Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2007 Texas Tech University survey

• Published in: Journal of animal science Vol. 85; no. 10; pp. 2772 - 2781
• Main Authors: Vasconcelos, J.T, Galyean, M.L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Savoy, IL American Society of Animal Science 01-10-2007; Am Soc Animal Sci
• Subjects: 2007 Texas Tech University Survey; adaptation; Animal Feed - standards; Animal Husbandry - methods; animal nutrition; Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena - physiology; animal nutritionists; Animal productions; Animals; beef cattle; Biological and medical sciences; Cattle - growth & development; cattle feeding; dietary minerals; dietary protein; digestible protein; feed grains; feed supplements; feeding level; feedlots; feeds; finishing; forage; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; nutrient requirements; Nutritional Requirements; nutritive value; questionnaires; surveys; Surveys and Questionnaires; Terrestrial animal productions; Vertebrates; United States; North America; Texas; America; nutrient recommendation; Recommendation; Vertebrata; Survey; Mammalia; Surveillance; University; nutritionist; Beef cattle; Nutrient; Artiodactyla; Ungulata; Feedlot
• ISSN: 0021-8812; 1525-3163
• DOI: 10.2527/jas.2007-0261

Forty-two consulting feedlot nutritionists were asked to participate in a survey regarding nutritional recommendations for feedlot cattle. Eleven nutritionists chose not to participate or did not reply to our request. Thirty-one nutritionists agreed to participate, and 29 completed the survey. Their practices were located in the following states: Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (46.43%); Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, and South Dakota (31.25%); Washington and Idaho (8.93%); Arizona and California (6.25%); and other states (7.14%). The survey was conducted using a Web-based system and included 74 questions divided into sections that covered general information about the nutritionist's practice (n = 8 questions); commodity information (n = 13); use of grain coproducts (n = 5); information regarding roughage sources and levels (n = 4); methods used to adapt cattle to finishing diets (n = 3); information about supplements and micronutrients (n = 7); types of feed mixers (n = 2) and feed mills (n = 1) used by clients; feeding (n = 1) and cattle management (n = 5); liquid feeds (n = 7); recommendations for nutrient formulation (n = 15); information resources used as the basis for nutritional recommendations (n = 2); and perceived needs for additional information on items or nutrients not addressed in the survey. With respect to nutrient formulation practices, the results indicated that the recommended concentrations of major nutrients and trace minerals typically fell within a range of 1 to 2 times the NRC (2000) recommendations for beef cattle; however, some important aspects of the NRC models (e.g., formulation for degradable intake protein) were not applied by the majority of respondents. Data from this survey provide a snapshot of practices used by feedlot nutritionists and should aid in development of future National Research Council models and recommendations.