44. A Benchmark Study of Feeding and Management Practices, Feed Utilization, and Adoption of Growth-enhancing Technologies by the Canadian Feedlot Industry.

Clicks: 11
ID: 330103
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #667 of 847 articles by views in italian journal of animal science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 847 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract The Canadian feedlot industry is exceptionally diverse, in both operational practices and feeding management. Previous Canadian feedlot industry surveys lacked detailed information on feed ingredient usage, feeding management, and the use of growth and health enhancing technologies (GET). The main objective of this survey was to provide a snapshot of current practices used by the Canadian feedlot industry with an emphasis on feed and byproduct utilization, feeding practices, and GET. The survey was completed using a web-based format, targeting responses from feedlot operators. The survey contained 80 questions focused on feedlot information, cattle management, feeding management, feed additives, and GET. Eighty-seven responses were collected, with pronounced differences between feedlot location (east vs. west) and capacity. Cattle type varied by location with reported feeding of weaned calves (66.7%), backgrounded calves (52.6%), grasser yearlings (50.0%), dairy and dairy cross calves (16.7%), cull cows (15.4%), and cull bulls (2.6%). Corn was reported as the main feed grain in eastern Canada, whereas barley, with increasing usage of corn and wheat was reported in western Canada. The top three primary grain processing methods used in finishing diets reported by feedlots in Canada were dry rolling (36%), high-moisture storage (34%), and temper rolling (14%). Only 24.5% of feedlots reported using a processing index, fines, or both to evaluate grain processing, while 22.2% relied on some form of visual inspection. Byproduct utilization was high (85.4%) across all feedlot capacities and locations, with usage of corn and wheat byproducts, potatoes, and grain screenings reported. Adoption of GET was high for hormonal implants (82.6%), ionophores (94.4%), and beta-agonists (52.8%), but adoption was lower in feedlots with less than five hundred head (42.1%, 75.0%, and 0% respectively). Among the feedlots that reported using beta-adrenergic agonists, 89.5% used lubabegron fumarate and 10.5% used ractopamine hydrochloride. Use of other feed additives was moderate among feedlots. Antibiotics used for liver abscess control were reported by 40.9% of respondents, while melengestrol acetate (MGA) was used by 64.7% of respondents feeding heifers. There was no reported usage of these in feedlots with a capacity of less than 500 head. The results of this study provide valuable insight into the adoption of practices across Canada and shed light on avenues to improve practices, guide research and extension activities, and inform national sustainability assessments.
Reference Key
openalex_W7214701891 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kenneth A Halibert, Megan St. Martin, G.B. Penner, Kim Ominski, Stephanie A. Terry, Megan Van Schaik, Brenna Grant, Mary Lou Swift, Jenilee F Peters, Tim Angus McAllister, Katie M Wood, Gabriel O Ribeiro
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal italian journal of animal science
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jas/skag272.093
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skag272.093
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.