Ethanol Byproduct Usefor Beef Cattle &Impact on Quality

G. Erickson & T. Klopfenstein

UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics

Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein

Criteria for Trials Used• Focus on corn WDGS only• UNL Mead research• DRC, HMC, DRC:HMC diets• Individual animal carcass data

- HCW- 12th rib fat- Marbling score- Yield grade

UNL Studies UsedExperiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/TxSindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32

Materials and Methods of Trials• Diet % WDGS (DM basis)• 5-7.5 % DM roughage in diet • Calves and Yearlings

– Predominantly black crossbred steers• 34 treatment means (n= 1257 hd)• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0

• Calculated YG used (n= 873) except when LM area unknown (n= 384)

Average Daily Gain

y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

AD

G (l

b)

Intercept

WDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4710 3.7020 3.8330 3.8740 3.8150 3.66

Predicted Values

Diet DM % WDGScov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P < 0.01

Feed Conversion

y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367

012345678

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

F:G

(lb/

lb) WDGS Level F:G

0 6.4410 6.1620 5.9530 5.8140 5.7450 5.73

Predicted Values

Diet DM % WDGSIntercept

cov. P = 0.04 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.09

12th Rib Fat Depthy = -8E-05x2 + 0.0039x + 0.4912

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

12th

Rib

Fat

(in)

WDGS Level FAT0 0.49

10 0.5220 0.5430 0.5440 0.5250 0.49

Predicted Values

Diet DM % WDGSIntercept

cov. P = 0.02 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.04

Yield Grade

y = -0.0002x2 + 0.0129x + 2.848

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Yiel

d G

rade WDGS Level YG

0 2.8510 2.9520 3.0230 3.0440 3.0150 2.94

Predicted Values

Diet DM % WDGSIntercept

cov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.06

Marbling Score

y = -0.0277x2 + 1.3078x + 517.53

0100200300400500600700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Mar

blin

g Sc

ore

500 = Small0

WDGS Level Marbling 0 518

10 52820 53330 53240 52650 514

Predicted Values

Diet DM % WDGSIntercept Slope

cov. P = 0.08 cov. P = 0.09 L P = 0.05≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.05

Conclusion• Intermediate Levels of WDGS (10-40%)

DRC & HMC DietsEqual DOF

Convert more efficiently

Get fat quicker More marbling

UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics

Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein

UNL Studies UsedExperiment Year Diet DM % Sweet Bran Hd/Tx

Richards et al. 1993 0, 25 40Scott et al. 1995 0, 10, 21, 38 40Herold et al. 1996 0, 38 40Scott et al. 1999 0, 32 60Scott et al. 1999 0, 22 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Losa et al. 2005 0, 30 72

Materials and Methods of Trials• Diets 0-40 % Sweet Bran® (DM basis)• DRC, HMC, or DRC:HMC control diet• 7-7.5 % DM roughage in diet • Calves and Yearlings

– Predominantly black crossbred steers• 18 treatment means (n= 880 hd)• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0

Average Daily Gain

y = 0.0126x + 3.6689

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 10 20 30 40 50

AD

G (l

b)

Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.67

Diet DM % WCGF

Feed Conversion

y = -0.0053x + 5.9566

012345678

0 10 20 30 40 50

F:G

(lb/

lb)

Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P = 0.03≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.48

Diet DM % WCGF

12th Rib Fat Depthy = 0.0016x + 0.4557

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 10 20 30 40 50

12th

Rib

Fat

(in)

Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.87

Diet DM % WCGF

Marbling Score

y = 0.4917x + 491.65

0100200300400500600

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mar

blin

g Sc

ore

500 = Small0

Interceptcov. P = 0.06 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.78

Diet DM % WCGF

WCGF and quality grade

Control Sweet Bran

Comparison 1 58.8 61.4

Comparison 2 57.2 56.8

a 8 university studies with steam-flaked corn; 1200+ hd Control, 2,200+hd fed Sweet Branb ~6,000 heifers fed in 21 pen replicates, commercial feedlot

WCGF and quality grade

106 10497 99

93

110101

97 9994

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

ControlWCGF

Over 2.3 million hd over 5 yrs not fed Sweet BranOver 1.4 million hd over 5 yrs fed Sweet Bran in 2002

Beef Extension Page Beef Reportshttp://beef.unl.edu

CONTACT: Galen Erickson PH: 402 472-6402geericks@unlnotes.unl.edu http://beef.unl.edu

Acknowledge: Abengoa Bioenergy Dakota Gold ResearchNebraska Corn Board Chief EthanolCargill Wet Milling US Bio Platte Valley