1. Natural vs. Conventional
Vern Anderson, Ph.D.
Carrington Research Extension Center
North Dakota State University
Natural vs. Conventional
Finishing Programs
NDSU Beef College
February 11, 2010

2. Beef feedlot research at NDSU
High level of collaboration
Carrington RE Center
Growing and finishing studies
Focus on feeding in ND
Hettinger RE Center
Dept. of Animal Sciences
Metabolism trials
Meats research
Central Grasslands RE Center

3. Natural beef markets ND Natural Beef LLC – (Dakota Farms)
Cattle harvested at New Rockford, ND
Demand for finished beef
Organic Beef Market - potential
Best management practices required
Thorough vaccination program
Evaluate competitive production practices

4. Concentrate levels for natural feeding Anderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
85 %
Conc.
70%
55%
P Value
DMI, lb/hd/d
21.4
21.7
22.0 ns
ADG, lb/hd/d
2.93
2.51
2.26
P < .01
Feed Efficiency
7.3
8.6
9.7
Days on Feed
154
180
210
Yield Grade
2.77
2.58
2.70
Marbling Score
481
421
P = .16
Percent Choice 70 59 63

5. feeding supplements for growing and finishing calves
Evaluation of natural
feeding supplements for growing and finishing calves

6. Yeast enzyme “cocktail” in barley based diets Anderson and Bock, 2000
Grow-finishing study
Yea-Sacc 8417 ® and Fibrozyme ®
Alltech, Inc.
Barley based finishing ration
Steers fed yeast/enzyme “cocktail”
Cattle stayed on feed and gained more consistently than controls during severe weather changes during spring thaw

7. Natural vs. conventional finishing trail Anderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
85% concentrate corn/barley finishing diets
Treatments
Two supplements (no implants):
Natural supplement (Bovi-Sacc®, Alltech Inc.)
Proprietary yeast and fiber digesting enzyme
Conventional (ionophore-monensin sodium)

8. Forage levels and supplements Anderson and Schoonmaker, 2006
Conventional
Control
Monensin sodium
Natural
Alltech Fibrozyme
P value
DMI, lb/hd/d
21.7
21.4 ns
ADG, lb/hd/d
3.15
2.93
P<.10
Feed Eff
7.0
7.3
Yield Grade
2.97
2.77
Marbling score
455
481
Percent Choice 75 70

9. Natural supplement evaluations Anderson et al., 2008
Three different research components
Replicated growing experiment – fall 2006
Replicated finishing experiment – winter
Large pen field trial –winter
Treatments
Ionophore (monensin sodium)
Natural supplement = Rumatec®
(Ralco Nutrition, Marshal, MN)

10. Why Rumatec® β Starter and Finisher?
Newer natural supplement with multiple components and potential positive effects
Rumatec® β Starter
Diatomaceous earth
Alpha-hydroxy proprionic acid
Cobalt carbonate
Fenugreek
Brewers yeast
Carriers – grain by-products and mineral oil
Rumatec® Finisher add yucca extract (saponin)

11. Growing trial protocol
162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club – (Turtle Lake show - 26 ranches_
Mixed breeds, colors, sizes
Blocked by weight into four groups
One pen per block to each treatment
Twelve pens, head per pen
day weigh periods = 56 day trial
TMR fed once daily to appetite

12. Growing Ration 14.2% CP, 60 Mcal NEg
Dry matter basis
49.1% dry rolled corn
20.6% field peas
11.4% corn silage
9.2% wet dist grains
7.6% chopped straw
2.1% supplement with:
½ oz Rumatec® β Starter or
300 mg monensin sodium or

13. Finishing trial protocol
Same 162 steers from Central Dakota Feeder Calf Club
Started at end of growing trial
TMR fed once daily to appetite
All steers harvested on April 28
Carcass data collected

14. Performance of growing steers fed a natural supplement
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Nat suppl
Rumatec®β
Starter
Std
Err P
Value
Initial wt. lb
739
740
8.76
0.37
DMI, lb/hd/d
19.79
20.68
0.13
ADG, lb/hd/d
3.61
3.74
0.12
0.23
Feed Eff.
5.48
5.55
0.27
0.76
No. hd treated
3/54
2/54 -

15. Finishing Ration 13.8% CP, 62 Mcal NEg
Dry matter basis
55.4% dry rolled corn
15.6% wet dist grains
13.8% field peas
8.1% corn silage
5.4% chopped straw
1.7% supplement with:
½ oz Rumatec® Finisher or
300 mg monensin sodium or

16. Performance of finishing steers fed a natural supplement
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Nat suppl
Rumatec®
Finisher
Std
Err P
Value
Initial wt. lb
944
953
11.34
0.69
Final wt. lb
1249
1239
14.56
0.38
DMI, lb/hd/d
22.17
23.29
0.79
0.13
ADG, lb
3.46a
3.25b
0.09
0.02
Feed Eff.
6.42
7.21
0.14
0.04

17. Carcass traits of steers fed a natural supplement
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Natural suppl
Rumatecβ®
Std
Err P
Value
Dressing %
944
953
11.34
0.69
Marbl Score
469
449
16.64
0.09
Fat Thick, in
0.50
0.51
0.03
REA,sq in
12.79
12.76
0.19
0.96
Yield Grade
3.00
3.04
0.11
0.86

18. Field trial for finishing calves with natural supplement
Previous finishing study left questions
Steers available from CREC herd
70 head backgrounded steers
Not replicated
Two pens, 35 head per pen
Ration similar to replicated finishing experiment
No carcass data collected

19. Field trial – finishing performance steers fed a natural supplement
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Natural suppl
Rumatecβ®
Initial wt. lb
937
934
Final wt. lb
1344
1338
DMI, lb/hd/d
21.85
22.09
ADG, lb
3.59
3.60
Feed Eff.
6.25
6.34

20. Summary
New natural supplements show promise for both growing and finishing feedlot cattle in ND
Newer generation of multi-ingredient supplements compete well with ionophores
Need to develop complete “best management practices” for natural beef feeding

21. Summary
New natural supplements show promise for both growing and finishing feedlot cattle in ND
Newer generation of multi-ingredient supplements compete well with ionophores
Need to develop complete “best management practices” for natural beef feeding

22. Natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains Thompson et al
Growing phase – Hettinger REC
Finishing phase - Carrington REC
SBARE supported
72 head 6 head per pen, 6 pens/treatment
Two treatments
Conventional – ionophore and implant
Natural – yeast product from Ivy Solutions

23. Rations for natural vs. conventional feeding with distillers grains Thompson et al., 2010
Percent, DM Basis Growing Finishing
Corn, dry rolled
Distillers
Mixed hay
Oat silage
Canola meal
Corn silage
Straw, chopped
Supplement
Crude Protein, %
NE gain, Mcal/lb

24. Performance of growing steers fed natural vs
Performance of growing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains Thompson et al., 2010
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Nat suppl
Yeast
Ivy Solutions Sd
Err P
Value
Days on feed 85 -
Initial wt. lb
551
545
3.31
0.31
DMI, lb/hd/d
22.2
20.5
0.37
0.02
ADG, lb
2.65
2.87
0.04
Feed Eff.
8.33
7.14
0.003
<0.01

25. Performance of finishing steers fed natural vs
Performance of finishing steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains Thompson et al., 2010
Nat suppl
Yeast
Ivy Solutions
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Std
Err P
Value
Days on feed
125
138 -
Final wt. lb
1387
1299
9.92
<0.001
DMI, lb/hd/d
24.70
21.61
0.46
ADG, lb
3.99
3.26
0.04
Feed Eff.
6.25
6.66
0.003
0.02
Feed cost/lb, $
.59
.65
0.005

26. Carcass traits of steers fed natural vs
Carcass traits of steers fed natural vs. conventional diets with distillers grains Thompson et al., 2010
Ionophore
Monensin sodium
Nat suppl
Yeast
Ivy Solutions
Std
Err P
Value
Dressing Percent
65.11
63.00 -
Hot carc. Wt, lb
862
765
6.39
<0.001
Ribeye area
90.3
83.7
0.78
KPH, %
2.42
2.63
0.07
0.04
Yield Grade
3.25
3.12
0.05
0.53
Marbling Score
487
516
7.52
0.02
Net /hd, $*
(82.71)
(155.36)
* Sale price of $85.65/cwt for CON and $90.09/ Natural

27. Summary
-Some natural supplements appear to be competitive in animal performance.
-Natural production protocols do not appear to be competitive, require significantly higher sale price.
- Producers need to keep very careful records if marketing natural cattle.

28. Thank you
Livestock Technicians: Dale Burr, Tim Schroeder, and Tyler Ingebretson

29. Questions Dr. Rob Maddock Teaching the art of
grilling steaks and chops
At the NDSU
BBQ Boot Camp
Held at Carrington
on July 17, 2008
A joint effort of
Animal Science and Carrington REC