|
The Care and Feeding of Bison
By Vern L. Anderson, Carrington
Research Extension Center, North Dakota State University and Dennis
Sexhus, North American Bison Cooperative
Reprinted from Bison World,
volume 22, number 4, Oct./Nov./Dec. 1997, pages 70-71
Summary
The authors of this
article surveyed bison producers who sold bison to the North
American Bison Co-op to determine the common feeding practices of
bison farmers. They also asked the farmers what were their greatest
concerns for the bison industry. The information collected in the
survey is summarized below.
Feeding bison bulls for meat
production is receiving increased emphasis with the formation of the
North American Bison Cooperative. This cooperative operates a
slaughter plant exclusively for bison, with a target market of white
tablecloth restaurants and upscale consumers in the United States
and abroad. The feeding of bison bulls for slaughter at a relatively
young age has not been well studied. Feeders are using experience
and peer communication to develop more efficient rations and feeding
systems. The rapidly developing bison industry may benefit from
research on feeds, feeding systems, and feedlot management. Before
extensive feeding research is undertaken, it would be useful to know
what current practices are being used and what producers consider
the priorities for future work.
Materials and Methods
In an effort to determine
current practices and priorities of bison feeders in the Northern
Plains, all 123 feeders who had delivered bulls to the North
American Bison Cooperative slaughter plant at New Rockford, North
Dakota, in the previous 12 months were sent a survey in December
1995. The survey requested information on the scope and scale of the
operation, facilities available for feeding and care, feeding
methods, concentrate ingredients and amounts used, rations fed,
performance of animals, health management, and concerns for the
feeding enterprise. Producers were asked to list their three
greatest concerns, in order. To summarize and describe the relevant
topics, a point system was used, with three points given for the top
priority, two points for the second priority, and one point for the
third priority.
Survey Results
Twenty-six surveys
representing 1,019 head of feedlot bison were returned and
summarized, a 21 percent response rate. Twenty-three respondents
were owner/operators of bison cow herds and feedlots, two were cow
herd owner/operators only, and one was an absentee owner. Tables 1
and 2 give basic information on the feeding operations.
More bison bulls are purchased for
feeding than are raised on the farm. Pen space varied highly.
Pasture feeding is used by three feeders. Only one-third of feeders
own a scale, which makes it difficult to determine weights for
market selection. All feeders provided bulls some wind protection in
the form of shelterbelts or windfences or both. Just under half of
the feeders provide light, which may be associated with reduced
winter gains due to a strong photoperiod response. Feeding systems
are primarily self-feeders (87.5%), with some producers using
feedbunks (25%), or both systems (12.5%). Drainage appears to be a
problem in some yards, but
most feeders use bedding to provide a dry place for the animals to
rest. Bison feeders deworm bison an average of twice. Fly spraying
is done on 23% of the feedlots and 16% of the animals, but several
respondents indicated the use of predator wasps as an effective
method of fly control.
All feeders offered poor to medium
quality hay in self feeders. The most frequently used concentrate
ingredients are shown in Table 3. Wheat screenings were the most
commonly used feed, followed by corn, barley and oats; however, corn
was used at a lower proportion than other ingredients. Other
ingredients used less frequently include wheat (2 respondents), corn
silage (1), and potato processing waste (1). Two feeders fed their
herds a complete commercial diet. Feed processing was done by
grinding or hammer milling (8) or pelleting (5).
Animal performance was reported by
only 12 of the respondents, who indicated individual bison with an
average daily gain (ADG) of 1.61 pounds. The six screenings-based
diets produced 1.54 pounds ADG, three barley-based diets produced
1.59 pounds ADG, and three completely different diets produced 1.84
pounds ADG. Only four respondents reported carcass data, with too
few numbers to be worth- while. Highly seasonal variation in carcass
traits warrants further investigation.
Topping the list of producer
concerns is feeds and feeding (31 hits out of a total of 67
responses), genetics (9), health (9), marketing (8), facilities (7),
and animal welfare (3). Six major topics were listed under feeds and
feeding, five under genetics, three each in marketing and
facilities, two in the health category, and two in animal welfare.
Table 4 presents the number of hits by subtopic and average score
based on the three-point system described above. Feeds and feeding
dominate the concerns, with rate of gain and feed cost mentioned the
most often. Feed-to-gain ratio and feed source/quality were also of
great concern. Identifying good genetics and deworming were the only
other topics mentioned five or more times. Feed to gain and dry pens
were highest in priority.
Conclusions
The number of respondents
to this survey were limited, so the results must be interpreted with
caution. Most bison feeders are relatively small scale and have
limited facilities. The possibility of combining feedlot operations
should be considered to develop economies of scale that would allow
more timely and precise feedlot management. Research is needed to
determine the optimum or most profitable feeding systems and
rations. Bison feeders are interested in improving on the current
performance of their animals, with priority concerns in feeds and
feeding and genetics. The bison industry has a bright future, but
improvements in the feedlot phase will be needed to improve and
sustain production.
Table 1 Description and
management of Northen Plains bison feedlots
| |
Average |
Standard |
Range |
| |
|
Error* |
|
|
Number of head fed |
42 |
10 |
2-200 |
|
Number of head raised on site |
16 |
4 |
0-100 |
|
Number of head purchased |
26 |
9 |
0-187 |
|
Number of pens |
2.33 |
.5 |
1-13 |
|
Number of head per pen |
18 |
5 |
2-200 |
|
Pen space per animal (sq.ft)** |
2,350 |
518 |
280-9,000 |
|
# of times animals worked/yr |
2.64 |
.3 |
0-6 |
|
# of times animals dewormed/yr |
2 |
.2 |
1-4 |
*Standard error is a measure of
the variability of the response.
**Excludes three respondents who use pasture feeding with 5-40 acre
pastures
Table 2 Northern Plains bison
feedlot enterprise
| |
Percent of feeders
responding |
|
Own a scale |
32 |
|
Have a shelterbelt protection
for feeders |
95 |
|
Have windfence protection for
feeders |
23 |
|
Have lights in feedyard |
49 |
|
Use self feeders |
88 |
|
Use feed bunks |
25 |
|
Consider lots well drained |
50 |
|
Consider lots acceptable |
42 |
|
Consider lots too muddy |
8 |
|
Use bedding for feeder bulls |
68 |
|
Spray premises with
insecticide for flies |
23 |
|
Spray bison with insecticide
for flies |
16 |
Table 3 Ration ingredients used
in bison feedlots
| |
Number of feeders |
Average Usage* |
Range** |
|
Wheat screenings |
14 |
77 |
25-100 |
|
Corn grain |
8 |
5 |
10-75 |
|
Barley |
7 |
61 |
25-100 |
|
Oats |
5 |
43 |
25-67 |
*Average usage of ingredients in
concentrate portion of bison diets.
**Range of ingredients usage in diets, percent
Table 4 Concerns of bison
feeders, by frequency and priority*
| |
Frequency Mentioned (%) |
Avg. Score** |
|
FEED AND FEEDING |
|
|
|
Rate of gain |
39 |
2.00 |
|
Feed cost |
35 |
2.37 |
|
Feed efficiency |
26 |
2.67 |
|
Feed source/quality |
22 |
2.20 |
|
Balancing rations |
9 |
2.50 |
|
GENETICS |
|
|
|
Identifying good genetics |
22 |
2.20 |
|
MARKETING |
|
|
|
Carcass grading system |
17 |
1.50 |
|
Calf prices too high |
13 |
2.33 |
|
FACILITIES |
|
|
|
Pen drainage |
13 |
2.67 |
|
Lot size |
9 |
2.50 |
|
Handling facilities |
9 |
1.50 |
|
HEALTH |
|
|
|
Deworming |
26 |
2.16 |
|
Fly control |
13 |
1.67 |
|
OTHER |
|
|
|
Animal welfare/happiness |
9 |
1.50 |
*Only topics mentioned by more
than one respondent were included in this table.
**Score is averaged from total points awarded on three-point scale.
|