1. Grain processing

2. Grain Feeding

3. 3) Corn 1) Wheat 4) Grain Sorghum 2) Barley Acidosis Potential Grain Feeding Stock et al., 2006

4. Wheat Barley High moisture corn (bunker storage) Steam flaked corn, HMC ( stored whole) Dry rolled corn, steam flaked grain sorghum Dry whole corn Dry rolled grain sorghum Grains Ranked By Rate Of Ruminal Starch Digestion Fast Slow Grain Feeding Stock et al., 2006

5. Area of ruminal pH below 5.6 during grain adaptation period Grain Feeding Cooper et al., 1997

6. Total Intake of Diet by Hour and Concentration Level. Grain Feeding Fulton et al., 1979

7. DRCHMCSFC DMI, lb22.2 a 21.8 a 20.4 b ADG, lb3.643.553.60 Feed / Gain6.10 a 6.10 a 5.65 b Feed / Gain, % of DRC --100108 Cooper et al., 2002 J. Anim. Sci. Corn Processing- Diets without byproducts

8. DRC24 HMC28RECON30 HMC35RECON 0 20 40 60 80 100 056112168224280336392 Ensiling Period (d) ISDMD, % Corn Processing- HMC and Reconstitution

9. 0 20 40 60 80 100 056112168224280336392 Ensiling Period (d) DIP (% of CP) DRC24 HMC28RECON30 HMC35RECON Corn Processing- HMC and Reconstitution

10. Pens, n3636 DMI 25.724.90.64 ADG 3.954.02<0.01 F:G 6.506.19<0.01 2 x 6 factorial with hybrids, no process x hybrid interaction All diets contained 20% WCGF DRCHMC 1528P= Processing Harrelson et al., 2007 ASAS Midwest Meetings Corn Processing- HMC vs DRC

11. Pens, n3636 DMI 25.724.90.64 ADG 3.954.02<0.01 F:G 6.506.19<0.01 2 x 6 factorial with hybrids, no process x hybrid interaction All diets contained 20% WCGF DRCHMC 1528P= Processing Harrelson et al., 2007 ASAS Midwest Meetings Corn Processing- HMC vs DRC 4.8%

12. DMI 24.424.424.223.923.5 ADG 3.43 a 3.53 ab 3.57 ab 3.68 b 3.65 b F:G 7.14 a 6.94 ab 6.77 b 6.49 c 6.45 c All diets contained 18% corn bran (part of CGF) DRCHMCRECONHMCRECON 1524283035 Processing Benton et al., 2005 Nebraska Beef Report. Corn Processing- HMC and Reconstitution

13. DMI 22.021.822.223.424.8 ADG 4.254.154.174.244.18 F:G 5.18 a 5.26 ab 5.32 b 5.52 c 5.92 d All diets contained 32% WCGF Calves fed 170 days, initial wt. = 667 lb SFCHMCFGCDRCWC Processing Scott et al., 2003 J. Anim. Sci. Corn Processing- with WCGF

14. DMI 22.021.822.223.424.8 ADG 4.254.154.174.244.18 F:G 5.18 a 5.26 ab 5.32 b 5.52 c 5.92 d Diet a 6.24.73.6---7.2 Corn only a 11.88.96.8---13.7 a Expressed as % above DRC, calculated for entire diet and corn only (52.5%) All diets contained 32% WCGF Calves fed 170 days, initial wt. = 667 lb SFCHMCFGCDRCWC Processing Scott et al., 2003 J. Anim. Sci. Corn Processing- with WCGF

15. DMI 23.424.024.324.2 ADG 4.22 b 4.02 a 3.95 a 3.98 a F:G 5.54 a 5.97 b 6.15 c 6.09 bc All diets contained 22% WCGF, 62.5% of respective corn Yearlings fed 117 days, initial weight = 845 lb SFCHMCFRCDRC Processing Scott et al., 2003 J. Anim. Sci. Corn Processing- with WCGF

16. DMI 23.424.024.324.2 ADG 4.22 b 4.02 a 3.95 a 3.98 a F:G 5.54 a 5.97 b 6.15 c 6.09 bc Diet a 9.02.0--- Corn only a 14.33.1--- a Expressed as % above DRC, calculated for entire diet and corn only (62.5%) All diets contained 22% WCGF, 62.5% of respective corn Yearlings fed 117 days, initial weight = 845 lb SFCHMCFRCDRC Processing Scott et al., 2003 J. Anim. Sci. Corn Processing- with WCGF

17. SFCGHMCRHMCFGCDRC DMI 21.3 a 21.4 a 21.6 a 23.0 b 23.2 b ADG 4.334.244.214.354.23 F:G 4.91 a 5.05 b 5.13 b 5.29 c 5.49 d Corn only 17.613.410.96.1-- All diets contained 25% WCGF, 60% of respective corn Calves fed 152 days, initial weight = 677 lb Macken et al., 2006 Prof. Anim. Scient. Corn Processing- with WCGF

18. SFCGHMCRHMCFGCDRC F:G 4.91 a 5.05 b 5.13 b 5.29 c 5.49 d Fecal St4.1 a 8.4 b 10.6 bc 11.8 c 19.2 d GMD311748429015154730 All diets contained 25% WCGF, 60% of respective corn Calves fed 152 days, initial weight = 677 lb Macken et al., 2006 Prof. Anim. Scient. Corn Processing- with WCGF

19. DRCHMCSFC without WCGF F:G, diet only (80% corn) 6.346.275.76 Improved, % above DRC --1.411.4 with WCGF F:G, diet only (55-60% corn) 5.705.445.21 Improved, % above DRC --8.114.6 Note: DRC is 13.2% better than whole (1 comparison) & FGC is 4.3% better than DRC in diets with WCGF (3 comparisons) Corn Processing- with and without WCGF

20. WCDRCD/HHMCSFCFGC DMI 23.1 a 22.6 a 21.5 b 21.0 bc 20.4 c 20.4 c ADG 3.85 a 4.05 b 3.91 ab 3.89 ab 3.59 c 3.38 d F:G 6.07 a 5.68 bc 5.61 bc 5.46 c 5.76 b 6.15 a Corn:-11.2--2.06.3-2.3-13.5 All diets contained 30% WDGS; 61.4% corn Calf-feds 168 days, initial weight = 700 lb Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. Corn Processing- with WDGS

21. WCDRCD/HHMCSFCFGC DMI 23.1 a 22.6 a 21.5 b 21.0 bc 20.4 c 20.4 c ADG 3.85 a 4.05 b 3.91 ab 3.89 ab 3.59 c 3.38 d F:G 6.07 a 5.68 bc 5.61 bc 5.46 c 5.76 b 6.15 a Corn:-11.2--2.06.3-2.3-13.5 All diets contained 30% WDGS; 61.4% corn Calf-feds 168 days, initial weight = 700 lb Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. Corn Processing- with WDGS

22. Corrigan et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep. Corn Processing- with WDGS

23. Corrigan et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep. Corn Processing- with WDGS

24. Issues With WCGF more intense processing better better acidosis control? relatively larger improvement with HMC not level dependent assuming >25% diet DM

25. Issues With WDGS DRC and HMC look good SFC is less positive, WDGS = SFC? Optimum level different DRC: 35-40% (watch S) HMC: 30-40% (watch S) SFC: 15-20%