PSXI-3 Effects of Limit Feeding Complete Diets to High Risk Receiving Calves

Abstract

Abstract Limit feeding cattle may result in more efficient gains, however, limiting intake may result in increased morbidity in higher-risk cattle. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of limit feeding on performance and health of newly received cattle. One hundred sixty-eight crossbred beef steers (BW = 215 ± 21 kg) were purchased from several sale barns in TX and AR and shipped to the University of Arkansas Southwest Research and Extension Center in Hope, AR. One-half the steers arrived one week, and the other one-half arrived the following week. Upon arrival, steers were vaccinated against respiratory and clostridial pathogens, treated with an anthelmintic, and administered a growth-promoting implant (40 mg TBA + 8 mg estradiol). Additionally, each animal was administered a metaphylactic treatment of tulathromycin. Approximately 52% were bulls that were surgically castrated upon arrival. Cattle were stratified by bull status and assigned to pens (n = 7 steers/pen) and pens were randomly assigned to one of three treatments (n = 8 pens/treatment): limit-fed pellet comprised of approximately 12% DDGS and 25% corn gluten feed fed at the rate of 2.25% of BW, without additional hay (NH; 2.25NH); a limit-fed pellet comprised of 12% DDGS and 25% corn gluten feed fed at the rate of 1.75% of BW, without additional hay (1.75NH); or a limit-fed pellet with similar composition as the other two, fed at the rate of 2.0% of BW along with free choice access to long stem hay (H; 2.0H). Cattle were fed diets twice daily at 0800 and 1400 hours, and hay was weighed and offered once per week, with hay refusals weighed back to correct for hay disappearance. Cattle were monitored for symptoms of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), and any symptomatic animals were treated with antimicrobial therapy. Cattle were weighed on d 0, 21, 42, 62, and 63. Data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX, pen was the experimental unit, treatment was a fixed effect, and block (arrival date) was considered random. Body weight was affected by treatment (P < 0.05) on d 42 and 63 with cattle fed 2.25NH and 2.0H having greater BW than 1.75NH. Similarly, ADG was greater from d 0 to 42 and d 0 to 63 for 2.0H and 2.25NH compared with 1.75NH (P < 0.05). Cattle fed 1.75NH and 2.25NH had more efficient feed conversion compared with 2.0H for the entire study (P < 0.05). No differences (P = 0.17) were noted for morbidity, mortality (P = 0.63), or treatment success (P = 0.76). Data from this study suggests limit-fed diets based on by-product feeds could be used for diets in high-risk cattle.