Search

Background: Cattle production in the United States is heavily supported by Latino/a workers. Beyond injury rates, our understanding of the health status of cattle feedyard workers is limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the health status and health care access among Latino immigrant cattle feedyard workers in the Midwest. Methods: A cross-sectional design using face-to-face structured interviews with Latino immigrant cattle feedyard workers in Kansas and Nebraska was conducted between May 2017 and February 2020. Findings: A total of 243 workers completed interviews; 91% were men. Over half (58%) had health insurance but few (36%) had a regular health care provider. Few chronic health conditions were reported despite most being overweight (53%) or obese (37%). The sample mean of sleep hours/24 hours was 7.1 ± 1.1. Problem drinking was moderate (42%), cigarette smoking was low (14%), and drug use was extremely low (<1%). Receiving health information from work was associated with less problem drinking, less obesity, lower blood pressure, and better sleep. Conclusions: Although few workers reported having a chronic health condition, most workers had chronic disease risk (i.e., elevated body mass index, problem drinking) and few had a regular health care provider. Receiving health information at work may have protective health effects. Applications to Practice: Occupational health professionals can partner with feedyard employers to expand current health and safety training programs beyond injury prevention to focus on health more broadly and to connect workers with local health care resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Heat stress (HS) can be a significant source of risk for Midwestern cattle feeders. Feedlot managers (n = 46) from South Dakota, Minnesota, and Nebraska were surveyed regarding facilities, HS mitigation strategies, perceived success or failure, and strategies they would like to employ. Open yards (OY) were the most common system (62.5%), followed by total confinement (TC; 23.4%) and partial confinement (PC; 14.1%) with 15 respondents (32.6%) reporting multiple systems. Adjusting feed deliveries and introducing feed additives to mitigate HS were utilized by 32.6% and 34.8% of respondents, respectively. Environmental modifications were made to all OY (90% water application, 55% shades, and 25% bedding). Among respondents managing TC or PC facilities, in addition to the shade provided by buildings themselves 12.5% applied water during emergencies and 8.3% utilized fans. Cattle handling during heat events was scheduled to minimize HS by 100% of surveyed feedlots. During HS events, 67.4% adjusted shipping schedules and 32.6% provided additional water supply. Initiation of mitigation strategies were triggered by observed weather conditions (56.5%), indicators of cattle stress (39.1%), HS alerts (26.1%), and the calendar (6.5%). Shade-providing structures (TC, PC, or OY shades) were perceived as the most successful environmental modification (60.9%) followed by water application (50%), extra water supply (32.6%), and bedding (23.9%). Strategies perceived as less successful included water application (23.9%), feed additives (21.7%), and bedding (17.4%). Increased mud was specifically cited by 63.6% of respondents dissatisfied with water application. Respondents indicated providing more shade structures (63%) and confinement buildings (17.4%) for HS mitigation would be beneficial, but primary barriers were cost, time, and not a yet critical need (71.7, 21.7, and 10.9%, respectively). Midwest cattle feeders use many strategies specific to their needs to mitigate HS with those reducing solar load perceived as the most successful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A survey of feedlot nutritionists was conducted regarding how industry professionals use published resources. Surveys were included in the spring 2020 mailing to 550 potential attendees of the Plains Nutrition Council meeting. Sixty-two responses were returned via postal service or an online survey platform (Qualtrics). Participants were asked to rank the importance of types of resources, peer-reviewed journals and learning platforms, and demographic questions. A scale of 1 to 5 was used, with 1 being not important and 5 being most important. Data were analyzed using PROC FREQ in SAS 9.4. An overwhelming majority of participants, 90%, reported serving the Plains and Midwest regions, with service split evenly between the regions. Seventy-nine percent of participants reported having a Ph.D. or other professional degree. Interestingly, 43% of participants reported having less than 16 years of professional nutritional consulting experience, and 39% reported having greater than 26 years of experience with the balance reporting in between. Of the resources offered, 87% of participants ranked peer reviewed journals as a 4 or 5, indicating they are one of the most important resources. Eighty percent of respondents found open access publications important (4 or 5), while only 49% said the same for articles accessed via membership/subscription. For Journal of Animal Science, 84% indicated an importance of 4 or 5. Not surprisingly, 75% responded as being a member of ASAS but only 34% responded as attending national or sectional ASAS meetings. This suggests a large population uses memberships for journals and other resources, but not for meetings. Participants were able to write in additional resources they find valuable, and 9 of 14 participants who listed additional resources responded with some form of in-house or commercial research. Through these data, feedlot nutrition researchers can better understand how to reach intended audiences in future publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Corn silage has long been a staple feed ingredient in cattle diets throughout the Midwest region of the United States. The most recent Feedlot Consulting Nutritionist Survey indicated that corn silage was the primary and secondary roughage source used in finishing diets by 37.5% of respondents. Using the entirety of the corn plant for feed allows for producers to quickly harvest feed tonnage. A common belief is that one should only include enough corn silage in a finishing ration to maintain rumen health. However, previous research conducted by our research group suggested that feeding increased levels of corn silage could increase the quantity of beef produced per hectare of cropland. Another aspect to consider when finishing cattle is implant type. Today a wide variety of implants are available, including polymer barrier coated and non-coated implants. Coated implants can provide an extended release of trenbolone acetate and estradiol for up to 200 days post-implantation. The objectives of the current study were to determine the influence of corn silage inclusion level and terminal implant type on animal growth performance, apparent total tract digestibility, carcass traits, and beef production per hectare of cropland in finishing steers harvested at common rib fat thickness. Maine-Anjou × Angus cross-bred steers (n = 156 steers; initial body weight (BW) 366 ± 37.2 kg) were used in a 132 d finishing study conducted at the Ruminant Nutrition Center (RNC) in Brookings, SD. Steers were blocked by weight (n = 5 BW blocks) and randomly assigned to an implant and dietary treatment of a randomized complete block design with each pen containing seven to eight steers (n = 20 pens). Dietary treatments consisted of (1) 15% (CS15) or (2) 30% corn silage (CS30) where corn silage displaced corn grain in the diet. Steers received one of two implants (both from Zoetis, Parsippany, NJ) containing equal doses of trenbolone acetate (TBA) and estradiol benzoate (EB): (1) Synovex PLUS (non-coated implant; 200 mg TBA and 28 mg EB; PLUS) or (2) Synovex ONE Feedlot (coated implant; 200 mg TBA and 28 mg EB; ONE-F). Bunks were managed using a slick bunk approach, and all diets contained dry matter (DM) basis 33 mg/kg monensin sodium. All steers were offered ad libitum access to feed, and feeding occurred twice daily in equal portions. There was no interaction between the implant and dietary treatment for any variables measured (p ≥ 0.08). Carcass-adjusted basis final BW, average daily gain (ADG), and grain to feed (G:F) were increased (p ≤ 0.02) by 2.2%, 6.5%, and 7.2%, respectively, for CS15. Observed net energy (NE) and the ratio of observed-to-expected NE for maintenance and gain was not influenced (p ≥ 0.15) by silage inclusion treatment. Beef production per hectare was not impacted (p ≥ 0.13) by corn silage inclusion level. Fecal output was increased, and digestibility coefficients for dry matter, organic matter, and crude protein were decreased in CS30 (p ≤ 0.03). Dressing percent and hot carcass weight (HCW) were greater (p ≤ 0.02) in CS15. Implant type did not influence any traits measured (p ≥ 0.14) except for marbling. Marbling was decreased for PLUS (433 vs. 466 ± 17.5; p = 0.02) compared to ONE-F steers. Similar beef produced per hectare of crop land-based upon silage feeding level means producers can feed greater inclusions of corn silage to finishing cattle without impacting carcass quality or beef production; implanting with a coated implant had no detrimental effects to growth performance but increases marbling scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environment and weather may have a significant impact on feedlot cattle growth. Most U.S. feedlot cattle are finished/fed in open-mound, dirt lots. Historic closeout data conclude that cattle performance has been optimal when finishing cattle in well groomed, dry, dirt mound lots. However, weather challenges including excessive heat, cold, or moisture conditions negatively impact cattle performance. Past attempts to provide shelter for finishing feedlot cattle with buildings/sheds have often yielded subpar finishing cattle growth expectations when compared to well-groomed dirt mounds. Improved cattle housing designs including building ventilation and flooring types are being utilized in many Northern Plains and Midwest cattle operations during the last decade. This symposium will address current designs, management issues, economic considerations and future improvement challenges for finishing cattle housing systems. Performance and economics comparing various cattle breeds and varied in-weights throughout finishing period in differing cattle facilities will be evaluated. Comparison of expected and realized performance of finishing cattle when housed in bedded barns, conventional scrape yards with sheds and cattle comfort finishing shelters will be reviewed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of soil-surfaced pens with limited over-head or enclosed structures have declined in popularity in the Midwest over the last few decades. Various facility types that utilize complete or partial concrete flooring and side walls have increased in popularity. These changes are driven by 1) readily observable impacts that precipitation and pen conditions have on cattle performance and cost of gain and 2) continual pressure to be compliant with environmental regulations. Cost of indoor cattle feeding facilities can easily approach 2-4x the cost of soil-surfaced pens but for many, such pens are not an option. Management of production and animal health varies within these facilities and likely interacts with cattle types and their associated mortality risk. Direct animal health and performance comparisons among facility types are incredibly difficult to perform due to the multiple confounders (diet, risk, cattle type) that usually exist. Morbidity that frequently occurs in enclosed systems typically revolves around management of papillomatous digital dermatitis (PDD), foot and leg issues, and stiffness in cattle. Rolled compacted concrete (RCC) has been a new development that may provide a cost-effective option to curb mud in traditionally soil-surfaced facilities. RCC may also substantially reduce the cost of enclosed facilities that rely on traditional concrete. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]