MHj Beef Briefs
INITIAL BACKFAT
AFFECTS FEEDLOT
PERFORMANCE OF
STEERS
A recent research trial at Kansas
State University has shown there is
a significant difference in the final
weight of steers, fed to the same
degree of outside fat, that differed
in initial backfat thickness.
The study compared three
groups of steers which averaged
about 650 pounds initial weight,
but differed in intial fat thickness
by about .1 inch.
They were fed either a growing
ration (mostly silage) or were put
on full feed.
Their results showed that steers
with the highest level of initial fat
responded differendy to the grow
ing ration than those with less fat
Their final weight at .4 inch of rib
fat was 1,100-1,150, while those
with medium (.2 inch) and low (.1
inch) of initial fat were 100 and
200 pounds heavier, respectively.
Furthermore, high initial fat was
related to lower final weight for
steers that were full fed (1,110
pounds vs. 1,163 pounds). Those
fed growing diets, and then full fed
to finish, required more days
feed since they had lower average
daily gains, but the percentage
reaching choice quality grade did
not differ.
However, those steers fed grow
ing diets before being full fed with
. 1 to .2 inch of initial fat did not dif
fer in their final weightat .4 inch of
... s/y..- ' .; y>
Model
Fairowing^ate
GALVANIZED!
>ow comfort in mind. The
howecTbonom ben maker for a comfortable 33" crate
width when the tow lays down, yet the adjustable anti
crush ban eliminates the sow from carelessly dropping
« the piglets.
This movement restriction does not htmper the sow n
ihe lays down, or wants to stand up, a» the, bars slide up
•nd out of her way.
by
John Comerford
Penn State Beef Specialist
rib fat, compared to steers full fed
for the entire period. This implies
final weight was not affected by
feeding regime to a fat-constant
endpoint in this group.
Economics, then, would dictate
that feeders should consider a wide
range of feeding stategies for feed
er steers with low intial backfaL
The price of feed energy from sev
eral sources, including a growing
ration high in forages, would be an
important factor for thinner, less
conditioned feeder steers.
(Caution: This information fail
ed to show if there was a difference
in frame size between the groups.
This is important to know in this
case because if the group with
higher initial fat was fatter because
of differences in breed, frame, or
maturity (smaller-framed calves of
predominately British breeding vs.
larger-framed, continental
breeds), the differences in final
weight would be biased by this
factor.)
Castration Methods
Opinions sometimes differ on
the most effective method of
castration of beef cattle. While
convenience will often play an
important role, the most effective
method must be the one which
completely frees the male calf of
secondary, bullish, characteristics.
Secondly, it must be a method
which will not reduce the produc
tivity of the calf.
To meet these two criteria, it is
obvious the most effective method
will be surgical removal of the tes-
nan
icted
leavy
trials
this crate is designed
to reduce crushing, with
IN STOCK!
NORTHEAST AGRI SYSTEMS,
FLYWAY BUSINESS PARK
139 A West Airport Rd. j
Lititz, PA 17543 1
B 3 717-569-2702
M SSI 1-800-673-2580
Our New
Gestation
Stall
• No Drop Pins
• Doors Open 180° And
Can Be Closed With
One Hand
• Solid Steel Construction
• Natural, Painted Or
Galvanized Finish
tides. There is then no chance the
animal will ever be a bull, and,
when done in a timely manner, it
will not reduce productivity of the
calf.
A recent report from Kansas
State University compared surgi
cal castration, the use of rubber
bands, and the “EZE” method of
castration on both calves and year
lings. The results indicated there
will be no reduction in perfor
mance of either calves or yearlings
by any of the methods.
Therefore, inasmuch as castra
tion may effect stress on the ani
mal, there was no difference in the
stress associated with any of the
methods. Our own work here at
Penn State has shown there was no
difference in performance of dairy
beef calves castrated at two weeks
of age compared to those castrated
with rubber bands.
Also, we found the rubber bands
will fail, even with the best mana
gers, about S percent or more of the
time. Rubber bands, then, violate
one of the reasons for castration.
Many of you know that I am on a
personal vendetta against the use
of rubber bands in’Pennsylvania in
order to improve the value of Pen
nsylvania feeder calves. Very
young calves can be handled
easier, there is less stress on the
calf, and there is no loss of produc
tion when castration is done cor
rectly and at the right time. If a calf
is intended to be a steer, make him
one early in his life—with a knife.
Probiotic Trial
A research trial has been ini
tiated here at Penn State to com
pare direct-fed microbial products
(probiotics) for health and produc
tion in young (3-8 day old) dairy
beef calves.
The trial only recently started,
but we have some data to suggest
that about 26 percent of the initial
50 calves on test did not receive
any colostrum, or had poor colo
strum, before being marketed.
The calves were purchased at
INC.
STORE HOURS
Mon'JT^
7:30-4:30
Sri. 7:30-11:30
Pennsylvania auctions. One of the
objectives of the study is to see
what effect the lack of colostrum
will have on productivity of the
calves, and, secondly, what effect
Board Approves
Beef Checkoff
DENVER, Colo. A beef
checkoff program plan and budget
for fiscal year 1993 was approved
by beef producers at the summer
meeting of the Beef Promotion
and Research Board.
The 111-member board met
June 26-29 in Oak' Brook, 111.,
where the board approved a na
tional checkoff program plan and
a $44 million budget for the year
beginning October 1,
Beef board members approved
a budget which includes promo
tion, $23.49 million; foreign mar
keting, SS.O million: industry in
formation, $4.5 million; consumer
information, $4.0 million; re
search, $3.5 million; administra
tion, $2.2 million; producer com
munications, $510,000; program
development, $500,000; and
evaluation, $300,000.
In other action, a Beef Board
Evaluation Committee was organ
ized to oversee the Board’s re
sponsibility for program evalua
tion. Ronnie Holladay, Beef
Board chairman said he was pleas
ed with this action. “We’ve estab
lished some parameters by which
an evaluation committee will be
gin working in detail to improve
upon our beef checkoff pro
grams."
Holladay said that this is a posi
tive step forward for the beef in
dustry. “I feel this a major step to
‘ Combining ’ Oysters
(Continued from Pag* E2B)
harbor. The captain put the bow
spirit out over the boardwalk, close
to a parked van don’t poke in
that van window! He steered hard a
port, bringing the stem to star
board, then reversed and nudged
on the throttle, moving them back
ward. He pulled on the starboard
dinghy rope, bringing the boat
further about, then forward again,
steered to port, the stem swung
around, but not quite enough.
Reverse again as he pulled on the
starboard rope, then steered to
port, a little power forward, and the
boat drifted neatly to the dock
dock posts were lassoed and the
tour was over.
Second mate Saake thanked the
passengers for coming. He said,
“The Bay Education Office in Har-
Lancaster Farming,, Saturday, August 15,1992-E29
the use of probiotics will be for
these calves. The trial should be
complete by the end of the year, so
I will keep you posted on the
results.
begin using evaluation as a tool to
set priorities and incorporate them
into a comprehensive budgeting
process, to use our dollars for the
best interests of the producers who
pay into the checkoff.”
The board also heard the results
of its 1992 Producer Attitude Sur
vey. This was a national random
sample survey of 2,000 beef pro
ducers from across the country.
One of the key survey findings
was an 80 percent approval rating
by producers for the beef check
off.
Beef Board Chairman Holladay
was pleased by the survey results.
“This tells us that producers are
still very supportive of the check
off and overall feel that the board
is headed in the right direction
with checkoff funded programs.”
The Beef Board is 111 beef pro
ducers and importers (including
dairy and veal operators) appoint
ed by and held accountable to the
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture for
administering the Beef Promotion
and Research Act and Order.
The Beef Board contracts with
national nonprofit, industry or
ganizations to implement pro
grams of promotion, research,
consumer information, industry
information, foreign marketing
and producer communications
funded by the sl-per-head check
off.
risburg has paid a $5OO grant to
Lancaster County Extension tow
ard the cost of this tour, therefore,
keeping the cost to $lO each. Now
you all have a safe trip home and
start to improve your farming
methods so as to prevent runoff —
like planting more cover crops and
using less chemicals.”
Editor’s Note: This is the first
of two articles on the trip to the
Chesapeake Bay, written by
Sam Stoltzfus, a dairy farmer
along the Pequea Creek in Lan
caster County. In the next arti
cle, Stoltzfus will describe the
afternoon visit to the Clagett
Demonstration farm owned by
the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.