Building a case for greater roughage incorporation

However, a one-size-fits-all recommendation often misses opportunities to improve results. Feeding a diet with slightly reduced energy density by including more roughage may not be as detrimental to cattle performance as often believed. In some instances, increasing the amount of roughage increases net profit.

Reduced risk of digestive upset and improved gut health are the likely drivers behind these responses. Lower-roughage diets should improve gains and feed efficiency, at least in theory. However, to capture that potential performance, every aspect of feeding management must be nearly ideal. Any deviations in mixing procedures, amount of feed offered, or timing of feed delivery or intake increases the likelihood of off-feed events.

Unfortunately, circumstances are rarely perfect in production systems. Equipment failure and workload conflicts may interfere with management plans. Weather events, such as blizzard conditions in the winter or heat waves in the summer, disrupt feeding behavior and increase the odds of erratic feed intake.

In those circumstances, feeding a few extra percentage points of roughage may reduce risk. In South Dakota State University (SDSU) research trials evaluating silage incorporation in finishing diets, doubling the amount of corn silage fed to cattle was less detrimental to output than expected. We think that one reason for that response is maintaining consistency in feed intake, especially as cattle near the end of the feeding period.

Increased roughage reduces risk caused by feed intake disturbances, whether caused by weather or delivery disruptions. For instance, winter snowstorms often cause delays in getting cattle fed. In addition, cattle alter feeding patterns during weather events, such as blizzards or heat waves. If cattle must wait for feed, a typical response would be for them to consume their diet aggressively, opening the door for digestive upsets. Feeding less starch (by increasing fiber from roughage) reduces that risk.

Greater incorporation of roughage may reduce risk of digestive upset and simplify management with minimal efficiency losses.

Cattle feeders who raise their own feed are in a great position to use roughage sources produced on-farm to their advantage. Marketing feeds, such as silage or crop residue, through cattle can increase net farm income. Increasing silage incorporation in SDSU studies resulted in greater beef production per acre of cropland compared to lower-roughage diets.

Choosing a production plan that does not target maximum performance may seem contradictory to commonly accepted practice. However, building in a safety measure in the form of added roughage might improve efficiency when measured across an entire system.

Editor’s note: Warren Rusche is assistant professor and SDSU Extension feedlot management specialist.

Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA, Vol. 17, No. 4-A