**5. Alternative integrated systems research**

Integrated systems research has focused on three primary areas of interest: crop production, beef production, and soil health within the systems' evaluation. The ensuing discussion will look into each area of interest and the complementary aspects of the holistic regenerative approach to the systems' integration.

#### **5.1 Crop production and soil health**

The cropping system [21] consisted of hard red spring wheat grown continuously on the same replicated fields for the entire investigation and is designated as HRSW-C. The spring wheat control is compared to hard red spring wheat grown in the five-crop rotation and has been designated as HRSW-R. The continuous spring wheat control is a very important part of the research, because wheat farmers in the region have grown spring wheat on the same land for decades (30 to 50 years). Under these conditions, the only possible way to raise a good crop of spring wheat is to apply fertilizer based on soil test results for a given yield goal (44.8–56 kg/ha). The alternative is to employ a holistic approach that considers the principles of soil health that includes multi-crop diversity and integration of beef cattle grazing. The crop rotation of spring wheat, cover crop, corn, field pea-barley mix and sunflower with three of the rotation crops being harvested by grazing has the potential to reduce the cost of production and enhance profitability. At the start of the research, urea nitrogen fertilizer was applied according to soil test results to both the control and rotation spring wheat fields. The HRSW-R fertilizer application was discontinued after two years and after three years fertilization of the HRSW-C was discontinued. Soil fertility was evaluated by creating root restriction zones in the replicated spring wheat fields using aluminum irrigation pipes (20.3 × 61.0 cm) pressed into the soil with an industrial type construction front-end loader. Soil samples were collected from inside and outside the irrigation pipe restriction zones. Economic analysis was carried out with the assistance of the ND Farm and Ranch Business Management Education program budgets in which actual incurred expenses that include fertilizer, chemicals, seed, and crop insurance premiums were entered into the budgets. From the budgets, calculations for individual crop expense, gross return, and net return were determined. Improving soil health through integration of complementing crop types and cattle grazing reduced reliance on mechanical harvesting while aiding in the enhancement of soil nutrient cycling consuming less fuel and fertilizer, and adding value to yearling steers prior to feedlot entry.

Control and rotation HRSW yield did not differ for the five-year cropping system period between 2011 and 2015. Although there was no difference in grain yield, protein percent or test weight, mean grain yield does not fully explain soil health changes that occurred due to the effect soil microbial nutrient cycling had on nutrient supply without the addition of exogenous N fertilizer.

Corresponding to soil nutrient cycling after N fertilizer (urea) was discontinued resulted in a yield transformation whereby spring wheat-control yield was greater initially (**Figure 1**) followed by a continual decline whereas the soil derived nutrient supply supported continued yield increases (**Figure 2**) years 4 (8.4%) and 5 (32.6%) as depicted by chart trendlines.

**Figure 1.** *Spring wheat – control.*

#### **Figure 2.** *Spring wheat – Rotation.*

Economics for the crop production (**Table 4**) suggest an advantage for the holistic production such that rotation spring wheat had a \$6.00/ha greater net return at the time the analysis was performed. The combined net return economic advantage for crops grown in the integrated system was \$2,036 compared to \$1,514 for the control indicating that although growing spring wheat continuously on the same land year after year requires less intensive management profitability is reduced 34.5%.

Plant diversity within the multi-crop rotation that included spring wheat as well as the other rotation crops (cover crop, corn, pea-barley, sunflower) contributed to

*Perspective Chapter: Alternative Intensive Animal Farming Tactics That Minimize Negative… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108339*


*1 HRSW-CON: Hard Red Spring Wheat – Control; HRSW- ROT: Hard Red Spring Wheat – Rotation; WT-HV&CC; Winter Triticale – Hairy Vetch & 7-Specie Cover Crop*

*2 Corn silage grain content 2011-2015: 941, 3468, 5519, 2822, 4930 kg/ha (Avg. 3536 kg/ha)*

*3 Average total 5-year net return for HRSW-C and rotation crops (HRSW- ROT, WT-HV&CC, Corn Silage, Pea Barley, and Sunflower)*

#### **Table 4.**

*Five-year crop yields and system net return (2011–2015).*

#### **Figure 3.**

*2014 and 2016 potential mineralizable nitrogen.*

an increase in soil organic matter (**Figure 3**.) in the experimental fields that ranged from 2.8 to 6.8% by the end of the five-year period. Contrasting percent SOM with potential N mineralization using regression analysis identified that as the percent of SOM increased there is approximately 8.4 mg N mineralized for each 1.0% SOM increase per kg of soil [22].

Paralleling the systems evaluation were soil properties of interest (water infiltration, wind erodibility, and water stable aggregates). Following five years of cropping history the crop rotation system has numerically greater water stable soil aggregates, reduced potential wind erodibility, and water infiltration rate levels increased (27.1 mm/hr. vs. 19.1 mm/hr.) in the crop rotation indicating that the multi-crop system has a positive effect on soil health.

#### **5.2 Beef production and delayed feedlot entry**

The stressors of commingling, transportation, change of feed, new location and dehydration coupled with less developed immune defenses make young cattle less

resilient to respiratory pathogen challenges from BRD than older animals with more developed immune systems when challenged by viral and microbial pathogen invasion. Feedlot BRD disease occurrences have been categorized into cohort groupings as being either early-, mid-, or late-feeding stage occurrences that coincide with the first 42-days on feed (DOF), 43–71 DOF, and 72–100 DOF in a mid-western feedlot where mid- and late-stage risk for BRD incidence was evaluated. Incidence for BRD was determined to be greater during the second quarter of the year which coincides with wide temperature fluctuations, summer heat, and humidity [23]. This data set can be contrasted with economist's evaluation [24] using pen-level data (5,773 pens, 636,042 head received) from a Southern Great Plains feedlot where a 2.28% death loss was identified. Sixty percent of the cattle were sourced from auction sale barns. Risk factors for sickness and death loss include sourced from sale barns, travel distance and animal shrink greater than 5.5%, and larger pen size. Customer owned cattle sourced directly from ranches had lower death loss of 1.97% compared to 2.35% among feedlot company owned sale barn sourced cattle. The data also identified that pens of cattle with lighter feedlot arrival in-weights have higher death loss such that for each in-weight increase of 45.4 kg death loss was reduced by 0.2%. Using this percent death loss age reduction statistic, delaying feedlot entry until steers and heifers enter the feedlot weighing 454 to 499 kg (1,000 to 1,100 lbs.) could potentially reduce death loss by 1.1 to 1.3%. Yearling steers involved in integrated crop-beef cattle extended grazing delayed feedlot entry systems research discussed herein are seven to eight months older and 188 to 210 kg heavier upon feedlot arrival than cattle in the Southern Great Plains feedlot data set. Due to greater feedlot arrival weight in the delayed feedlot entry research, the steers reach harvest target condition after 82 DOF, but are not immune from BRD and digestive health death loss. However, death loss is substantially reduced. During the 8-year period (2013–2021), death loss for delayed feedlot entry steers was: BRD 0.86%, bloat 0.35%, and unknown 0.17% for a combined 8-year total of 1.38%. In addition, non-performing "realizer" steers were sold at auction for a net revenue loss.

In addition to managing animal health and death loss by withholding steers and heifers from feedlot confinement in retained ownership extended grazing growing systems, the extended grazing program must be profitable. Integrating yearling steers into perennial and annual forage grazing protocols have been studied among differing steer groups with different research objectives [17, 18]. For the initial investigation [17] a control group of randomly assigned steer pen replicates were delivered to the feedlot (FLT: 367 kg In-Weight) and were compared to randomly assigned steers that grazed perennial pasture only (PST) and a third group that grazed perennial pasture and annual forages grown in the diverse multi-crop rotation (ANN). The initial integrated systems investigation objectives were designed to determine 1) the number of days grazed and steer performance, 2) the effect of grazing system on live animal muscle area, fat depth, and intramuscular fat change, and 3) the effect of system on delayed feedlot entry growth performance, carcass measurements, and long-term risk analysis. All steers were grown during the fall-winter-early spring period for modest gain ≤ 0.454 kg per steer per day. Grazing start weights for the PST and ANN steers was 369 and 375 kg and ending weights were 509 and 558 kg, respectively. PST and ANN steers gained 140 and 183 kg costing \$1.12 and \$1.30 per kg of gain. The cost per steer was greater for the ANN steers due to farming costs (\$157.31 vs \$238.46). Grazing live animal muscle and fat measurements for *longissimus dorsi* muscle area (Ribeye Area; cm<sup>2</sup> ), backfat depth (cm), and intramuscular fat percentage were monitored as the steers grew grazing perennial and annual

#### *Perspective Chapter: Alternative Intensive Animal Farming Tactics That Minimize Negative… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108339*

forages. Ribeye area for ANN system steers was greater (P = 0.04), fat depth did not differ (P = 0.33), and percent intramuscular fat was 0.70% greater (P = 0.001) (Aloka SSD-500V Portable Ultrasound Machine affixed with Aloka UST-5044–3.5 Linear Array Transducer and Standoff, Sentinel Imaging Group Inc.). The PST and ANN grazing groups grazed for a period of 181 days before transfer to the feedlot for finishing. Feedlot days on feed were longest for the FLT control group (142 days), 91 days for the PST group, and 66 days for the ANN integrated system steers. Compared to the FLT control steers starting and ending weight for the PST and ANN steers was naturally greater due to grazing weight gain. Comparing the three treatment groups in the feedlot, there were no differences measured for ADG, dry matter feed intake (DMI), gain to feed ratio (G:F), and feed cost per kg of gain. Control FLT steer cost was \$578.30 compared to \$276.12 and \$381.18 for the ANN and PST, respectively. Carcass measurements were unremarkable for hot carcass weight (HCW), fat depth (FD), marbling score (MS), USDA yield grade (YG), and quality grade (QG). Upon conclusion of this study the cattle market experienced a down turn in commodity price resulting in undesirable net return values for the FLT control that lost −\$298 per steer, PST group that lost −\$30.10 per steer, and the ANN grazing system steers that netted \$9.09 per steer; a margin of \$307.09 between the FLT control and the ANN grazing system steers. A ten-year feedlot sensitivity analysis for the period between 2003 and 2012, and hedging against catastrophic loss was conducted. The sensitivity valuation determined that within the ten-year period the FLT control treatment underperformed seven out of the ten years evaluated. Considering the three treatments FLT, PST and ANN, hedging loss protection was rewarding forty, thirty, and twenty percent of the time. This initial investigation evaluating delayed feedlot entry provided positive direction for future investigations into the potential for managing annual forage crop-grazing systems simultaneously.

Sustaining profitability in the cattle business is not easy. Cow-calf producers generate new wealth when calves are born and subsequently marketed, and the entire beef cattle industry in one way or another receives its livelihood from calves born and reared on ranches across the United States. The rancher, therefore, has direct control over mitigating risk by creating greater beef value before the first point of sale. Resource management and retaining ownership coupled with a vertically integrated business model are powerful tools for creating added beef value. Extracting as much beef value from the cow herd that is practically possible begins with matching cow size and yearling steers of differing skeletal frame-size to the range and annual forage resource.

For the second research project in the series of integrated systems investigations [18], the relationship between cow and steer frame-size, performance, market timing, and economics was evaluated. Rearing environment has a profound effect on cow efficiencies. Brood cow biological efficiency is a complex balance of environmental impact resulting from available feed resources, and interaction between cow frame-size, reproductive efficiency, milking ability, and growth performance [25, 26]. The underlying research premise was that a marketing bias towards calves from small-framed cows exists and profitability at the first point of sale is diminished. Our research team hypothesized that in lieu of selling small-framed calves at weaning using a vertically integrated business model, extended grazing of annual forages, and delayed feedlot entry would eliminate market bias and increase profitability. Yearling crossbred steers (n = 288) from small-framed cows (Aberdeen Angus (Lowline) × Red Angus × Angus × Angus) and moderate to large framed cows (Red Angus × Angus × Simmental × Gelbvieh) were randomly assigned to frame-size groups identified as small-frame (SF) and large-frame (LF) treatment groups. One-half of the frame-size groups were

identified as feedlot control groups (FLT) and the remaining one-half were identified as extended grazing groups (GRZ). The mean frame sizes for the FLT control groups were SF: 3.82 and LF: 5.63, and for the GRZ groups, mean frame sizes were SF: 3.77 and LF: 5.53. The FLT control steers were on feed for 218 days compared to 212 days of grazing and 82 DOF in the feedlot for the GRZ treatment steers. When assessing SF steers under grazing conditions compared to their larger framed counterparts, growth was less pronounced; however, the cost per kg of gain was 7.8% less. Beef cattle genetics are constantly improving growth performance and efficiency, and are based on gain test evaluations in which high energy grain-based diets are fed. Therefore, grazing steers consuming forage-based diets are unable to express their full genetic potential for growth. Nonetheless, steers grazing perennial and annual forages grow structurally prior to feedlot entry followed by a compensatory growth and efficiency response in the feedlot when high energy grain-based diets are fed. The SF and LF grazing steers grew at the fastest rate of gain in the feedlot (SF: 1.74, LF 2.10 kg/day) compared to feedlot control SF and LF steers (SF: 1.33, LF: 1.56 kg/day) (P = <0.01) and there was no difference in gain to feed efficiency (P = 0.59). Total feedlot cost per kg of gain was markedly lower for the grazing steers (SF: \$1.53, LF: \$1.44/kg of gain) compared to the feedlot control steers (SF: \$1.97, LF \$1.99/kg of gain). Hot carcass weights for the LF graze and FLT control were 423 and 398 kg, respectively, and hot carcass weights for the SF graze and FLT control were 374, and 350 kg, respectively. Systems economic analysis using a vertically integrated business model from birth to slaughter is shown in **Table 5** that summarizes annual cow cost and steer expenses returns for winter growing and extended grazing, feedlot expenses, and carcass value for the comparative frame score groups in the FLT and GRZ systems' treatments.


*a−bMeans with different superscripts within a line are significantly different, (P ≤ 0.05).*

*1 3-Year mean*

*2 FLT: control steers moved directly to the feedlot for growing and finishing; and GRZ: steers grazed a sequence of native range, field pea-barley, and unharvested corn before transfer to the feedlot at the University of Wyoming 3 SF: Small Frame, LF: Large Frame*

*4 Net return/ha based on sum of native range and annual forage hectares grazed per steer*

#### **Table 5.**

*Effect of grazing and retained ownership vertical integration on net return1 .*

#### *Perspective Chapter: Alternative Intensive Animal Farming Tactics That Minimize Negative… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108339*

At the end of the 212-day grazing period, the yearling steers were valued, but not sold to establish an end grazing steer value and calculate net return per ha values before transfer to the finishing feedlot. Small-frame steers cost less to produce and had greater grazing net return per ha. Due to lower placement cost and total system expense, the SF grazing steers cost less to produce and compared to the LF grazing steers that had the highest net return the SF grazing steer net return was a mere 2.32% less. Upon further inspection, comparing the SF grazing steer net return to the SF feedlot steer net return, the SF grazing steer net return was 41.63% greater illustrating the effect that extended pre-feedlot grazing and compensating feedlot gain can have on system net return.

Frame-size evaluation shown here clearly identifies that beef cattle producers in semi-arid regions can maintain cows with smaller frame-size taking advantage of increased stocking rate and greater net return per ha per cow exposed and eliminate calf market bias through retained ownership in a vertically integrated business model from birth to final harvest.

For the third study in the series of investigations into to evaluating extended grazing and delayed feedlot entry [18], the question was asked, "Will withholding yearling steers from feedlot confinement through grazing above average quality cover crop hay after integrated systems grazing has been completed be more profitable than grazing native range only?" Feeding large round hay bales weighing 499 to 635 kg (1,100 to 1,400 lbs.) in spacious non-confined areas was previously described as "bale grazing". Using the same integrated systems research infrastructure protocol and economic analysis previously defined, replicated groups (3 reps) of yearling steers grazing native range only were compared to replicated groups grazing a sequence of native range and annual forages (pea-barley, corn, and cover crop) was the foundation for the 3-year project. As such, when NR and the sequence of NR and ANN forage grazing was completed bale grazing started. The seasonlong cover crop fed was seeded in May each year consisting of Pea, barley, sorghum-sudan hybrid, crimson clover, and berseem clover and harvested to obtain hay with crude protein value ranging from 12–14% CP. **Table 3**, shows the nutrient analysis of the cover crop hay that had a crude protein value of 12.8% and Total Digestible Nutrient value of 59.0%. Bale grazing withheld the steers from feedlot confinement for an additional 43.7 days. The combination of sequence forage grazing and the additional time steers spent grazing bales resulted in a 43.0 kg weight advantage compared to the NR control steers, which carried through to the end of the finishing period. Gross carcass value over the three-year period of the study was \$92 greater (P = 0.031) than the NR steers (\$1,922 vs \$2,014). During the three-year study and economic analysis, ANN forage sequence steers were consistently heavier entering the feedlot and the grazing weight margin gained between the NR control steers and the ANN forage sequence steers did not change appreciably during feedlot finishing resulting in ANN forage system steers fed harvested baled hay before feedlot entry being consistently more profitable.
