Shawn C. Shouse

Performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef cattle managed in a bedded hoop-barn system

The use of bedded hoop barns in finishing systems for beef cattle has not been widely researched. In this management system, beef cattle are confined to hoop barns throughout finishing, and bedding is used to absorb animal waste, which results in minimal effluent. The objective of this study was to compare the performance and carcass characteristics of finishing beef steers (n = 1,428) managed in a bedded hoop-barn management system vs. an open-feedlot system with shelter. Six feeding trials were conducted over a 3-yr period. Three trials were conducted during summer-fall and 3 trials were conducted during winter-spring. Crossbred steers were allotted to 3 pens in the hoop-barn system and to 3 pens in the open-lot system (approximately 40 steers per pen in both facility systems). Stocking densities for the steers were 4.65 m(2) per steer in the hoop-barn system and 14.7 m(2) per steer in the open-lot system. The steers were begun on trial weighing 410 and 411 kg (SD = 21), were fed for 102.3 and 103.0 d (SD = 3.8), and were weighed off test at 595 and 602 kg (SD = 21) for the hoop-barn and open-lot systems, respectively. Steer performance measures consisted of ADG, DMI, and G:F. Carcass characteristics were HCW, fat thickness, LM area, KPH percentage, marbling score, USDA yield grade, and USDA quality grade. No year, season, or pen (management system) main effects, or season x management system and year x management system interactions were observed for any of the items measured related to cattle performance or carcass characteristics (P > 0.05). Final mud scores (a subjective evaluation of the amount of soil and manure adhering to the hair coat of the animals) were greater for the steers from the open-lot system compared with those from the hoop-barn system (P < 0.02), suggesting steers in the hoop-barn system carried less mud than steers from the open-lot system. Average daily cornstalk bedding use in the hoop-barn system was 2.3 kg/steer during summer-fall and 2.6 kg/steer during winter-spring. The performance of finishing cattle managed in a hoop-barn system was not different from the performance of cattle managed in an open-feedlot system with shelter during summer and winter. Managing beef cattle in hoop barns required more bedding but resulted in decreased mud scores compared with cattle managed in an open-lot system with shelter. Hoop barns are a viable alternative housing management system for finishing beef cattle.

Comparison of steer behavior when housed in a deep-bedded hoop barn versus an open feedlot with shelter

The use of hoop barns as an alternative housing system for beef cattle has not been widely researched. The objectives of this study were to determine the main effects of behavior of steers 1) over winter and summer, 2) when housed in either a hoop barn or a conventional feedlot, and 3) interactions between season and housing system. A total of 960 crossbred Bos taurus steers were used [August 2006 to April 2008 (2 winter and 2 summer trials)]. Steers were housed in either 1 deep-bedded hoop barn (n = 12 pens; 4.65 m(2)/steer) or 1 open feedlot with shelter (n = 12 pens; 14.7 m(2)/steer). Steers were ear tagged, implanted, and weighed (414 ± 36 kg) on arrival and allotted to treatments that were balanced for source, BW, and hide color. Behavioral data (3 postures and 2 behaviors) were collected using a 10-min live scan. The experimental unit for behavior was a pen of steers. Behavioral data were arcsine transformed to achieve a normal distribution. There were no (P > 0.05) differences for time spent at bunk or waterer for steers between housing treatments. Steers housed in an open feedlot with shelter spent less time lying and more time standing and walking (P < 0.05) compared with steers housed in a hoop barn. There were no (P = 0.32) differences between seasons for standing. Steers spent more time at the bunk (P < 0.0001) and waterer (P < 0.0001) in the summer compared with the winter. In the winter, steers engaged in more lying (P = 0.0002) and walking (P < 0.0001). Overall, steers stood less (P = 0.006) and spent more time lying (P = 0.024) when housed in a hoop barn than in the open feedlot with shelter regardless of season. Steers housed in the open feedlot with shelter walked more (P < 0.0001) than steers housed in the hoop barn and walked more (P < 0.0001) in winter than in summer months (6 vs. 3%). There were no (P > 0.05) differences in time spent at bunk and waterer between housing systems within season, but time spent at the waterer and bunk decreased (P < 0.05) for both housing systems during the winter. In conclusion, housing 40 steers per pen in a cornstalk-bedded hoop barn at 4.65 m(2)/steer does not result in adverse behavioral alterations and can be considered as a housing alternative for finishing steers in the Midwestern United States when compared with steers fed in an open feedlot with shelter provided.

Effects of Stocking Density on Steer Performance and Carcass Characteristics in Bedded Hoop and Open Front Confinement Facilities: Progress Report

and Implications Interest in feeding cattle in bedded confinement facilities has grown in part due to increased regulations regarding open feedlot runoff. Work in Iowa has documented that cattle confined in a bedded hoop barn perform similarly to cattle fed in an open feedlot with shelter. The work was done with a stocking density of 50 sq ft per steer in the bedded hoop barn. A hoop barn is a more expensive facility system compared with open lot configurations. Fixed costs (facilities) are partially determined by stocking density. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of increased stocking density on performance and carcass characteristics of steers fed in bedded hoop and bedded open front facilities. The trials were conducted in 2008 and 2009 at the ISU Armstrong Research Farm, Lewis, IA. The hoop barn was stocked with 40, 45, and 50 head per pen resulting in 50, 45, and 40 sq ft per steer, respectively. In the open front cattle feeding facility, pens were constructed to confine the cattle on concrete with bedding. Again the stocking density was 50, 45, and 40 sq ft per steer. In all trials, there was one stocking density per housing type per trial. The diet fed was 45.0% dry corn, 14.8% ground hay, 36.8% modified distillers grains, and 3.4% supplement on an as fed basis. The total diet was approximately 69% dry matter. Because the project is on going, no statistical analysis was performed. However, the cattle performance and carcass characteristics seemed to be similar across all facilities and stocking densities. There may be a trend for slightly less average daily gain for the highest stocking densities (6% less in the hoop and 3% less in the open front). Bunk space may be a factor in cattle performance as well as density. However, without more replications and statistical analysis, no conclusions can be made at this time.