News Update
Aug. 13, 2008

Restricted Feeding of Heifers During Postweaning Enhanced Efficiency

Dr. Rick Rasby, University of Nebraska–Lincoln (UNL) animal scientist, notes a Journal of Animal Science study this week at .beef.unl.edu in which a total of 397 crossbred heifers were used to evaluate the effects of two levels of feeding during the postweaning period on growth, gain/feed, and ultrasound carcass measurements as well as the associations among these traits.

The heifers were assigned to a control diet (fed to appetite) or a restricted diet (80% of that consumed by controls) during a 140-day postweaning period. Heifers were individually fed a diet of 68% corn silage, 18% alfalfa, 8% barley, and 6% protein-mineral supplement (dry matter basis). Ultrasound measurements of loin muscle area (LMA), intramuscular fat (IMF), and subcutaneous fat (SQF) thickness over the LM were made on Day 140.

Feed restriction significantly decreased (P<0.01) body wt. (644 vs. 692 lb), avg. daily gain (ADG; 1.15 lb. vs. 1.43 lb. per day), LMA (8.8 vs. 9.4 sq. in.), IMF (3.2 vs. 3.5%), and SQF (0.12 vs. 0.15 in.), but increased gain/feed (0.12 vs. 0.11).

The magnitude of correlations of dry matter intake with avgerage daily gain, body weight, LMA, and body condition score were greater in restricted than control heifers. Pregnancy rate tended to be reduced in restricted heifers (86.3 vs. 91.5%). However, avgerage daily gain was significantly greater (P<0.001) in restricted than control heifers while grazing native range in the 7 months after restriction (1.12 vs. 1.01 lb/day).

The authors summarized by noting that restricted heifers consumed 22% less feed on a per-pregnant-heifer basis during the development period and had a greater magnitude of association between dry matter intake and several growth-related traits at the end of the 140-day postweaning period, which is indicative of improved feed efficiency (Roberts et al. 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 85:2740).

S. Korea to Inspect U.S. Facilities

South Korea plans tol send inspectors to U.S. facilities later this month to ensure that export-eligible slaughterhouses are meeting the requirements of a new bilateral beef trade pact, Meatingplace.com reports.

“They are to check if the facilities can safely remove SRMs and properly control the age of animals that can be slaughtered for export to South Korea,” a South Korean official told Yonhap News.

Meatingplace.com reports the revised pact allows U.S. slaughterhouses to export beef from cattle younger than 30 months of age, as long as certain specified risk materials are removed.

USDA, Iowa State Develop Rapid Test for SRMs

The New York Times reported Aug. 12 that researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Iowa State University have developed an experimental method to detect brain and spinal tissue in beef.

The fluorescence-based method was reported in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry and was devised by Jacob W. Petrich and colleagues.

The system is built upon the fact that nervous system tissues contain high concentrations of a compound, lipofuscin, that fluoresces when exposed to light, The New York Times reported. “By analyzing the fluorescence with a spectrometer, the method can detect even small amounts of nervous system tissue on a carcass.”

Now is Time to Prepare for Cool, Lawrence Says

If cattle producers are prepared, the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements going into effect in September won’t be a problem, Iowa Beef Center Director John Lawrence says.

Mandatory COOL, a provision of the 2002 Farm Bill, will go into effect on Sept. 30, after two delays in its implementation. This provision, though met with mixed feelings by livestock producers, is nothing to be feared, Lawrence says.

Instead of panicking, producers should pay attention, he adds, and they should know what is going to be expected of them. While buyers may ask producers to sign an affidavit stating the origin of the animals they are selling, it’s nothing to panic over.

“The normal business records that producers keep are all that are needed to prove compliance if they are audited,” Lawrence said. “These [records] may include the inventory records, sales receipts, health papers, etc., that most farmers already have.”

Despite the possible worry of producers that COOL will have a large effect on their day-to-day operations, the main change that COOL will demand is an increase in communication, he says. Cattle producers should be communicating with their buyers in advance to know exactly what kind of requirements the buyer will have.

“[There will be] more communication and paperwork between buyers and sellers,” Lawrence said. “Keep documentation. If you have animals of different origin on the same farm then be able to inform the buyer.”

Along with communicating with buyers to be clear on what they need, livestock producers should just work on better understanding COOL altogether, he adds. Along with information provided by the USDA, area producers can receive COOL information from Iowa resources, including the Iowa Beef Center.

For more information about COOL, including recommendations from the Iowa COOL Coalition, check out www.iowabeefcenter.org/content/COOL.htm.

For more information about the upcoming Iowa State COOL webcast and a list of county extension offices that will be hosting a broadcast of this event, contact Taylor Gerling at (515) 294-9124 or tgerling@iastate.edu. Information can also be found at the Iowa Beef Center Web page, www.iowabeefcenter.org.

— Release provided by Iowa Beef Center.

— compiled by Crystal Albers, associate editor, Angus Productions Inc.