Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the influence of two low-stress weaning methods with conventional weaning on post-weaning performance and carcass characteristics of beef steers. Single-sourced steer calves (n = 89) were stratified by body weight (BW) and dam age into three groups in a completely randomized design (n = 29 or 30 steers/treatment): ABRUPT (calves isolated from dams on the day of weaning), FENCE (calves separated from dams via a fence for 7 d prior to completely weaning), and NOSE (nose-flap inserted and calves remained with dams for 7 d prior to completely weaning). At day +7 post-weaning, calves were transported to a commercial feedlot where they received standard step-up and finishing rations typical for a Northern Plains feedlot. BWs were recorded in study day -7 (PreTreat), 0 (Weaning), 7 (PostWean), 26 (Receiving), 175 (Ultrasound), and 238 or 268 (Final), and average daily gains (ADG) were calculated for each time period. Blood samples were collected via coccygeal venipuncture at d -7 (PreTreat), 0 (Weaning), and +7 (PostWean) from a subsample of calves (n = 10 per treatment) and analyzed for haptoglobin (acute-phase stress protein) concentrations using a bovine haptoglobin ELISA kit. On day 175, ultrasound fat thickness and intramuscular fat were determined and utilized to project marketing dates when steers reached 1.27 cm of backfat (day 238 or 268). Carcass measurements were recorded at the time of harvest. The weaning method interacted (P < 0.01) with a time period for ADG and BW. Calf ADG was greater (P < 0.01) in the NOSE treatment during PreTreat to Weaning than ABRUPT or FENCE. In the Weaning to PostWean period, the FENCE calves had greater (P < 0.01) ADG than ABRUPT and NOSE. During the Postwean to Receiving period ADG was greater (P < 0.04) for ABRUPT compared to FENCE and NOSE. Calf ADG was similar (P > 0.05) among treatments for the remainder of the feeding period. Calf BW did not differ among treatments (P > 0.05) at all times of weighing. Haptoglobin was undetectable in all samples except two samples collected on day -7. The weaning method did not influence (P > 0.05) carcass measurements. Collectively these data suggest low-stress weaning methods do not significantly improve post-weaning growth performance or carcass characteristics compared to using conventional methods despite minor, short-term alterations in ADG during the weaning period.