On-farm beef cattle feeding trial using soyhulls

Four dietary treatments: Tr 1- 0 percent soyhull (farm forumula concentrate), Tr 2- 0 percent soyhul (experiment control), Tr 3- concentrate with 20 percent soyhull, and Tr 4- concentrate with 40 percent soyhull were fed to 24 Australian beef cattle (ave. weight = 321 kg) in a 90-day feeding trial to compare the effect of soyhulls on growth, as well as feed conversion and cost efficiencies. The animals were housed in individual feeding stalls and randomly assigned to the four treatments with six replicates. The concentrate mixture in Tr 1 had 3.0 mcal digestible energy (DE)/kg and 13 percent crude protein (CP) while in Tr 2,3 and 4, 3.2 mcal DE/kg and 14 percent CP. The amount of corn, 37 percent in 0 percent soyhull (SH) decreased to 26 percent in 20 percent SH and 15 percent in 40 percent SH. The soyhull used in the trial had 9.24 percent CP, 39 percent crude fiber (CF), 0.6 percent calcium and 0.11 percent phosphorus. The CP in concentrate mixtures (percent, dry basis) were 14.7, 15.9, 16.2, and 15.8, respectively. The CF was lowest in experiment control (7.4 percent) and highest in 40 percent soyhull (21.4 percent). The grass had 7.5 percent CP, 35 percent CF, 0.76 percent calcium and 0.48 percent phosphorus. Daily concentrate and forage intakes averaged 5.29 and 4.93 kg dry matter, respectively. The means final weights (kg) were Tr 1- 391, Tr 2- 400, Tr 3- 412, and Tr 4- 421. The average daily gains were Tr 1- 0.87; Tr 2- 1.10; Tr 3 - 1.00; and Tr 4 - 1.13. Animals fed 40 percent SH had the highest (P.05) ADG. The feed conversion efficiencies (DM 1/LWG) were Tr 1- 12.1; Tr 2 - 9.44; Tr 3- 10.4, and Tr 4 - 9.34. The cost (per kg) of concentrates were 0 percent SH (farm) - P6.60 (US$0.25); 0 percent SH (Expt)-P7.80 (US$0.30); 20 percent SH-P7.60 (US$0.29); and 40 percent SH - P7.40 (US$0.28). Cost efficiencies (cost/kg LWG) were P54.63, P49.40, P55.66, and P46.81, respectively. Another two groups of nine animals each were fed Tr 1 and 3. Individually fed animals performed slightly higher than group fed animals in terms of ADG, feed efficiency and cost efficiency