|
Effect of Time of Year on Average
Daily Gain of Feedlot Finished Bison (Bison bison)
Bruce D. Rutley and John S. Church
Abstract
Seasonal effects on the average
daily gain of 275 grain finished bison bulls that entered the Bison
Evaluation Unit (REV) at various dates between the fall of 1992 and
the spring of 1995 were assessed. Average daily gain was higher in
the spring (1.1 ± 0.04 kgd-1) than in the fall (0.706 ±
0.05 kgd-1). In addition, the average daily feed
consumption per animal was greater in the spring (14.30 ± 1.15 kgd-1)
than in the fall (10.64 ± 1.15 kgd-1). A warm-up period
was demonstrated to be beneficial to average daily gain. Bulls that
were not warmed up had an average daily gain of 0.86 ± 0.02 kgd-1.
Bulls that were warmed up for a few days (<50) gained 1.1 ± 0.10
kgd-1, and bulls that were warmed up for more than 50
days had the highest average daily gain (1.5 ± 0.07 kgd-1).
Mixing small groups of bulls from different herds for the purpose of
filling the pen was shown to be detrimental to average daily gain.
Groups of four or more gained significantly more (p<0.05) than
groups of three or less, when mixed in the same pen (0.68 ± 0.03
kgd-1 vs 0.36 ± 0.4 kgd-1). Feed conversions
ranged from 9.9 to 16.6, but there was no statistically significant
difference in total feed conversion between the spring and fall
seasons. These results suggest that there is a slight advantage in
grain finishing bison in feedlot in the spring rather than the fall
season.
Background
The plains bison has been farmed
or ranched since before the turn of the century when
the species was rescued from extinction (Roe 1970; Dary 1974). At
one time, considerable interest was shown in the bison as a species
to hybridize with cattle and Agriculture Canada conducted research
from 1917 until abandoned in 1965 (Peters 1958, 1984).
A resurgence in interest to farm
bison occurred coincidentally with: 1) bioenergetics, metabolism and
digestion studies (Richmond et al 1977; Christopherson et al 1977
& 1978; Schaefer et al 1978; Christopheron et al 1979a & b);
2) demand for lean red meat;
and 3) a search for more suitable forms of northern agriculture.
This renewed interest resulted in considerable growth within the
Canadian bison industry -especially in the Peace Country. In 1985,
three Peace River region commercial herds farmed less than 150 head
compared to 54 producers ranching 8820 head (prior to calving) in
1992, while the Canadian bison herd increased to 18,400 by October
1992 (Rutley 1992c). It has been estimated (Hussey 1991) that if
nothing limits industry expansion that the national herd will be
120,161 by the year 2000.
Industry development has occurred
in absence of applied scientific research. Bison research within the
park herds has been ecological and zoological in scope (McHugh 1958;
Roe 1970; Meagher 1978; Telfer and Carins 1979; Reynolds et al 1982;
Hawley 1987; Reynolds and Hawley 1987; Hawley 1989; Meagher 1989)
and provides little suitable data for current specific industry
development questions related to finishing market
bulls. The techniques that have enabled the bison industry's
expansion were developed on an individual, ad hoc basis and are
described in publications of the American Bison Association (1993)
and the National Buffalo Association ( Dowling 1990).
Limited empirical data is
available for the commercial bison producer finishing bison
for slaughter, however the commercial bison industry has been
routinely finishing bison for
regional, national and international markets. Gain of feedlot
finished bison bulls in the scientific literature is limited to: 1.4
lbs. and 1.l lbs. per day for males and females, respectively
(Peters 1958) and 0.76 kgd-1 (Koch et al. 1988). Hawley
(1986) reported slaughter characteristics for 6- 2.5-year-old bison
steers, but not ADG during the 78-day finishing period. Expected
gain and finishing rations have also been published in the bison
industry publications (Dowling 1990, American Bison Association
1993) and by Rutley (1992a). Reports from scientific studies of
grain finishing of bison bulls as practiced by the members of the
Peace Country Bison Association (PCBA) do not appear in the
literature.
Recent developments in the
marketing of bison meat has resulted in demand exceeding
supply. These market developments have occurred coincidentally with forwarding young bulls to the prime
meat market, grain finishing and utilization of the newly developed
Canadian Bison Grading System (Rutley 1992b). Therefore, the need
for research into finishing of bison bulls was identified as a
priority of the PCBA.
Observations made by PCBA members
and preliminary research conducted at the Centre for Agricultural
Diversification indicated that bison bulls were gaining at different
rates depending on time of year started on grain finishing (Rutley,
unpublished data).
Bulls started on grain finishing
between mid February and mid October gained at a faster rate and the
cost of production was half that of bulls started on grain finishing
between mid October and mid February. This data was collected from
bulls that were not part of a formal
controlled study. However, a reduction in metabolic rate in bison
under cold temperatures as described by Christopherson et at (1978,
1979b) may provide one possible explanation for a potential seasonal
effect on average daily gain.
Implications on industry
development were considered sufficient to warrant a study
on the effect of time of year on average daily gain of feedlot
finished bison. Quantifying any differences will enable producers to
plan management programs economically.
Introduction
Grain finishing of bison in the
Peace Country involves placing groups of young bulls (18 to 30
months of age) into a restricted area (feedlot or fieldlot) where
they have access to grain and dried forage free choice. Grain fed
consists (primarily) of whole oats, whole oats and barley in
combination at 75%-25% or 50%-50%. Dried forage consists of fescue,
barley or wheat straw and occasionally good quality grass hay.
Prior to 1992, very few producers
finishing bison bulls had or used weigh scales, therefore rate of
gain in the feedlot was unquantified. Rutley (1992a) reported gain
between 0.56 and 1.04 kgd-1in four groups of bulls.
Individual average daily gain ranged between 0.45 and 1.09 kgd-1
over a 180-day feeding period with interval gains ranging from 0.15
to 2.38 kgd-1. ADG of bulls based on month of entry were:
0.68 kgd-1 (January); 0.59 kgd-1 (February)
and 1.02 kgd-1 (March).
Development of a steady meat
supply to fill the increased demand for bison meat is required.
Having identified differences in rate and cost of gain by season,
there was a subsequent need to
quantify those differences to determine if any modification to the present system of placing bulls on
feed as they reach a given age/weight is required. Therefore,
the goals of this research were to:
1. determine the effect of time of
year on average daily gain of feedlot finished bison;
2. determine if the effect is repeatable (i.e. repeat study a second
year);
3. calculate the differences in cost of production associated with
season; and
4. if differences are substantial, calculate the cost to the
industry and recommend changes.
Methods
In cooperation with PCBA members,
bison bulls between 18 and 30 months of age and over 350 kg entered
the Bison Evaluation Unit (BEU) at the Center for Agricultural
Diversification. Two hundred and seventy-five bulls from
approximately twenty separate herds entered the BEU between the fall
of 1992 and the spring of 1995 so that average daily gain during
grain finishing could be evaluated. The bulls were weighed at entry,
and if necessary, they were retagged, dehorned with a veterinary
dehorning saw and given an injection of ivermectin at cattle dosage
rate and placed into one of two groups of approximately 20 bulls.
Bison would have free choice
access to a standard ration of rolled and blended oats
and barley (50:50 or 75:25), good quality fescue or barley straw,
cattle mineral and water. The
composition of both the 50:50 and the 75:25 ration are outlined in
table 1.
Grain was fed in a portable bison
grain self feeder, hay available from a tombstone style round
bale feeder, mineral available in tubs mounted on the end of the
grain feeder and city water
available from waterers (hog style).
Table 1: Composition of 50:50 and 75:25
ration as feed
| |
50:50 ration |
75.25 ration |
| Moisture % |
12.6 |
16.3 |
| Crude Protein % |
10.1 |
9.3 |
| Calcium % |
0.10 |
0.08 |
| Phosphorus % |
0.31 |
0.28 |
| Potassium % |
0.38 |
0.38 |
| Magnesium % |
0.10 |
0.10 |
| Sodium % |
0.03 |
0.01 |
| Salt % |
0.07 |
0.03 |
Bulls were housed in four large
pens with packed sandstone shale for footing.
Dividers between the pens
were either planks or wire fence with plywood hung as a visual
barrier. No additional shelter was provided. The pens are located
adjacent to the Canadian National spur line
into Dawson Creek.
Bulls were placed on a
formal 90-day feeding period that would commence in November
1992, June 1993, November 1993 and June 1994. Bulls were supplied by members of the PCBA who retained ownership of the
animals throughout the trial. At the end of
the 90 day feeding period, the owners were free to market their
bulls as their markets demanded. Bulls were
placed into pens which served as replicates. Essentially, two
experiments were conducted in total, in successive years (table 2
and table 3). Two different rations were used
between years. Furthermore, the average daily gain in four additional
pens that were observed for a longer duration was also compared
(table 4).
Table 2: Experiment 1 (Fall 1992 – Spring
1993)
|
Season
|
Trial Start Date |
Pen (Replicate) |
n
|
Ration
|
|Forage
|
| Fall 1992 |
12/9/92 |
1 |
28 |
75:25 |
Fescue Straw |
| |
12/3/92 |
2 |
15 |
75:25 |
Fescue Straw |
| Spring 1993 |
6/29/93 |
1 |
24 |
75:25 |
Fescue Straw |
| |
6/7/93 |
2 |
15 |
75:25 |
Fescue Straw |
Table 3: Experiment 2 (Fall 1993 – Spring
1994)
|
Season
|
Trial Start Date |
Pen (Replicate) |
n
|
Ration
|
Forage
|
| Fall 1993 |
12/22/93 |
1 |
11 |
50:50 |
Barley Straw |
| |
12/22/93 |
2 |
23 |
50:50 |
Barley Straw |
| Spring 1994 |
6/6/94 |
1 |
19 |
50:50 |
Barley Straw |
| |
6/6/94 |
2 |
21 |
50:50 |
Barley Straw |
Table 4: Additional groups observed
|
Season
|
Trial Start Date |
Group
|
Pen
|
Ration
|
Forage
|
| Fall 1994 |
11/24/94 |
P1 |
Field |
Oats |
Grass hay |
| |
11/24/94 |
P2 |
Field |
Oats |
Grass hay |
| |
8/21/94 |
NT |
1 |
Start on Oats, then 75:25, then 50:50 |
Grass hay |
| Winter 1995 |
2/1/95 |
M |
2 |
Start on Oats, then 75:25, then 50:50 |
Grass hay |
Handling facilities
consisted of a half-circle tub complete with three boxes, palpation
cage and bison squeeze (Hi-Hog Farm and Ranch Equipment Ltd.). Body weight was collected from a Senstek D-2000 electronic
scale placed under the first box (Year 1) or
in the half circle tub (Year 2). Neither feed or water was withheld
prior to weighing.
Calculations
All data and calculations
for ADG, grain, forage and mineral consumed are based on
the 90 day feeding period, unless otherwise stated. No attempt was
made to quantify water intake.
A. Average Daily Gain:
average daily gain is determined by the difference between current
weight and previous weight divided by the number of days in that
interval. Bulls were to be weighed on entry,
at Day 0 if different than entry, at Day45 and Day 90. The results
are presented as individual average daily gain from Day 0 to Day 45
(ADGSM: Average daily gain.start-middle), Day
45 to Day 90 (ADGME: Average daily gain.middle-end) and Day 0 to Day
90 (ADGSE: Average daily gain. start-end) for experiments 1 and 2.
Groups described in table 4 did not have a mid period weight,
therefore ADG was determined as current weight less start weight
divided by the number of days in that interval.
B. Average Daily Grain
Consumption: grain self feeders were routinely weighed prior
to entry and on exit from feedlot pens using commercial scales
available at the adjacent South Peace Seed
Cleaning Plant (SPSCP). Grain consumption was determined by
difference. Average daily grain consumption was determined as the
total grain consumed divided by number of days
between weighings. Average daily grain consumed on
an individual basis was determined by dividing the average daily
grain consumed (by the group) by the number of head within the
group. If bulls were removed from the group between
weighings, average daily grain consumed per day was calculated by
using the number of "bull days".
This results in an average per head consumption and assumes equal
intake.
C. Average Daily Forage
Consumption: since forage was available for consumption from
round bale feeders and there would be no accounting of daily waste,
ADFI is more adequately described as Average
Daily Forage Used. Sample bales from each lot were weighed
at the SPSCP commercial scale to provide an average weight. ADFI was calculated as the total kg forage fed between two
given dates, divided by the number of bull
days. This results in an average per head consumption assuming equal
intake.
D. Average Daily Mineral
Consumption: calculated as mineral consumed between two
given dates divided by the number of bull days. This results in an
average per head consumption and assumes equal
intake.
E. Average Daily Total
Combined Feed Intake: calculated as the total of average daily
grain consumption and average daily forage consumption.
F. Feed Conversion: total
grain feed conversion was calculated as total average daily grain
divided by total average daily gain, total forage feed conversion
was calculated as total average daily forage
divided by total average daily gain and total combined feed conversion
was calculated as total average daily forage and total average daily
grain divided by the total average daily gain.
Data was compiled and
entered into a computer based record system (MSWorks), edited
for completeness and verified for accuracy (MS Excel) by reconciling
raw and entered data. Statistical analyses
were conducted using the repeated measures analysis of variance
option of Abacus Concepts, SuperANOVA (Abacus concepts, Inc.,
Berkely, CA, 1989). Season, Pen, and Year were entered as
independent variables into the general linear
model, with initial body weight entered as a covariate. In most
analyses, individual animal was the
experimental unit. In analyses which involved either consumption or conversion, the individual pen served as the
experimental unit as grain, forage and mineral were measured on a
per pen basis.
Results
Feed Intake
The total amount of grain
consumed, forage consumed and mineral consumed per pen
is outlined in table 5. In general, there appears to be a trend
towards higher total consumption of grain in
the spring than in the fall on a pen basis. Because there are different numbers of animals in the individual pens;
however it is more appropriate to look at the consumption on an
average per animal basis (table 6) in order to determine true
differences.
The average daily grain
consumption/animal, average daily forage consumption/animal, average
daily mineral consumption/animal and the average daily total
combined feed consumption/animal for animals on the 90-day
trials is shown in table 6. Bison tended to
consume more total feed in the spring than in the fall. In the spring of 1993 bison consumed 16.0- 16.4 kg of total
feed per animal daily, compared to 7.2- 10.0
kg of total feed per animal daily in the fall of 1992. In 1994 bison
consumed 12.4- 14.1 kg of total feed per
animal daily compared to 11.5 -13.9 kg of total feed per animal
daily in the fall of 1993. Bison consumed more mineral daily (0.04-
0.06 kg) in the spring than in the fall (0.02- 0.03kg).
While there is a trend
towards increased grain and forage consumption in spring opposed
to fall, neither average daily grain consumption/animal or the
average daily forage consumption/animal was
significantly different between seasons (table 7a, table
7b). However, the average daily combined feed consumption/animal
(average daily grain consumption/animal +
average daily forage consumption / animal) was significantly
greater (p <05) in the spring than in the fall season (table 7c,
figure 1).
The total grain feed
conversion, total forage feed conversion and total combined feed conversion is shown in table 8. The total
grain feed conversion per pen is similar between
pens and between seasons. The total grain feed conversion per pen
ranges from 7.2 to 10.8. The total forage feed
conversion per pen and the total combined feed conversion
per pen had a much broader range, from 2.1 to 13.6 and 9.9 to 22.5 respectively.
There were no statistically
significant differences (p<0.05) in the grain feed conversion
(table 9a), in the forage conversion (table 9b), or the total feed
conversion (table 9c).
Average Daily Gain
The average daily gain for
each group (by pen) is outlined in figure 2. In experiment
1 and 2, ADG ranged from 0.92- 1.68 kgd-1 in the spring
compared with 0.58-0.87 kgd-1 in the fall.
Average daily gain was
significantly greater (p<0.05) in the spring than in the fall during both experiment 1 (Fal11992 -Spring 1993) and
experiment 2 (Fal11993 -Spring 1994) (figure 3). Average daily gain
for bison in the spring was 1.13 ±0.04 kgd-1 while
in the fall the average daily gain was 0.71 ± 0.05 kgd-1
One pen had a higher ADG
than any of the other pens (1.68 kgd-1, Spring 1993, Pen 2). This group had a longer warm-up period (117
days) compared to all other groups. Although
this group also consumed more grain (11.8 kgd-1, table 7)
than all other groups, this group still had
the lowest feed conversion ratio (9.9, table 6).
Table 5: Total average daily gain (kg),
total weight gain (kg) and total feed consumed (kg) per pen.
|
Year |
Season |
Pen |
Ra-
tion |
Days |
# of Bulls |
Total ADG |
Weight Gain/
pen |
Grain Con-
sumed |
Forage Con-
sumed |
Mineral Con-
sumed |
|
1992 |
Fall |
1 |
A |
90 |
28 |
0.87 |
2154.5 |
18673.2 |
6414.8 |
59.4 |
|
1992 |
Fall |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
0.59 |
815.59 |
8059.5 |
1741.5 |
31.2 |
|
1993 |
Spring |
1* |
A |
90 |
24 |
1.01 |
1625.28 |
17433.5 |
8608.5 |
91.2 |
|
1993 |
Spring |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
1.68 |
2229.7 |
15957.3 |
6127.8 |
59.8 |
|
1993 |
Fall |
1 |
B |
90 |
11 |
0.77 |
770.3 |
5500.0 |
5852.0 |
24.4 |
|
1993 |
Fall |
2 |
B |
90 |
23 |
0.58 |
1726.0 |
18673.2 |
10048.6 |
52.4 |
|
1994 |
Spring |
1 |
B |
90 |
19 |
0.92 |
1479.4 |
14462.8 |
6716.5 |
72.6 |
|
1994 |
Spring |
2 |
B |
90 |
21 |
0.95 |
1704.6 |
17469.9 |
9271.5 |
119.1 |
|
1995 |
Winter |
Field |
D |
40-77 |
21 |
0.60 |
1511.8 |
11510.8 |
15799.0 |
71.3 |
|
1994 |
Fall |
1 |
C |
133 |
25 |
0.58 |
1930.1 |
17178.8 |
26194.0 |
67.6 |
|
1994 |
Fall |
2 |
C |
150 |
51 |
0.64 |
4863.0 |
34926.0 |
39634.3 |
129.8 |
|
1994 |
Fall |
Field |
D |
133 |
28 |
0.60 |
2341.2 |
14473.6 |
20476.8 |
76.5 |
Ration: A=75:25 oats:barley blended &
rolled + Fescue Straw
B=50:50 oats:barley blended & rolled + Barley Straw
C=Oats + Grass Hay
D=Start on Oats, then 75:25, then 50:50 + Grass Hay
*:some animals removed from trial early for marketing purposes
The total amount of grain consumed, forage
consumed and mineral consumed per pen.
Table 6: Total average daily gain (kg) and
average daily grain consumed (kg), average daily forage consumed
(kg), average daily mineral consumed (kg) and average daily combined
feed consumed (kg) per animal.
Year |
Season
|
Pen
|
Ration |
Days |
# of Bulls |
Total ADG |
Avg. Daily Grain |
Avg. Daily Forage |
Avg. Daily Mineral |
Avg. Daily Total Feed |
| 1992 |
Fall |
1 |
A |
90 |
28 |
0.87 |
7.4 |
2.5 |
0.02 |
10.0 |
| 1992 |
Fall |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
0.59 |
6.0 |
1.3 |
0.02 |
7.2 |
| 1993 |
Spring |
1* |
A |
90 |
24 |
1.01 |
8.1 |
3.9 |
0.04 |
16.0 |
| 1993 |
Spring |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
1.68 |
11.8 |
4.5 |
0.04 |
16.4 |
| 1993 |
Fall |
1 |
B |
90 |
11 |
0.77 |
5.6 |
5.9 |
0.03 |
11.5 |
| 1993 |
Fall |
2 |
B |
90 |
23 |
0.58 |
9.0 |
4.9 |
0.03 |
13.9 |
| 1994 |
Spring |
1 |
B |
90 |
19 |
0.92 |
8.5 |
3.9 |
0.04 |
12.4 |
| 1994 |
Spring |
2 |
B |
90 |
21 |
0.95 |
9.2 |
4.9 |
0.06 |
14.1 |
Ration: A=75:25 oats:barley blended &
rolled + Fescue Straw
B=50:50 oats:barley blended & rolled + Barley Straw
*:some animals removed from trial early for marketing purposes
Bison tended to consume more total feed in
the spring than in the fall. In the spring of 1993 bison consumed
16.0 – 16.4 kg. of total feed per animal daily, compared to 7.2
– 10.0 kg. of total feed per animal daily in the fall of 1992. In
1994, bison consumed 12.4 – 14.1 kg. of total feed per animal
daily compared to 11.5 – 13.9 kg. of total feed per animal daily
in the fall of 1993. Bison consumed more mineral daily (0.04 –
0.06 kg) in the spring than in the fall (0.02 – 0.03 kg.) There
does appear to be higher average daily grain and forage consumption
in the spring than in the fall. However, these trends are not
significantly different (p<05), but the difference becomes
significant when the two are combined.
Table 7a. Average daily grain consumed (kg)
per animal by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
6.989 |
1.570 |
.785 |
| Spring |
4 |
9.405 |
1.679 |
.840 |
Table 7b. Average daily forage consumed
(kg) per animal by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
3.650 |
2.110 |
1.055 |
| Spring |
4 |
4.318 |
.490 |
.245 |
Table 7c. Average daily combined feed
consumed (kg) per animal by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
10.639 |
2.771 |
1.386 |
| Spring |
4 |
14.723 |
1.835 |
.917 |

Table 8: Total average daily gain (kg) and total grain conversion
(kg), total forage
| Year |
Season |
Pen |
Ration |
Days |
# of Bulls |
Total ADG |
Total Grain Feed Conv. |
Total Forage Feed Conv. |
Total Combined Feed Conv |
| 1992 |
Fall |
1 |
A |
90 |
28 |
0.87 |
8.7 |
3.0 |
11.7 |
| 1992 |
Fall |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
0.59 |
9.9 |
2.1 |
12.0 |
| 1993 |
Spring |
1* |
A |
90 |
24 |
1.01 |
10.7 |
5.3 |
16.0 |
| 1993 |
Spring |
2 |
A |
90 |
15 |
1.68 |
5.7 |
2.7 |
9.9 |
| 1993 |
Fall |
1 |
B |
90 |
11 |
0.77 |
6.4 |
7.6 |
14.7 |
| 1993 |
Fall |
2 |
B |
90 |
23 |
0.58 |
10.8 |
5.8 |
16.6 |
| 1994 |
Spring |
1 |
B |
90 |
19 |
0.92 |
9.8 |
4.5 |
14.3 |
| 1994 |
Spring |
2 |
B |
90 |
21 |
0.95 |
10.2 |
5.4 |
15.7 |
| 1995 |
Winter |
Field |
D |
40-77 |
21 |
0.60 |
7.6 |
10.5 |
18.0 |
| 1994 |
Fall |
1 |
C |
133 |
25 |
0.58 |
8.9 |
13.6 |
22.5 |
| 1994 |
Fall |
2 |
C |
150 |
51 |
0.64 |
7.2 |
8.2 |
15.3 |
| 1994 |
Fall |
Field |
D |
133 |
28 |
0.60 |
8.7 |
6.2 |
14.9 |
Ration: A=75:25 oats:barley blended & rolled + Fescue Straw
B=50:50 oats:barley blended & rolled + Barley Straw
C=Oats + Grass Hay
D=Start on Oats, then 75:25, then 50:50 + Grass Hay
*:some animals removed from trial early for marketing purposes
The total grain feed conversion per pen is similar between pens
and between seasons. The total grain feed conversion per pen ranges
from 7.2 to 10.8. The total forage feed conversion per pen and the
total combined feed conversion per pen had a much broader range,
from 2.1 to 13.6 and 9.9 to 22.5 respectively.
Table 9a. Means of total grain feed conversion (kg) by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
8.920 |
1.929 |
.965 |
| Spring |
4 |
9.094 |
2.327 |
1.163 |
Table 9b. Means of total forage feed conversion (kg) by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
4.633 |
2.529 |
1.264 |
| Spring |
4 |
4.507 |
1.237 |
.619 |
Table 9c. Means of total combined feed conversion (kg) by season.
| |
Count |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Std. Error |
| Fall |
4 |
13.760 |
2.364 |
1.182 |
| Spring |
4 |
13.977 |
2.812 |
1.406 |
None of the means in the above tables are significantly different
(p<0.05). The total grain feed conversion (table 9a), total
forage feed conversion (table 9b), and the total combined feed
conversion (table 9c) are very similar between the fall and spring
season.
Average daily gain was higher in
experiment 1 when animals were fed a 75:25 ration
with fescue straw compared to the following year when animals were
fed a 50:50 ration with barley
straw (figure 4). A 75:25 oats-barley ration and fescue straw may be more beneficial than a 50:50 ration
and barley straw. Bulls on the 75:25 ration and fescue straw
gained more (1.1 ± 0.04 kgd-1 than bulls on the 50:50
ration and barley straw (0.78
± 0.05 kgd-1). However caution must be used in
interpreting these numbers as the rations
were fed in different years (experiment 1 and experiment 2) and may
potentially be confounded by year .Further study is required to
determine the effects of ration on average
daily gain.
The ADG of one pen in the winter
(Winter 1995, Field) was not significantly different
from the ADG of the fall pens. This pen was composed of animals from
many different herds and had different animals moving in and out of
the pen at different times.
ADG of this pen is consistent with
our previous unpublished observations.
In experiment 1, there was a
significant pen by season interaction. Animals in Pen 2
gained significantly more (p<0.05) in the spring than in the
fall, but there was no difference
between the average daily gain in Pen 1 in the spring versus the
fall (figure 5).
A similar interaction occurred
during experiment 2, where animals in the spring gained significantly
more during the first 45 days of the trial (ADGSM - 1.2 ± 0.06 kgd-1
vs 0.6 ±0.07 kgd-1) than in the fall. During the next 45
days, the ADG was not significantly different
between animals in the spring and the fall (ADGME - 0.64 ± 0.06 vs
0.86 ± 0.06kgd-1. Overall: ADG was greater in the spring
than in the fall season (ADGSE - 0.94 ±0.04 vs 0.77 ± 0.05 kgd-1)
(figure 6). One potential explanation for this finding is that the
animals in one pen (Pen 2) gained significantly more during Day 0 to
Day 45 (ADGSM) than the animals in the other pen (pen 1) (figure 7).
In experiment 2, animals in Pen 2 gained significantly more during
the first 45 days of the trial (ADGSM - 1.1 kg vs 0.75 kgd-1)
than Pen 1, during the next 45 days the ADG was reversed with
animals in Pen 1 gaining more than the animals in Pen 2 (ADGME -
0.90 ± 0.03 vs 0.60 ± 0.03 kgd-1. There was no
significant difference in the ADG in the two pens overall (ADGSE -
0.8 ± 0.06 kgd-1).
A warm-up period was shown to be
beneficial to average daily gain (figure 8). Bulls
were placed in one of four classes depending on how long they were
warmed up prior to Day 0 of
the feedlot trial. Bulls that received no warm-up gained the least
(0.86 ± 0.02 kgd-1),
bulls that were held between 6-20 and 20-50 days gained moderately
more (1.1 ± 0.10 kgd-1),
and bulls that were held and fed a warm-up ration for more than 50 days had the greatest average daily
gain (1.5 ± 0.07 kgd-1).
Mixing small groups of bulls for
the purpose of filling the pen was shown to be detrimental
to average daily gain. The data were edited and records were
excluded from the analysis if
the pen consisted of bulls from one producer only because they were confounded with season; therefore,
only pens with bulls from more than one producer were
included in this analysis. Bulls within a pen, that were in a group
consisting of four or more
bulls from the same producer, gained significantly more (p <0.05)
than bulls that were within a
group from the same producer that was less than or equal to three
bulls in size (0.68 ± 0.03
kgd-1 vs 0.36 ± 0.4 kgd-1) (table 9).
Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

Discussion
While the popularity of bison meat
with consumers, the number of bison on farms and
the number of new bison farms starting up all continue to increase
rapidly, there are surprisingly
few studies in recent years regarding bison performance under either
intensive farm or more extensive ranch conditions. This study has
demonstrated that the effect of season is important when feedlot
finishing young bison bulls on grain rations.
When bison are grain finished
during the spring season as opposed to the fall season
their ADG was significantly greater. This finding supports work done
by Christopherson et al.
(1977, 1979a, 1979b) that demonstrated that there is a seasonal effect on metabolic rate of bison.
There may be some advantage gained by grain finishing bison
in the spring as opposed to the fall season. However, the fact that
the feed conversion ratio
(grain, forage or combined) is nearly identical between seasons does serve to diminish the impact of the
seasonal effect. The total feed conversion ratios and ADG
in this study were similar to Rutley and Church (1995) and a smaller
previous study (Koch et al.
1988) which compared the growth of 10 bison with 12 Hereford and 10 Brahman cattle (bison: 8.2 FCR food
conversion ratio, 0.76 ADG kgd-1). While the feed conversion
ratio is higher in Koch et al (1988), they were fed a considerably
different ration (66% maize
silage, 22% maize and 12% soybean + mineral supplement). Rutley (1992a) reported grain conversions
ranging from 7.78 to 13.42 for four groups of bison bulls
fed equivalent rations to experiment 1.
Results from this study tend to
contradict the finding that there may be a benefit in feeding a diet
with slightly higher protein in the ration. However caution must be
used when interpreting this
data. While the ADG was higher in bison fed the 75:25 ration with fescue straw compared to bison fed
the 50:50 ration and barley straw, the diets were fed in successive
years, not concurrent years, and may potentially be confounded. What
this data does demonstrate, is that more research is warranted to
determine the effects of protein
supplementation on the ADG of feedlot finished bison.
Bison tended to gain more in the
spring, but they also had a higher average daily feed
consumption, resulting in similar feed conversion ratios between
seasons. Similar feed conversion between seasons contradicts the
findings of Stanton et al (1995) in-groups of fed yearling bison
bulls. Whether location (Colorado), ration (corn, cottonseed meal),
age (yearling vs two year olds ), frequency of handling or some
other unidentified factor could explain this difference is unknown.
Further research would seem appropriate.
Since bison had a higher ADG in
the spring compared to the fall season, this would, reduce the
amount of time that the animals would have to spend in the feedlot,
and would subsequently reduce cost of production (Hussey 1995).
Warm-up was demonstrated to be
beneficial to ADG, suggesting that bison habituate
to their surroundings and that it allows the rumen microorganisms
time to adjust to grain as a
source of nutrients. This data also suggests that the practice of
slowly increasing the grain
content of the ration may be of benefit. Even though bison can be placed on full feed directly with a
minimum of problems, it doesn't necessarily mean placing
bison on feed directly is optimal.
When bison bulls are mixed upon
entering the feedlot for the purpose of filling the pen, it is
beneficial to keep the number of head from the herd of origin as
large as possible. Even a group size of four is preferable to a
group size of three or less. Mixing unfamiliar animals is the major
cause of dark cutting beef (DCB) in cattle. Mixing promotes
homosexual and agonistic or aggressive behaviour, particularly in
young bulls (Warris et al. 1984, Warris 1990). Handling practices
which encourage mixing; therefore, increased the incidence of DCB,
lower performance and increase stress (Jones and Tong 1989, Mench et
al. 1990, Mohan et al. 1991, 1992). Although dark cutting does not
appear to be a problem with bison (Rutley, unpublished data), mixing
of unfamiliar bison bulls should be avoided as much as possible to
reduce loss of ADG.
The second order interactions
discovered between season and pen with regards to ADG
in both experiment 1 and 2 suggest that the ADG of bison is
sensitive and quite variable.
These results suggest that efforts should be made to standardize
facility and handling
procedures with bison as much as possible to promote familiarity and
consistent ADG.
Implications
Bison gain more when started on
grain finishing in the spring compared to fall, but they also had
higher average daily feed consumption. The resulting similar feed conversion ratios between seasons
imply that there are no appreciable losses associated with
lower winter feed conversions, which is a clear advantage for the
bison industry .
Since bison have a higher ADG in
the spring compared to the fall season, there would be a reduction
in the amount of time that animals would have to spend in the
feedlot in the Spring.
There is a benefit to a warm-up
period prior to grain finishing. Even a period of six
days was more beneficial compared to no warm-up.
When bison bulls are mixed upon
entering the feedlot for the purposes of filling the pens, it is
beneficial to keep the number of head from the herd of origin as
large as possible. Even a
group size of four is preferable to a group size of three or less.
References
American Bison Association.
1993. Bison Breeders Handbook. 3rd Edition. American Bison
Association, Publisher.
Christopherson, RJ., R W. Gonyou,
and J.R Thompson. 1979a.
Effects of Temperature and Feed Intake on Plasma Concentration of
Thyroid Hormones in Beef Cattle. CaR J. Anim. Sci. 59:655-661.
Christopherson, RJ., RJ. Hudson
and MK Christophersen.
1979b. Seasonal Energy Expenditures and thermoregulatory responses
ofbison and cattle. CaR J: Anim. Sci. 59: 611-617.
Christopherson, RJ ., RJ. Hudson
and RJ. Richmond. 1977.
Feed Intake, Metabolism and Thermal Insulation of Bison, Yak,
Scottish Highland and Hereford Calves During Winter. 55th Annual
Feeders Day Report, University of Alberta, Dept of Anim. Sci.,
55:51-52.
Christopherson, RJ ., RJ. Hudson
and RJ. Richmond 1978.
Comparative Winter Bioenergetics of American Bison, Yak, Scottish
Highland and Hereford Calves. Acta Theriologica Vo123, 2: 49-54.
Dary , D.
1974. The Buffalo Book: the final saga of the American animal Sage
Books.
Dowling, K
Editor. 1990. Buffalo Producer's Guide to Management and Marketing. National
Buffalo Association. RR Donnelley & Sons Company, Chicago.
Hawley, A W.L.
1986. Carcass characteristic of Bison (Bison bison) steers. CaR J.
Anim. Sci. 66: 293 -295
Hawley, A.W.L.
1987. Bison and cattle use of forages. pp 49-52. IN: Bison Ecology
in relation to agricultural development in the Slave River Lowlands.
N. W. T. (R W. Reynolds and A W .L. Hawley eds ) Occasional
Paper, No.63 Ca. Wildl. Ser. 74 pp. .
Hawley, A W.L.
1989. Bison Farming in North America. pp 346-361. IN: Wildlife
Production Systems: economic utilization of wild ungulates. Hudson,
RJ., KR Drew and L.M Baskin, Editors. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK
Hussey, G.
1991. Marketing Strategy for the Peace Country Bison Association.
Unpublished Report for the Peace Country Bison Association.
Hussey, G.
1995. Economics of Bison Production Practices in the Peace Country.
Report to the Peace Country Bison Association, November 1995.
Jones, S. D. M. and A K W. Tong.
1989. Factors influencing the commercial incidence of dark cutting
beef. CaR J. Anim. Sci. 69: 649-654.
Koch, R M, J. D. Crouse and S. C.
Seideman. 1988. Bison,
Hereford and Brahman growth and carcass characteristics. Beef
Research Progress Report, Roman L. Hruska, US Meat Animal Research
Center.
McHugh, T.
1958. Social Behaviour of the American Buffalo (Bison bison).
Zoologica 43: 1-40.
Meagher, M
1978. Bison. pp 123-133. IN: Big game of North America: ecology and
management. J.L.
Schmidt and D .L. Gilbert
eds. Stackpo1e Books, Harrisburg PA Meagher, M 1989. Range Expansion
by Bison of Yellowstone National Park. J. Mamm., 70(3):670-675.
Mench, J. A., J. C. Swanson and W.
R Strickling. 1990. Social
stress and dominance among group members after mixing beef cows.
Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 345-354.
Mohan Raj, A B., B. W. Moss, W. J.
McCaughey, W. McLauchlan, D. J. Kilpatrick and S. J. McGaughey.1991.
Behavioural response to mixing of entire bulls, vasectomised bulls
and steers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 31: 3-4.
Mohan Raj, A. B., B. W. Moss, D. A
Rice, D. J. Kilpatrick, W. J. McCaughey and W. McLaughlan.
1991. Effect of mixing male sex types of cattle on their meat
quality and stress related parameters. Meat Sci. 32: 367-386.
Peters, H.F.
1958. A Feedlot Study of Bison, Cattalo and Hereford Calves. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 38:87-90.
Peters, H.F.
1984. American bison, and bison-cattle hybrids. pp 46-49 IN:
Evolution of Domesticated Animals. Ian L. Mason, Ed. London:Longman.
Reynolds, H. W., RD. Glaholt, and
A W.L.Hawley. 1982. Bison,
Chapter 49. In: Wild Mammals of North. America. Biology. Management
Economics.
J.A Chapman and G.A. Feldharner
eds. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. pages 972-1007.
Reynolds, H. W .and A W. Hawley
.1987. Bison Ecology in Relation to Agricultural Development in the
Slave River Lowlands, N. W. T. Canadian Wildlife Service occasional
Paper No.63 .
Richmond, RJ., RJ. Hudson and RJ.
Christopherson. 1977.
Comparison of forage intake and digestibility by American bison, yak
and cattle. Acta. Theriol. 22:225-230.
Roe, F.G.
1970. The North American buffalo: A critical study of the species in
its wild state. 2nd ed. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, 957
pp.
Rutley, B. D.
1992a. Average Daily Gains of Feedlot Finished Plains Bison. Center
for Agricultural Diversification Bison Bulletin, BB92.1, January
1992.
Rutley , B. D.
1992b. Canadian Bison Association' s proposed Bison Grading System.
Center for Agricultural Diversification Bison Bulletin, BB92.3, June
1992.
Rutley, B.D.
1992c. Research Needs of the Game Farm Industry: BISON. Unpublished
report to Fundy Engineering & Consulting Ltd. November 1992.
Rutley, B.D. and J.S. Church.
1995. Feed-Weigh Station as a Method of Grain Finishing Bison (Bison
bison) Bulls. Report to the Peace Country Bison Association,
November 1995.
Schaefer, AL., B.A Young and AM.
Chimwano. 1978. Ration
Digestion and retention times of digesta in domestic cattle (Bos
taurus), American bison (Bison bison), and Tibetan yak (Bos
grunniens). Can. J. Zool. 56:2355-2358.
Stanton, T.L., D. Schutz, W.
McFarlane, R Seedig and D. Stewart.
1995. A Study of Bison Finishing Rations at Four Energy of
Concentrate Levels. Bison World, January February 1995, p 20.
Telfer, E.S. and A. Cairns.
1979. Bison-wapiti interrelationships in Elk Island National Park,
Alberta. pp 114-121. IN: North American Elk: Ecology. Behaviour and
Management. MS. Boyce and L.D. Hayden-Wing, eds. University of
Wyoming Press.
Warris, P. D., S. C. Kestin, S. N.
Brown and L. I. Wilkins.
1984. The time required for recovery from mixing stress in young
bulls and the prevention of dark cutting beef. Meat Sci. 10: 53-68.
Warris, P. D.
1990 .The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on
carcass and meat quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 28: 1-2.
|