Farms.com Home   News

Feeding Scabby Wheat In Feedlot Diets

By Matt Luebbe, UNL Beef Feedlot Specialist
 
Wet conditions this growing season have caused some wheat fields to produce scabby wheat that may not be suitable for milling or manufacturing. Scabby wheat is a result of Fusarium mold growth and this species of mold may produce deoxynivalenol (DON), a toxin commonly called vomitoxin. If high concentrations of scabby wheat are present it may be salvageable by feeding to cattle. Producers harvesting fields with scabby wheat should have the grain tested for DON to determine if it is present and what concentrations are in the grain. Not all scabby wheat will result in a positive test for DON but may be rejected based on quality of grain. Before feeding scabby wheat, DON should be tested to determine the level that is present in the grain.
 
 
Fusarium-damaged wheat kernels (left) and healthy kernels (right).  Photo from Nebraska Extension publication Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat.
 
Fusarium-damaged wheat kernels (left) and healthy kernels (right). 
 
Higher levels of scabby wheat can be fed to cattle compared with other livestock because ruminal microbes can degrade or inactivate the toxin. Currently, the FDA recommends that DON concentration in beef cattle diets should not exceed 10 ppm. Previous research conducted at UNL evaluated feeding up to 10 ppm DON in finishing diets and there were no pathological or toxicological challenges observed. Furthermore, when replacing a portion of dry-rolled corn with wheat containing DON there was not a difference in average daily gain or feed efficiency.
 
Feedlot producers may be able to purchase scabby wheat at a discounted price and replace corn grain in the diet. When the concentration is known, diets can be formulated to ensure levels do not exceed the recommendation. Blending grains to reduce the concentration of DON is the most commonly used method to control risk. For more information about harvesting, storing and safe handling of infected wheat please refer to the Crop Watch website https://cropwatch.unl.edu/scabby-wheat-strategies.
 
The starch in wheat is more rapidly fermented than the starch in corn (Figure 1 http://go.unl.edu/vn9v). Because of these starch fermentation characteristics there is a greater potential for acidosis, bloat and founder. A general recommendation is to limit inclusion on a dry-matter basis to 50% of diet dry-matter unless producers are familiar with feeding wheat. Processing wheat by coarsely rolling or grinding greatly improves digestibility as long as fines are not produced. Adapting cattle slowly to wheat and including an ionophore will help reduce the challenges associated with acidosis.
 
Wheat grain has a similar energy value as corn and contains approximately 4-6 percentage units more protein. If acidosis can be managed, the feeding value of wheat (including both energy and protein) is 100-105% the value of corn. When comparing the cost of these two grains it is important to consider the dry-matter cost on a per-ton basis. Corn is traded at 84.5% dry-matter at 56 lbs/bu as-is. Wheat is traded at 88% dry-matter and 60 lbs/bu as-is. Because of these differences in moisture content and bushel weight, a producer can purchase 90% fewer bushels of wheat to equal the amount of corn on a dry-ton basis. Local markets and quality of grain will play a role in the decision to feed wheat. 
 

Trending Video

How to fix a leaking pond.

Video: How to fix a leaking pond.

Does the pond leak? Ummmm....possibly a tiny bit. Well, more than a bit...ok, the darn thing leaks like a sieve!

QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Damit is not plastic. Therefore, there are no microplastics. I wish I had not mentioned plastic, but that is a very common polymer and I mentioned it as an example of a polymer. A polymer is simply a chain of repeating molecules, or "monomers." Cellulose is a polymer of glucose molecules. Starches are also polymers of various molecules such as fructose, maltose, etc. We have many polymers inside our bodies. In other words, just knowing something is a polymer doesn't make it bad, toxic, harmful, etc. However, this also doesn't mean all polymers are safe.

The specific polymer used for Damit is a trade secret, however, it has been closely scrutinized by multiple health and safety authorities. This includes the governmental authorities of Australia, the USA, Europe, and Asia. Not only have they determined that is safe to use in earthen ponds, and not harmful to fish, but it is considered safe to use in human potable water systems in all of these areas. And of course, they know the exact makeup of the polymer when making this determination. I'm told that the same polymer is in use by many municipalities to keep potable water storage tanks leak free. I can't tell you exactly what the polymer is, because I don't know, but given the confidence with which the governmental authorities have authorized its use, I would bet it is made of a monomer that we are exposed to all the time, like fructose or something.

It also breaks down in a matter of years, and does not accumulate in the environment. The end products of breaking down are CO2, water, and base minerals like potassium. The SDS reports no need for concern with ingestion, inhalation, or contact. If in eyes, rinse with water.

End result, can I say for sure that it is 100% safe? No, I don't know exactly what it is. But given people who do know exactly what it is, and have scrutinized it, have approved it for use in human potable water systems, I'm pretty comfortable putting it in an earthen pond.