# Evaluation of cattle sub-species and growth-promoting technology on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gas flux of steers finished in summer feedlot conditions

## TL;DR

This study compares how Brahman and Angus cattle, with and without growth-promoting technology, perform in terms of growth, carcass quality, and methane emissions during summer feedlot conditions.

## Contribution

The study introduces a comparative evaluation of cattle sub-species and growth-promoting technology effects on growth, carcass traits, and greenhouse gas emissions in beef production.

## Key findings

- Angus cattle showed better growth performance and carcass quality than Brahman cattle.
- Brahman cattle emitted less methane compared to Angus cattle.
- Growth-promoting technology improved growth metrics in Angus cattle more than in Brahman cattle.

## Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the comparative growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gas flux of yearling Bos indicus (BI; Brahman) and Bos taurus (BT; Angus) steers managed with (TRT) and without (CON) the use of growth-promoting technology (GPT). One hundred BI (initial body weight (IBW) = 342 ± 31 kg) and 100 BT (IBW = 341 ± 21 kg) steers were fed for 180d in 2 consecutive phases. In Phase 1, d 0–83, cattle of each sub-species were blocked by body weight and randomly assigned to a management treatment in 10-hd research pens (5 pens/treatment). In Phase 2, d 84–180, cattle were moved and randomly assigned to a 50-hd research pen (1 pen/treatment) equipped with 1 GreenFeed automated head chamber system (C-Lock, Rapid City, SD, USA) and 5 SmartFeed bunk systems (C-Lock, Rapid City, SD, USA) for measuring individual gas flux of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), and hydrogen (H2) and feed intake, respectively. Data were analyzed with R (R Core Team, 2021, v. 4.4.1) software to assess the fixed effects of cattle sub-species, treatment, and their interaction for growth performance collected in Phase 1 and 2, and gas flux which was only measured in Phase 2. In Phase 1, IBW did not differ (P > 0.75) by sub-species or treatment. Dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and feed efficiency (G:F) were greater (P < 0.01) for BT, resulting in greater final body weight (FBW) for BT compared to BI. Within sub-species, DMI did not differ (P > 0.35) between treatments in Phase 1, but ADG, G:F, and FBW were greater (P < 0.01) for TRT compared to CON. In Phase 2, DMI increased with the use of GPT. However, there was a sub-species × treatment interaction (P ≤ 0.04) where greater increases in ADG and FBW were observed between TRT and CON for BT relative to BI. Furthermore, BI had a greater proportion of Standard and Select quality grades relative to BT. Daily CH4 production (g CH4/d), CH4 yield (g CH4/kg DMI), and yield of CH4 (% of gross energy intake) were less (P < 0.01) for BI than BT. The use of GPT decreased emissions intensity per unit ADG and carcass gain; furthermore, a sub-species × treatment interaction existed (P ≤ 0.05), where a greater decrease in EI was observed between CON and TRT for BT when compared to BI. Ultimately, BT had greater growth performance and carcass quality, but BI emitted less CH4, highlighting the complex tradeoffs resulting from sustainability-related research in beef production systems.

As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere at an accelerated rate, contributing to global warming, all supply chains will investigate innovations to improve climate adaptivity and resiliency. In the beef industry specifically, the use of growth-promoting technologies and cattle sub-species selection are examples of proposed innovations to improve the adaptive capacity and resiliency of the beef supply chain to ensure food security for current and future generations.