With Thanksgiving in the rear-view the bulk of spring-born calves are weaned, albeit some longer than others but most know where to find feed and water. Hopefully you are well past the high-risk stage where daily doctoring can wear on the best cowboy. With higher cattle prices projected by futures and high input prices right now it’s worth revisiting the backgrounding process as we head into winter.
A recent article in Applied Animal Science by Ethan Blom and co-workers at South Dakota State and Texas Tech Universities highlighted how backgrounding rate of gain may affect finishing performance. The research team evaluated three rates of gain: 2, 2.5 and 3 pounds per day using a 64% corn silage, 15% oat hay, 15% distillers grains, 6% supplement diet. For those who don’t use corn silage consider the silage as approximately 50% grain and 50% roughage.
The primary difference in the systems was feed intake and days on feed during the backgrounding phase. The cattle were program or limit-fed to achieve the desired backgrounding ADG resulting in a daily dry matter intake of 16.3, 18.2 and 18.8 lbs / head / day for 2, 2.5 and 3.0 ADG treatments.
The highest gaining group, 3 lb / day was the most feed efficient at 6:1 feed to gain, with the slowest gaining group, 2 lb / day converting at 7.2 feed to gain. The slower gaining group consumed 225 lbs more feed due to their 76 day backgrounding period compared to 61 days for 2.5 lb / day and 54 days for the 2 lb / day treatment. While backgrounding days on feed were different, all cattle went to the feedyard at the same 900 lb target.
During the finishing phase the slower gaining background calves were faster gaining and more feed efficient than the groups gaining 3.0 lbs / day. Combining the two periods, the higher gain and greater feed efficiency by the 3 lb / day group in backgrounding was maintained despite having lower performance and efficiency in the finishing phase.
Carcass weight was increased by restricting gain during backgrounding however the moderate ADG 2.5 lb /day resulted in the largest ribeye area, lightest backfat and highest marbling carcass despite having the lightest weight carcass.
You may have to read the results above a time or two to sort out which management group best matches your production system goals. Outcomes aside this experiment demonstrates the ability to move growth to different time periods and still create an acceptable end product for all segments. This experiment does highlight a few items to consider.
Lower daily feed intake combined with a longer feeding period will increase your feed bill or the need for increased feed inventory. If you have a set marketing system and a limited supply of feedstuffs consider backgrounding systems where feed efficiency is maximized over a shorter period rather than an a longer less efficient system. This seems intuitive but cumulative feed intake is often overlooked compared to lower daily intakes.
The opportunity cost of days on feed is related to ADG, consider a $0.45 / head / day yardage charge. Cost of gain attributed to yardage is increased by 50% from $0.15 / lb of gain (3 lb /d) to $0.225 / lb of gain (2 lb/d). For every 100 lbs of gain during the feeding period we increase yardage charges by $7.65 due to lower rates of gain. With fuel, labor and interest challenges yardage is a number worth managing.
Slower rates of gain increase feed costs attributed to maintenance. Each calf has a daily maintenance energy requirement where nutrients in excess can contribute to growth. When calves are managed for higher rates of gain the percentage of energy for maintenance is diluted on a daily basis and reduced overall in the case of shorter feeding period at your operation. There are two ways to get paid for maintenance, keeping calves alive and the market is getting seasonally better. Aside from this maintenance is a cost.
Some are reading this suggesting backgrounding cattle at high rates of gain results in fleshy feeder cattle and lean moderate growth should be our goal. Here I point at the conclusion of this experiment where the authors highlighted the results may be attributed to rate of gain relative to mature size rather than targeting a specific rate of gain.
Imagine if the experiment was designed to test the cattle’s response to backgrounding rate of gain based on genetic potential for gain and grade. Today we can quantify the genetic potential of cattle way beyond their arrival weight, hip height and hide color. The limit is not our ability to measure genetic potential, the limit is our willingness to create and test systems designed to take advantage of the known but unquantified variation in genetic potential.
