusted basis. As noted previously, the differences in G:F with respect to dietary DG concentration are consistent with reports of Klopfenstein et al. (2008), Depenbusch et al. (2009), and May et al. (2010a), in which increasing DG concentration beyond 15% in SFC-based diets led to a diminished response in G:F. Cattle consuming diets with SS as the roughage source had a lower (P ≤ 0.01) G:F than those fed BG as the roughage source from d 0 to 70 and over the entire feeding period on either a shrunk or carcass-adjusted BW basis. Thus, although diets were balanced on an equivalent NDF content, the SS treatments resulted in lower G:F relative to BG. When considering the DMI, ADG, and G:F data for cattle fed the SS diets, it may be possible that physical factors associated with digesta (e.g., particle density, ruminal stratification, effects on particle passage) played a role in the responses observed. Moreover, the DM content of the SS diets was less than that of


the other 2 roughage sources, and the SS particles were already hydrated before entering the rumen. This might have led to increased intake (particularly for 15-SS), thereby increasing the passage rate to the extent that digestibility was decreased, and G:F was affected negatively. Maxwell et al. (2010) reported an interaction with roughage source (P = 0.06) for feed efficiency; when no DG was included in diets, steers had increased efficiency with hay as the roughage source, but when DG was included in diets, steers with SS as the roughage source had improved efficiency compared with those fed hay. Uwituze et al. (2010) reported lower digestibility during metabolism trials by cattle fed 25% DDG with both AH and CS, but steers consuming CS with DDG had a lower DMI than the other treatments. Values for total dietary NEm and NEg (Table 4) were calculated as described by Vasconcelos and Galyean (2008). The NEm concentrations did not differ between the DG concentrations (P = 0.35), but the data suggest that total dietary NEm concentration was less (P < 0.01) for SS compared with BG as the roughage source in diets containing DG. Despite the seemingly large influence of DG concentration on finishing performance, total dietary NEg values did not differ (P = 0.35) for the 2 DG concentrations (1.43 vs. 1.42 Mcal/kg for 15 and 30% DG, respectively), indicating that negative effects of the 30% DG concentration on performance were largely a reflection of decreased DMI. The Control treatment did not differ from the average of the other treatments (P = 0.17); however, similar to results for NEm, dietary NEg calculations suggest that including SS as the roughage source in finishing diets containing DG decreased NEg (P < 0.01) compared with BG. The results of May et al. (2010c) support our findings, in that DG concentration did not affect calculated NEm or NEg concentrations. In contrast to our findings, however, May et al. (2010a) noted decreased total dietary NEm and NEg with 30 vs. 15% DG in finishing diets.


Carcass characteristics are shown in Table 5. As a result of increased ADG and final BW, HCW were greater (P < 0.01) for cattle fed 15 vs. 30% DG, and cattle fed AH as the roughage source in diets containing DG tended (P = 0.06) to have decreased HCW compared with the average of those fed BG and SS diets. The responses to DG concentration in our data are consistent with the findings of May et al. (2010a) and Depenbusch et al. (2009), but in contrast to those of Corrigan et al. (2009) and May et al. (2010c). In agreement with the work of Uwituze et al. (2010), HCW did not differ in our study between the Control and the average of all the DG treatments (P = 0.87). Dressing percent did not differ (P > 0.21) among treatments (Table 5). Similarly, both Depenbusch et al (2009) and May et al. (2010c) found that DP did not differ when diets contained 15 or 30% DG and also did not differ between DG and Control treatments. Nonetheless, May et al. (2010a) reported a tendency for greater DP by cattle fed no DG relative to those consuming either 15 or 30% DG. In our study, there were no effects of roughage source on DP (P > 0.20), which is similar to the findings of Uwituze et al. (2010). Marbling score tended (P = 0.07) to be increased for SS compared with BG, but 12th rib fat thickness (P > 0.23) and KPH (P > 0.17) did not differ among treatments. The results from marbling score are worth noting, and suggest that cattle fed SS as their roughage source tended to have greater intramuscular fat deposition than those fed BG. As indicated earlier, SS treatments had lower G:F values than cattle fed BG as the roughage source, and in general had lower G:F than cattle in the other treatments. Cattle fed 15-SS had the greatest ADG and final BW of those fed 15% DG, but the response to SS decreased substantially when 30% DG was included in diets. Neither Benton et al. (2007) nor Uwituze et al. (2010) observed differences in marbling score as a result of dietary roughage source, and the tendencies for differences noted in our study did not translate


to differences in USDA quality grade distribution among DG × roughage source treatments. Longissimus muscle area was greater (P < 0.04) for cattle fed DG diets with BG or SS as the roughage source compared with AH, which is consistent with the HCW data. The LM area was 4% less for AH compared with the mean of BG and SS, but LM area did not differ (P = 0.70) for Control vs. the average of other treatments. Carcass YG responded similarly to final BW and HCW with respect to differences between 15 and 30% DG. Cattle fed 15% DG diets had a greater (P = 0.01) average YG than those fed 30% DG. No differences were noted between the Control and the average of the other 6 treatments (P = 0.88) or for roughage source (P > 0.23) for YG. May et al. (2010c) also reported greater average YG for cattle fed 15 vs. 30% DG in SFC-based diets. Despite the lack of differences in marbling score, the Control treatment had an increased (P = 0.05) proportion of carcasses grading USDA Choice or greater compared with the average of all other treatments (Table 5). The carcass QG results in the current study are consistent with those reported by Depenbusch et al. (2009), who found that cattle consuming either 0 or 15% corn DDG in SFC-based diets had greater proportions of carcasses grading ≥ USDA Choice, and that as the percentage of DG in diets increased from 15 to 75% (DM basis), a linear decrease in QG was observed. In contrast to our findings for QG, there are several reports of small or no effects of DG concentration (≤ 30% DG, DM basis) on carcass QG (Benton et al., 2007; Corrigan et al., 2009; May et al., 2010a; May et al., 2010c) No differences were observed among treatments for the incidence of liver abscesses (P > 0.23). Exp. 2 Nutrient composition data for the in vitro substrates (Table 3) agreed with expected values from formulation. There were no treatment x incubation time interactions for IVDMD (P =


0.63). Nonetheless, to illustrate the effects of incubation time on IVDMD for each of our treatment combinations, data are presented in Table 6 for treatment x incubation time combinations. As expected, IVDMD increased over time (P < 0.001). At 6 and 36 h of incubation, substrates containing SS tended (P < 0.09) to have decreased IVDMD relative to substrates containing BG as the roughage source, whereas at 18 h of incubation, substrates with AH as the roughage source had greater (P = 0.01) IVDMD than those with either BG or SS. Whether the lesser IVDMD with BF and SS at early incubation times is associated with the greater DMI in Exp. 1 and thereby effective NDF value discussed previously for these 2 roughage sources deserves further research. There was no effect (P > 0.11) of DG concentration across all incubation times. Data from the current study are consistent with those of Quinn et al. (2010a and 2010b), in which no differences in IVDMD were noted for substrates containing either 15 or 30% corn DG (DG sources similar in composition to the current study). The results of the present study are not supported, however, by those of May (2010) or May et al. (2010b), in which increasing DG in substrates led to lower IVDMD. In vivo measurements of apparent total tract DM digestion with 25% DDG in diets (Uwituze et al., 2010) were not affected by roughage source, but were decreased by DDG inclusion. There were no treatment x incubation time interactions for culture fluid osmolality (P = 0.99), but as with IVDMD, data are presented in Table 6 by incubation time to illustrate changes among treatments over time. Over all incubation times, culture fluid osmolality did not differ (P > 0.18) among roughage source treatments or with inclusion of DG in culture substrates (P > 0.14). These data are in contrast to those of Quinn et al. (2010b), who noted that osmolality decreased in cultures containing 30 vs. 15% DG, and observed lower osmolality for Control substrates containing no DG than for those with added DG. Culture fluid osmolality increased


over time (P < 0.001) in the present study, which would be expected as digestion progressed and solute concentrations increased in the cultures. Fractional rate of gas production (k; Table 7) did not differ among treatments (P > 0.38). This measurement has been reported in only a few studies with high-concentrate diets, and similar to the results of the current study, Quinn et al. (2010a) noted no difference in k values with substrates containing 15 or 30% DG. In contrast to present results, however, Quinn et al. (2010b) and May (2010) observed decreased k values with substrates containing 30 vs. 15% DG. Given the results from IVDMD and osmolality, no difference in k with respect to DG concentration agrees with the current in vitro data set, and is similar to other reports (May et al., 2010b) of in vitro fermentation with DG inclusion in substrates. Asymptotic maximal gas production (V; Table 7) was not affected by roughage source (P > 0.57) or by DG concentration (P > 0.39) in substrates. Similar estimates of V for different DG concentrations in substrates is not supported by results of Quinn et al. (2010a and 2010b), where substrates with 15% DG had greater total gas production than those with 30% DG. Neither DG nor roughage source affected (P = 0.58) lag time of gas production, which is consistent with the results of May (2010) and May et al. (2010b). Total VFA concentration (data not shown) increased (incubation time effect, P < 0.01) with increasing time during fermentation (123.4 and 156.8 mmol/L for 12 vs. 24 h fermentation, respectively), indicating that fermentation was continuing normally in the in vitro system over this time frame. Total VFA concentrations and molar proportions of acetate, propionate, butyrate, or the acetate:propionate ratio did not differ (P = 0.35; data not shown) among treatments. These results agree with those of May et al. (2010c), who reported no differences in VFA proportions with substrates containing 15 or 30% DG.


Overall, data from Exp. 1 and 2 suggest that inclusion of 15% DG in beef cattle finishing diets based on SFC resulted in improved feedlot performance compared with 30% DG. In addition, there was little evidence to suggest that performance differed greatly between a standard SFC-based finishing diet with no DG and those containing 15% DG. The IVDMD findings in Exp. 2 were generally consistent with culture fluid osmolality, gas production kinetics measurements, and VFA data, none of which were greatly influenced by roughage source or DG concentration. Present results suggest that roughage source can affect performance by cattle fed diets containing DG. Inclusion of SS when DG concentrations were ≤ 15% of DM resulted in greater DMI and ADG, but negatively affected G:F. Moreover, AH as the roughage source in DG diets tended to decrease ADG, final BW, and HCW. Such differences among roughage sources included to supply equal NDF suggest that exchanging roughage sources on the basis of NDF concentration alone might not always result in equivalent DMI, and consideration might need to be given to adjustments for physically effective NDF or moisture content of the roughage source in SFC-based diets that include DG.

LITERATURE CITED Benton, J. R., G. E. Erickson, T. J. Klopfenstein, K. J. Vander Pol, and M. A. Greenquist. 2007. Effects of roughage source and level in finishing diets containing wet distillers grains on feedlot performance. J. Anim. Sci. 85(Suppl. 2):76. (Abstr.) Brown, H., R. F. Bing, H. P. Grueter, J. W. McAskill, C. O. Cooley, and R. P. Rathmacher. 1975. Tylosin and chlortetracycline for the prevention of liver abscesses, improved weight gains and feed efficiency in feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 40:207-213.


Corrigan, M. E., G. E. Erickson, T. J. Klopfenstein, M. K. Luebbe, K. J. Vander Pol, N. F. Meyer, C. D. Buckner, S. J. Vanness, and K. J. Hanford. 2009. Effect of corn processing method and corn wet distiller’s grains inclusion level in finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 87:3351-3362. Defoor, P. J., M. L. Galyean, G. B. Salyer, G. A. Nunnery, and C. H. Parsons. 2002. Effects of roughage source and concentration on intake and performance by finishing heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1395-1404. Depenbusch, B. E., C. M. Coleman, J. J. Higgins, and J. S. Drouillard. 2009. Effects of increasing levels of dried distillers grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of yearling heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2653-2663. Galyean, M. L. 1996. Laboratory Procedures in Animal Nutrition Research. Available: http://apps.depts.ttu.edu/afs/home/mgalyean/lab_man.pdf. Accessed April 2010. Galyean, M. L., and P. J. Defoor. 2003. Effects of roughage source and level on intake by feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 81:E8-E16. Goetsch, A. L., and Galyean, M. L., 1983. Influence of feeding frequency on passage of fluid and particle markers in steers fed a concentrate diet. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 63:727-730. Klopfenstein, T. J., G. E. Erickson, and V. R. Bremer. 2008. BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Use of distillers by-products in the beef cattle feeding industry. J. Anim. Sci. 86:12231231. Leibovich, J., J. T. Vasconcelos, and M. L. Galyean. 2009. Effects of corn processing method in diets containing sorghum wet distillers grains plus solubles on performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle an on in vitro fermentation of diets. J. Anim. Sci. 87:2124-2132.


Lopez, S., M. S. Dahnoa, J. Dijkstra, A. Bannink, E. Kebreab, and J. France. 2007. Some methodological and analytical considerations regarding application of the gas production technique. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 135:139-156. Maxwell, C. L., M. S. Brown, N. A. Cole, B. Coufal, J. O. Wallace, J. Simroth-Rodriguez, and S. Pratt. 2010. Effects of roughage source and dried corn distiller’s grains concentration on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef steers. Pages 106-107 in Proc. Plains Nutr. Council Spring Conf. AREC10-57, Texas AgriLife Res. and Ext. Center, Amarillo. (Abstr.). May, M. L. 2010. The effects of distillers grain source and roughage concentration on apparent total tract digestibility, feedlot performance, and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle, and on in vitro fermentation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock. Available: https://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/2346/ETD-TTU-2010-05490/MAY-DISSERTATION.pdf?sequence=4. Accessed August 17, 2010. May, M. L., J. C. DeClerck, M. J. Quinn, N. DiLorenzo, J. Leibovich, D. R. Smith, K. E. Hales, and M. L. Galyean. 2010a. Corn or sorghum wet distillers grains with solubles in combination with steam-flaked corn: Feedlot cattle performance, carcass characteristics, and apparent total tract digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 88:2433-2443. May, M. L., J. C. DeClerck, M. J. Quinn, N. DiLorenzo, J. Leibovich, D. R. Smith, K. E. Hales, and M. L. Galyean. 2010b. Corn or sorghum wet distillers grains with solubles in combination with steam-flaked corn: In vitro fermentation and hydrogen sulfide production J. Anim. Sci. 88:2425-2432. May, M. L., M. J. Quinn, N. DiLorenzo, and M. L. Galyean. 2010c. Effects of roughage and wet distillers grains with solubles in steam-flaked corn-based substrates on feedlot cattle


performance and carcass characteristics. Page 107 in Proc. Plains Nutr. Council Spring Conf. AREC 10-57, Texas AgriLife Res. and Ext. Center, Amarillo. (Abstr.). McDougall, E. I. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. I. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochem. J. 43:99-109. NRC. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. Quinn, M. J., M. L. May, N. DiLorenzo, D. R. Smith, and M. L. Galyean. 2010a. Effects of distillers grains and substrate steam-flaked corn concentration on in vitro dry matter disappearance, gas production kinetics, and hydrogen sulfide production. Prof. Anim. Sci. 26:365-374. Quinn, M. J., M. L. May, N. DiLorenzo, D. R. Smith, C. H. Ponce, and M. L. Galyean. 2010b. Effects of the ratio of distillers grains to solubles on in vitro dry matter disappearance, gas production kinetics, hydrogen sulfide production, and osmolality. Page 115 in Proc. Plains Nutr. Council Spring Conf. AREC 10-57, Texas AgriLife Res. and Ext. Center, Amarillo. (Abstr.). Schofield P., R. E. Pitt, and A. N. Pell. 1994. Kinetics of fiber digestion from in vitro gas production. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2980-2991. Uwituze, S., G. L. Parsons, M. K. Shelor, B. E. Depenbusch, K. K. Karges, M. L. Gibson, C. D. Reinhardt, J. J. Higgins, and J. S. Drouillard. 2010. Evaluation of dried distillers grains and roughage source in steam-flaked corn finishing diets. J. Anim. Sci. 88:258-274. Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3597.


Vasconcelos, J. T., and M. L. Galyean. 2007. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2007 Texas Tech University survey. J. Anim. Sci. 85:27722781. Vasconcelos, J. T., and M. L. Galyean. 2008. Technical Note: Do dietary net energy values calculated from performance data offer increased sensitivity for detecting treatment differences? J. Anim. Sci. 86:2756-2760. Wagner, J. J., T. E. Engle, and T. C. Bryant. 2009. The effect of rumen degradable and rumen un-degradable intake protein on feedlot performance and carcass merit in heavy-yearling steers. J. Anim. Sci. J. Anim. Sci. 88:1073-1081.


Table 1. Analyzed composition of the distillers grains plus solubles (DG), alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) used in Exp. 1 and 21 Chemical composition, % DG AH BG of DM DM 33.4 88.5 90.8 CP 30.0 14.1 7.2 NDF 30.0 55.9 75.8 ADF 15.2 42.3 33.2 Ether extract 10.1 1.8 2.3 Ca 0.04 1.07 0.39 P 0.65 0.21 0.17 K 0.83 1.76 1.31 S 0.69 0.27 0.24 1 All analyses except DM were performed by SDK Laboratories, Hutchinson, KS.


SS 20.2 7.6 63.1 42.1 2.6 0.53 0.20 2.68 0.13

Table 2. Ingredient and analyzed chemical composition of experimental diets consisting of 15 or 30% of wet distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) in diets fed to finishing beef steers

Item, % of DM Ingredient composition Steam-flaked corn DG AH BH SS Molasses Cottonseed meal Tallow Supplement2,3 Urea Limestone MIN-AD4

Control

15-AH

Treatments1 15-BG 15-SS

30-AH

30-BG

30-SS

73.99

71.86

73.95

72.11

58.00

60.08

58.41

10.09 4.21 5.59

15.22 7.57 -

15.23 5.05 -

15.06 7.13 -

30.36 7.55 -

30.37 5.05 -

30.04 7.11 -

2.13 2.01 0.61 1.02 0.35

0.93 2.01 0.78 1.28 0.36

0.92 2.01 0.98 1.50 0.36

0.91 1.98 0.97 1.49 0.35

1.99 0.45 1.30 0.35

1.99 0.64 1.51 0.35

1.97 0.64 1.49 0.34

Chemical composition DM 82.3 68.2 66.0 57.5 58.4 56.8 49.1 5 CP 12.1 13.6 13.3 14.1 16.7 16.9 15.1 RDP6, % of 8.00 7.99 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.00 7.99 DM Ether extract5 5.71 5.73 5.74 5.70 5.73 5.76 5.72 5 15.4 16.3 15.2 16.0 19.2 20.1 19.7 NDF Ca5 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.65 5 0.24 0.31 0.39 0.33 0.39 0.37 0.34 P 1 Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH; 30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 2

Diets were formulated to meet or exceed nutrient NRC (2000) requirements. Supplement for the Control diet consisted of (DM basis): 66.383% cottonseed meal; 0.500% Endox (Kemin Industries; Des Moines, IA); 0.648% dicalcium phosphate; 10% potassium chloride; 4.167% ammonium sulfate; 15.000% salt; 0.002% cobalt carbonate; 0.196% copper sulfate; 0.083% iron sulfate; 0.003% ethylenediamine dihydroiodide; 0.333% manganese oxide; 0.125% selenium premix (0.2% Se); 0.986% zinc sulfate; 0.010% vitamin A (1,000,000 IU/g); 0.157% vitamin E (500 IU/g); 0.844% Rumensin (176.4 mg/kg; Elanco Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN); and


0.563% Tylan (88.2 mg/kg; Elanco Animal Health). Concentrations presented in parenthesis are expressed on a 90% DM basis. 3

Supplement for the diets containing DG was the same as that for the Control diet except for the following (DM basis): 54.790% cottonseed meal; 22% potassium chloride; and 3.760% urea. 4

MIN-AD is a commercially available source of calcium-magnesium carbonate (supplied by MIN-AD, Inc., Amarillo, TX). 5

Averaged value of analyzed composition from a commercial laboratory (SDK Laboratories, Hutchinson, KS) and analyzed values from the Texas Tech Univ. Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory. The ether extract and Ca concentrations were calculated from analyzed and NRC (2000) tabular values for composition of the ingredients. 6

RDP was calculated from tabular degraded intake protein values presented by NRC (2000).


Table 3. Ingredient composition and nutrient concentration of experimental substrates consisting of 15 or 30% of distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) in batch-culture fermentations Treatments1 Item, % DM Ingredient composition Steam-flaked corn DG AH BH SS Cottonseed meal Corn oil Urea Chemical composition2 DM CP RDP3, % of DM Ether extract NDF ADF Ca P

Control

15-AH

15-BG

15-SS

30-AH

30-BG

30-SS

80.39

73.79

73.77

73.02

61.93

64.20

63.18

15.00

15.00

30.00 7.50

30.00

30.00

10.00

15.00 7.50

5.03

5.03

7.00

2.00

4.50

6.05 4.20

1.96 0.65

0.95 0.76

0.93 0.77

0.93 0.80

90.4 14.3 8.01

90.6 15.9 8.01

91.2 16.2 8.00

91.1 18.0 8.01

6.05

0.57

90.6 17.9 8.02

0.71

91.3 17.5

0.77

90.9 18.0

8.02

8.01

5.5 5.7 5.9 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.0 13.7 14.1 15.5 14.7 18.4 18.0 18.3 7.2 7.6 7.0 7.8 9.6 8.1 9.9 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.35 1 Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH; 30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 2

Analyzed composition from SDK Laboratories, Hutchinson, KS.

3

RDP was calculated from tabular degraded intake protein values presented by NRC (2000)


Table 4. Finishing performance for steers fed diets containing 15 or 30% of wet distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) or a Control diet containing no DG

Treatments1


Item Initial BW, kg Final shrunk BW4, kg Adjusted final BW5, kg ADG, kg d 0 to 35 d 0 to 70 d 0 to 105 d 0 to end Adjusted6, d 0 to end Daily DMI, kg/steer d 0 to 35 d 0 to 70 d 0 to 105 d 0 to end G:F d 0 to 35 d 0 to 70 d 0 to 105 d 0 to end Adjusted7, d 0 to end

Control 350 580 580

15-AH 350 575 577

15-BG 350 593 594

15-SS 350 597 596

30-AH 349 571 572

30-BG 349 582 583

30-SS 349 568 564

SEM2 1.1 5.7 5.9

Contrasts3 NS 2*, 3* 2*, 3†

1.68 1.70 1.69 1.51 1.51

1.72 1.75 1.70 1.47 1.49

1.81 1.81 1.82 1.59 1.59

1.81 1.77 1.87 1.62 1.61

1.52 1.67 1.68 1.45 1.46

1.58 1.72 1.75 1.52 1.52

1.60 1.60 1.67 1.43 1.41

0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04

2* 2* 2*, 3* 2*,3* 2*, 3†

8.19 8.43 8.70 8.87

8.24 8.51 8.74 8.76

8.20 8.64 9.00 9.10

8.47 8.97 9.44 9.59

7.97 8.38 8.72 8.88

7.59 8.34 8.80 8.94

7.67 8.30 8.72 8.98

0.18 0.16 0.14 0.13

2* 2* 5* 5*

0.206 0.202 0.195 0.170 0.171

0.208 0.206 0.195 0.168 0.170

0.221 0.210 0.202 0.174 0.175

0.214 0.197 0.198 0.169 0.168

0.192 0.201 0.194 0.164 0.165

0.207 0.208 0.199 0.171 0.171

0.210 0.193 0.192 0.160 0.157

0.009 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003

NS 4* NS 2*,4* 2*,4*

Calculated NE values8 NEm, Mcal/kg of DM 2.13 2.12 2.13 2.05 2.09 2.12 2.05 0.022 4* NEg, Mcal/kg of DM 1.46 1.45 1.46 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.39 0.019 4* 1 Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH; 30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 2

Standard error of treatment means; n = 8 pens/treatment.

3

Contrasts: 1 = Control vs. average of all other treatments; 2 = average of 15% DG treatments vs. average of 30% DG treatments; 3 = AH vs. the average of BG and SS; 4 = average of BG treatments vs. average of SS treatments; 5 = interaction of DG concentration and roughage source. *P < 0.05; †P < 0.10; NS = not significant.

4

Final shrunk BW = (final non-shrunk live BW*0.96).

5

Adjusted final BW = [(HCW/dressing percent)*0.96]. Dressing percent = HCW/final non-shrunk BW.


6

Adjusted ADG = (adjusted final BW – initial BW)/days on feed. Half the cattle (4 of the 8 experimental weight blocks) were fed for 147 d, whereas the remaining 4 blocks were fed for 159 d.

7

Adjusted G:F = (adjusted ADG/DMI d 0 to end).

8

Dietary NEm and NEg values were calculated as described by Vasconcelos and Galyean (2008).

Table 5. Carcass characteristics of steers fed finishing diets containing 15 or 30% of wet distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) or a Control diet containing no DG

Treatment1


Item Control 15-AH 15-BG 15-SS 30-AH 30-BG 30-SS SEM2 Contrasts3 HCW, kg 375 373 384 386 370 377 365 3.8 2*,3† Dressing percent4 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.0 62.2 62.2 61.7 0.27 NS 5 Marbling score 47.3 46.1 44.1 48.5 46.7 42.4 44.8 1.81 4† 12th rib fat, cm 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.61 1.61 1.43 1.54 0.08 NS LM area, cm2 88.0 86.7 87.9 89.2 86.6 93.2 89.1 1.72 3* KPH, % 3.02 3.14 2.95 2.85 2.92 2.66 3.02 0.13 NS Calculated YG 3.35 3.50 3.57 3.45 3.47 2.98 3.26 0.12 2* Choice or greater, % 90.6 67.7 74.2 80.7 81.3 64.5 65.6 8.6 1* Select, % 9.4 32.3 22.6 19.4 18.8 29.0 31.3 8.4 1† Abscessed livers, % 9.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 6.0 9.3 6.0 5.4 NS 1 Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH; 30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 2

Standard error of treatment means; n = 8 pens/treatment.

3


4

Dressing percent = HCW/final non-shrunk BW.

5

Marbling score: 30 = Slight0; 40 = Small0; 50 = Modest0.

Table 6. In vitro dry matter disappearance and culture fluid osmolality with substrates containing 15 or 30% of distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) or a Control diet containing no DG Treatment1 Incubation Item Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on March 14, 2013

IVDMD4, %

time, h

SEM2

Contrast3

Control

15-AH

15-BG

15-SS

30-AH

30-BG

30-SS

6

36.9

38.7

38.4

37.0

41.1

41.8

37.6

1.8

4†

12

54.0

58.0

55.9

53.4

58.1

57.8

56.1

1.7

NS

18

60.9

66.0

60.3

61.6

65.9

64.3

62.7

1.0

3*

24

74.8

75.9

70.8

73.1

73.4

74.2

76.1

2.1

NS

36

80.6

81.3

81.8

80.8

83.1

83.5

78.5

1.3

4†

48

85.4

83.9

85.7

82.9

85.4

84.2

83.1

1.0

NS

0

304.0

306.0

303.5

305.8

308.5

305.3

306.8

7.5

NS

6

303.0

300.5

305.0

303.3

304.0

305.0

304.3

1.4

NS

12

312.0

313.0

311.5

312.5

313.8

312.5

309.3

0.9

NS

18

322.0

322.3

323.3

319.5

322.8

322.8

323.5

2.0

NS

24

334.3

336.3

332.0

333.8

337.8

338.5

334.8

1.7

NS

36

355.0

361.0

355.5

357.3

359.3

363.0

360.3

2.1

NS

48

372.0

374.0

370.3

374.5

377.3

371.0

374.0

3.7

NS

Osmolality4, mOsm/kg

1Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH;

30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 2 Standard error of the mean within incubation time; n = 4 cultures/treatment for each incubation time. 3 Contrasts: 1 = Control vs. average of all other treatments; 2 = average of 15% DG treatments vs. average of 30% DG treatments; 3 = AH vs. the average of BG and SS; 4 = average of BG treatments vs. average of SS treatments; 5 = interaction of DG concentration and roughage source. *P < 0.05; †P < 0.10; NS = not significant. The treatment x incubation was not significant for IVDMD (P = 0.63) or culture fluid osmolality (P = 0.99). Contrast significance was based on overall model P-values with the treatment x time effect included. 4 Effect of time for IVDMD and osmolality, P < 0.001.

Table 7. Gas production kinetics parameters for substrates fermented for 48 h containing 15 or 30% of distillers grain plus solubles (DG) with roughage sources of alfalfa hay (AH), bermudagrass hay (BG), and sorghum silage (SS) or a Control diet containing no DG


Item Gas production kinetics4

Control

15-AH

k, %/h

4.80

4.72

V, mL

188.2

222.0

15-BG

4.49 214.4

Treatment1 15-SS

30-AH

4.58

4.80

216.0

212.2

30-BG

30-SS

4.78

4.79

203.6

206.7

SEM2

Contrast3

0.25

NS

13.3

NS

Lag, h 4.06 2.66 2.61 2.41 2.82 2.85 2.68 0.78 NS Treatments: Control = no DG with 10% AH; 15-AH = 15% DG with AH; 15-BG = 15% DG with BG; 15-SS = 15% DG with SS; 30-AH = 30% DG with AH; 30-BG = 30% DG with BG; 30-SS = 30% DG with SS. Roughage sources in DG treatments were balanced to supply an equivalent concentration to the NDF supplied by 7.5% AH. 1

2

Standard error of the mean; n = 4 cultures/treatment.

3


4

Gas production kinetics parameters were calculated using a modified Gompertz model, such that: k = fractional rate of gas production; V = maximal gas production; and Lag = lag time of fermentation.

Citations

This article has been cited by 2 HighWire-hosted articles: http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/early/2011/03/11/jas.2010 -3563#otherarticles
