Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and

Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, Dec 2014

The objective of this study was to compare the feedlot and carcass performance of the PN Beef Program in relation to a conventional feedlot diet when both diets are combined with or without exogenous growth promotants.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1453&context=kaesrr

Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and

Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and Kelsey J. Phelps K . A. Miller Andrea K . Sexten Cadra L. Van Bibber-Krueger Part of the Other Animal Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Phelps, Kelsey J.; Miller, K. A.; Van Bibber-Krueger, Cadra L.; Sexten, Andrea K.; Jennings, J.; Depenbusch, Brandon E.; Gonzalez, John M.; and Drouillard, James S. (2014) "Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 0: Iss. 1. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1453 - See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr Thi s report is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 2014 Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. K-State Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and Creative Commons License Thi s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Authors Kelsey J. Phelps, K. A. Miller, Cadra L. Van Bibber-Krueger, Andrea K. Sexten, J. Jennings, Brandon E. Depenbusch, John M. Gonzalez, and James S. Drouillard Thi s Research Report article is available in Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: https://newprairiepress.org/ kaesrr/vol0/iss1/50 Comparison of Conventional and Alltech Beef PN Finishing Programs: Performance and Carcass Characteristics Introduction By the year 2050, the global population will be 9 billion people, resulting in an unprecedented global demand for food. American beef producers currently employ a multitude of production programs that use feed additives such as Rumensin or Tylan (Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN) and exogenous growth promotants (EGP) to maximize production efficiency. When Rumensin and Tylan are fed in combination, average daily gain and feed efficiency can be improved by 3% and 4%, respectively. When utilizing growth promotants, producers employ implant programs and feed beta-adrenergic agonists, such as Optaflexx (Elanco Animal Health), to enhance feed efficiency, average daily gain, hot carcass weight, and yield grades of carcasses. The PN Beef Program (Alltech, Nicholasville, KY) consists of two products that are designed to replace components of the conventional feedlot diet. The PN Beef Receiver is intended to be fed during the step-up period of feeding at a rate of 0.5 oz/animal daily, and PN Beef Finisher is intended to be fed during the remainder of the finishing period at a rate of 0.7 oz/animal daily. Because both products are new feed alternatives, the objective of this study was to compare the feedlot and carcass performance of the PN Beef Program in relation to a conventional feedlot diet when both diets are combined with or without exogenous growth promotants. Experimental Procedures Crossbred yearling steers (n = 512; 848 ± 17 lb initial body weight) were blocked by body weight and assigned to 64 pens with 8 steers assigned to each pen. The study was conducted as a randomized complete block experiment with a 2 × 2 factorial treatment arrangement. Factors in the study design consisted of a dietary feeding program and EGP regimen. For the dietary program factor, steers were separated into a conventional finishing program treatment or Alltech PN Beef Program treatment (Table 1). The components of the Alltech PN Beef Program diet were premixed into a ground corn carrier and subsequently blended into the total mixed ration. Both supplements contained a proprietary blend of organic trace elements, ascorbic acid, fermentation products, fermentation extracts, and selenium yeast. The PN Receiver portion of the diet was included in the total mixed ration for the first 21 days at a rate of 0.5 oz/animal daily. The PN Finisher was included in the total mixed ration at a rate of 0.7 oz/animal daily for the final 154 days of the feeding period. Each diet was fed with or without exogenous growth promotants. Steers receiving EGPs were administered a Component E-S (Elanco Animal Health,) implant on day 1 of the study, reimplanted with Component TE-IS (Elanco Animal Health) on day 94, and fed Optaflexx at a rate of 400 mg/ animal daily the final 28 day before harvest. 1 Alltech, Nicholasville, KY. 2 Innovative Livestock Services, Great Bend, KS. On day 175 of the experiment, animals were harvested at a commercial abattoir, where sla (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1453&context=kaesrr

Kelsey J. Phelps, K. A. Miller, Cadra L. Van Bibber-Krueger, Andrea K. Sexten, J. Jennings, Brandon E. Depenbusch, John M. Gonzalez, James S. Drouillard. Comparison of conventional and Alltech beef PN finishing programs: performance and, Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 2014, Issue 1,