Evaluation Of High Moisture And Dry Feed Both With And Without Hay Fed To Feeder 
Calves Subjected To Transportation Shrink.
by
John Roland Starnes
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Science
Auburn, Alabama
May 4, 2013
Keywords:
Transportation, Shrink, Feeder calves, High-moisture feeds, By-product feedstuffs
Copyright 2013 by John Roland Starnes
Approved by
Darrell L. Rankins, Jr., Chair, Professor of Animal Sciences
Stephen P. Schmidt, Professor of Animal Sciences
W. Frank Owsley, Associate Professor of Animal Sciences
 
Abstract
 
 Two backgrounding trials were carried out to evaluate the effects of diet on shrink both 
with and without hay offering 48-h prior to shipment, as well as subsequent weight recovery 
post-shipment. In trial 1, forty-eight British x Continental steers (initial BW 351 kg) were 
assigned randomly to one of two diets and fed for a 45-d period (four steers/pen; three pens/diet). 
Diets, on a dry matter basis, were as follows: 1) 82% corn silage and 18% pelleted corn gluten 
feed (HM), 2) 20% pelleted corn gluten feed, 40% pelleted peanut hulls, and 40% soybean hull 
pellets (DF). On day 45 half of the steers from each pen were shipped, while their pen mates 
remained in their respective pen of origin (24 shipped; 24 unshipped). Steers remained on the 
trailers for twenty-one hours to simulate transport from the southeastern stocker operation to a 
great plains feedlot. Shipped calves were returned to their pen of origin, weighed immediately 
upon arrival, 30-h post-shipment, then at 24-h increments throughout day 6 to monitor diet 
effects on weight recovery. Trial 2 was identical to the previous trial, in terms of experimental 
design, with the exception of the number of calves used and the length of the backgrounding 
period. One hundred eighteen calves were used (54 heifers; 64 steers; initial BW 297 kg; 320kg, 
respectively). Diets were fed for 49 d as opposed to 45 d the previous year. A total of 59 calves 
shipped, while the other 59 remained in their pen of origin. Shipped calves were returned to their 
pen of origin, weighed immediately upon arrival, 30-h post-shipment, then twice daily the 
following 7 d, on day 11 and day 15 recording an average weight for those days. For trial 1, 
ii
shipped calves shrank 7.1%, and body weights remained different throughout the recovey period 
(P < 0.01). In experiment 2, shipped calves shrank 8.4% and body weights remained different 
(P < 0.01) for shipped calves vs unshipped calves throughout the recovery weigh period. HM, 
DF, or hay offering had no effect on shrink in either year, yet hay offering prior to shipment did 
effect post transit weight recovery in trial 2 (P < 0.05). In summary, feeding HM or DF had no 
effect on shrink or subsequent BW gain after transportation. Offering hay 48 h prior to shipment 
had no effect on shrink but did alter BW gain following 21 h of transportation.
iii
Acknowledgments
 
 The author would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Darrell L. Rankins, Jr. for his 
guidance, assistance, and expertise throughout the graduate program. He would also like to thank 
Dr. Stephen P. Schmidt and Dr. Frank Owsley for serving on his committee. A thank you goes 
out to the entire faculty and staff of the Department of Animal Sciences for their assistance and 
friendship during his time at Auburn University. 
 The author would like to thank Rob Peacock, Lance Burdette, and the rest of the staff at 
the EV Smith Beef Cattle Research Center for their assistance in data collection throughout his 
experiment. He would also like to thank Dr. Ching-Ming (John) Lin for his expertise in 
laboratory analysis. 
 The author would like to thank his parents and family for their support throughout his 
college career. He would also like to thank his wife, Randa Starnes for her support and assistance 
throughout his masters? program. 
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables................................................................................................................................. vi
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1
Review of Literature...................................................................................................................... 3
Research Problem Statement......................................................................................................... 9
Materials and Methods................................................................................................................. 11
 Data Collection................................................................................................................. 11
 Chemical Analysis............................................................................................................ 12
 Statistical Analysis........................................................................................................... 13
Results.......................................................................................................................................... 14
Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 27
Implications.................................................................................................................................. 30
Literature Cited............................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix: Internal dimensions of a standard Wilson 53? double decker cattle trailer used 
to calculate stocking density......................................................................................................... 34
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Average nutrient composition of diets fed in experiment 1........................................... 16
Table 2. Average nutrient composition of diets fed in experiment 2........................................... 17
Table 3. Body weights, ADG, and daily DMI for steers prior to shipment (experiment 1)........ 18
Table 4. Effect of 21-h transport on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
 backgrounded for 45 d (experiment 1)............................................................................ 19
Table 5. Effects of diet on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
 backgrounded for 45 d (experiment 1)............................................................................ 20
Table 6. Effects of 48-h pre-shipment hay offering or no 48-h pre-shipment hay 
 offering on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded 
 for 45 d (experiment 1).................................................................................................... 21
Table 7. Body weights, ADG, and daily DMI for calves prior to shipment (experiment 2)........ 22
Table 8. Effect of 21-h transport on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
 backgrounded for 49 d (experiment 2)............................................................................ 23
Table 9. Effects of diet on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
 backgrounded for 49 d (experiment 2)............................................................................ 24
Table 10. Effects of 48-h pre-shipment hay offering or no 48-h pre-shipment hay 
 offering on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded 
 for 49 d (experiment 2).................................................................................................... 25
Table 11. Effects of diet on DMI 5 d post-shipment (experiment 2)........................................... 26
vi
INTRODUCTION
 The southeastern United States provides many opportunities to the stocker producer. One 
of the biggest advantages that exists in this region is the ability to produce large quantities of 
high quality cool-season forages. Another is the historical availability of by-product feedstuffs, 
that can be utilized as a supplement to winter grazing, or used solely fed in a dry-lot system. The 
goal in either scenario is to obtain BW gains of 0.68 to 1.13 kg/d with minimal input costs. A 
variety of feedstuffs have been used to put inexpensive gains on cattle; however, with feed prices 
rising, producing inexpensive gain is quite challenging. Feeder cattle market trends also are in 
favor of  southeastern stocker producers that utilize cool-season forages. Historically, the 
Alabama price cycle shows that October is often the purchasing month, with the highest price 
index being in August. Most stocker calves are maintained until forage is depleted, which is 
typically April or May then sold, though this is not the peak price index for this class of cattle, 
the price index is in the upswing (Prevatt et al., 2010). Since United States feedlots are 
geographically concentrated in the great plains states (Minert, 2003), southeastern stocker cattle 
must undergo lenghty transport. Grandin (1997) stated that both transportation-related  handling 
and travel have been identified as potentially stressful events for cattle, and can be detrimental to 
BW gain and subsequent BW recovery (Crookshank et al., 1979). While it is known that 
transport stress induces many physiological changes, the one that is still a complex puzzle is 
transportation shrink.   
1
 Shrink is a major factor in the marketing of feeder cattle. Shrink represents a cost to both 
the buyer and seller of cattle through lost BW, and is especially important for longhauls (20+ h) 
from southeastern backgrounders to midwestern feedlots. Shrink occurs in two forms: 1) loss of 
body fill and 2) loss of tissue fluids, which is observed during longer periods of transport. Fill 
shrink is recovered in a fairly rapid manner, while tissue shrink can take days, maybe weeks to 
recover lost BW. Shrink is effected by numerous factors; which include, but are not limited to, 
time of gathering, handling procedures, climate, and diet. In many instances it is estimated that 
shrink can lead to a loss in calf value exceeding $10/hd, and in some instances, it may exceed 
$25/hd (Coffey et al., 2001). Some conditions remain beyond human control in effecting shrink 
such as a bad storm, unusually hot day, and bad road conditions; however, Barnes et al. (2007) 
stated that careful planning and management can provide some control over other unusual 
conditions that affect shrink. Most research evaluating shrink has been conducted with stocker 
cattle coming off of wheat pasture. Few studies have evaluated shrink following a drylot-
backgrounding type scenario. There are data stating the implications of implementing 
backgrounding in a preconditioning program; however, the scientists were interested in 
morbidity and mortality and how backgrounding in a preconditioning program may help reduce 
these instances (Swanson and Morrow-Tesch, 2001; Prichard and Mendez, 1990).
2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Shrink
 The majority of  beef cattle raised in the United States will undergo transportation at least 
once in their lifetime, which is considered one of the most stressful events that cattle will 
undergo during their lives (Swanson and Morrow-Tesh 2001). Many factors are involved in the 
complex issue that is termed ?transport stress.? Included in this list of factors is pre-transport 
management, noise, crowding, climatic factors (temperature, humidity) loading and unloading, 
time of transit, types of feed, and time of gathering (Barnes et al., 2007; Swanson et al., 2001). 
These factors lead to a loss of bodyweight during transportation, which is termed shrink. Shrink 
is usually considered as loss of fill and excretions of  feces and urine, but loss of fluid from 
animal tissue also may occur (tissue shrink) (Barnes et al., 2007; Coffey et al., 2001). Fill shrink 
is recovered in a short period of time after feed and water intake returns to normal. Warriss 
(1990) and Barnes et al. (2007) stated the main factors which influence gut fill associated with 
shrink, and therefore initial liveweight loss, were recent water consumption and the amount and 
quality of feed consumed, with animals on high-roughage pasture having larger weights of gut 
contents than those fed grain diets. Tissue shrink is a decrease in the weight of the carcass and 
other body tissues, which can exceed 60% of the total BW loss (Coffey et al., 2001). This type of 
shrink is primarily the result of extra-cellular fluid loss. Tissue shrink is generally associated 
3
with long haul periods without feed and water (Barnes et al., 2007). The time for which cattle are 
transported, rather than distance appears to be the important factor (Warriss 1990). Self and Gay 
(1972) studied a large number of feeder cattle transported over a range of distances from 240 to 
1800 km. The regression coefficient indicated that percent shrink had a positive regression of 
0.38 percentage points per 100 km deviation from the mean shipping distance of 1,023 km. From 
a separate experiment, they estimated that slightly less than one-half (46.7%) of  total shrink was 
caused by loss of gut contents, leaving the remaining shrink (53.3%) in the form of actual body 
tissue (carcass, hide). Length of time cattle are fasted has an impact on both amount and type of 
shrink. Cattle begin to lose BW at the time they are moved. An often overlooked phenomenon is 
the time cattle are gathered and sorted. Cattle, gathered at first daylight, have had little or no time 
to graze, whereas animals gathered mid-morning have finished their major grazing period of the 
d and have watered. Shrink occurs rapidly during the early part of transport, plateaus, then 
gradually increases. Cattle will lose approximately 1% BW/h for the first 3 to 4 h (Barnes et al., 
2007). Coffey et al (2001) showed similarities with Barnes et al., (2007) and stated that shrink 
can range from approximately 0.75% to 1.25% of BW/h during the first 3 to 4 h. Rate of shrink 
during later or longer periods of feed and water deprivation is much more variable, but is 
generally lower than during initial hours. Environmental conditions impact cattle shrink as well, 
and as temperatures rise, rate of shrink tends to hasten as well. Self and Gay (1972) reported a 
tendency for stocker calves to shrink more when shipped in summer compared with those 
shipped in fall or spring if  calves were shipped directly from the ranch to feedlots. Interestingly, 
they found the trends negated if calves were transported to a sale yard prior to shipping them to 
the feedlot. In a study conducted by Phillips et. al (1991), steers transported when ambient 
4
temperature was 18 to 34! lost 15.8% more BW relative to their initial BW than steers 
transported when ambient temperature was -16 to -6!. Both fecal and urine output (kg and % of 
initial BW) were less when ambient temperature was greater; therefore, the increased BW lost 
during higher ambient temperatures is a result of a greater proportion of respiratory loss, 
probably at the expense of fluid from body tissue. It has long been known that the way cattle are 
handled also influences the amount of shrink. Self and Gay (1972) indicated that cattle shrank 
less when they were handled as quietly as possible upon removal from pen, or pasture, and 
transported directly to their final destination. Although data concerning the effects of cattle 
disposition on shrink and BW recovery have been inconclusive, Voisinet et. al (1997) concluded 
cattle with a quieter and calmer temperament had higher feedlot gains. It is logical to believe that 
the type of diet cattle are consuming pre-transport would have a significant impact on shrink due 
to the variability in nutrient content, rate and extent of digestion, which may lead to a variability 
in feed intake. However, results have been inconsistent. Phillips et al. (1985) reported that steers 
fed hay had greater BW loss during both 13- and 46-h trucking than steers fed a 50% concentrate 
diet. Subsequently, Cravey et al. (1991) stated that cattle on lush green grass will shrink more 
than if they were consuming a less digestible dried grass hay. Hutcheson et al. (1984) fed steers 
diets of hay or 55% concentrate prior to shipment from east Tennessee to the Texas panhandle in 
two trials. Results varied between the two trials. In Trial 1, little difference in shrink was 
observed as a result of pre-shipment diet; however, in Trial 2, steers fed hay had less shrink than 
those fed the 55% concentrate diet. Cole and Hutcheson (1985; 1987) fed diets varying in 
roughage concentration or fed different amounts of a 35% roughage diet before fasting and 
surmised that cattle fed a 35% roughage diet tended to shrink less than those fed a higher 
5
roughage diet, but allowing ad libitum access to the roughage diet resulted in greater shrink than 
feeding restricted levels of the diet. Definitive research evaluating pre-shipment diets and 
management has produced variable results (Coffey et al., 2001). Little research has been 
conducted to evaluate  diet effects on shrink especially in drylot conditions. Most research 
conducted on this topic deals with wheat pasture grazing, and/or a backgrounding system where 
the same base diet exists, but they either alter the amount of feed offered (limit vs. ad libitum) or 
try to manage shrink with implementation of some type of high roughage/fiber component before 
the onset of transportation. Similar to dietary effects across trials, preconditioning effects on 
shrink also have produced variable results. Preconditioning (vaccination, castration, dehorning, 
and weaning) programs have been developed to increase health of calves sent to feedlots and 
decrease the effect of transport stress. Preconditioning was not found to reduce weight loss 
following transport in several studies (Cole and Hutcheson, 1985; Pritchard and Mendes, 1990). 
Woods et al. (1973) reported 22.8% less shrink in calves that were preconditioned compared with 
those removed directly from their dams before shipment. Similar to Cole and Hutcheson (1985), 
Prichard and Mendes (1990) showed no difference in BW loss following transport; however, in a 
second trial they reported that preconditioned calves displayed a tendency for greater shrink 
(8.8%). With that, one could also conclude that preconditioning effects on shrink have varied in 
results, and proves that shrink is a much more complex physiological change that one can not 
simply answer, at this time, by encouraging producers to precondition, background, or to follow 
a specific diet regime. Although preconditioning did not reduce BW loss post-transport, Swanson 
and Morrow-Tesh (2001) showed backgrounding (with vaccinations) for 30 to 45 d after 
weaning was effective for reducing mortality in calves arriving at feedyards. While many 
6
consequences of transport stress have been reviewed, they have not thoroughly addressed the 
factors that affect the magnitude of BW loss from stressed cattle during transport. Numerous 
trials have been conducted evaluating various factors associated with shrink; however, few data 
exist that evaluated recovery time or subsequent BW gain in calves following transportation. 
Many factors influence the time required for cattle to regain gut fill and tissue shrink. A few of 
these factors include; amount of shrink and type of shrink, cattle health, type of diet, and weather 
conditions (Barnes et al., 2007). Cravey et at. (1991) stated that cattle consuming a high moisture 
diet and experiencing primarily fill shrink had a minimal recovery time. Cattle that are subjected 
to conditions producing considerable tissue shrink may require several days, even weeks, to 
regain their pre-market weight. Hale et al. (1967) shipped a load of 72 steers approximately 
1,500 km where the steers shrank 10.8%. They reported steers that received no medication in 
feed or water post arrival required 23 d to regain shipping shrink. Lalman et al. (1994) indicated 
considerable variation in BW loss as well as rate of BW recovery within a pen or load of cattle. 
These workers reported BW loss ranging from 17.7 to 22.7 kg. However, the range in BW 
change increased over time periods of 24 and 72 h. These findings imply that some cattle began 
consuming feed or water or both much quicker than others, or perhaps some cattle experienced a 
greater degree of stress probably due to individual variation. In this study, on average, the group 
of cattle had regained their pre-shipment weight by d 7, while one steer was still 22 kg lighter 
and one steer was 25 kg heavier. 
7
Summary
 Shrink is a loss of BW during periods of feed and water deprivation and represents losses 
not only from excretion of feces and urine, but also from other body tissue. Shrink begins at the 
time feed and water are withdrawn and is much more rapid during the early h of shrink. 
Therefore, practices aimed at reducing early shrink could have the biggest impact on total BW 
loss, but more information is needed to determine the relationship between early shrink and long 
term shrink. Shrink is affected by a number of factors and is highly variable, which makes it 
difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy. Stressors involved with shrink also impact the 
proportion of BW lost from gut full vs tissue losses. Preconditioning programs have had varied 
results with regards to shrink. 
8
RESEARCH PROBLEM STATEMENT
 Shrink in cattle is a complex issue caused by and affected by numerous factors. Some 
factors remain out of control to both the buyer and seller, yet others prove to be a very important 
decision to both the buyer and seller in terms of shrink. In many transactions a ?pencil shrink? is 
applied to the live BW of the cattle sold (Coffey et al., 2001). Much research has been conducted  
to elucidate the numerous factors that effect shrink in feeder cattle. Results have been quite 
variable; however, some observations are consistent. Research indicates that most shrink occurs 
early at a very rapid pace, 0.75% to 1.25% BW/h during the first 3 to 4 h (Barnes et al., 2007). 
This fill shrink is no more than a loss of rumen contents either from urination or defecation. It 
would seem plausible and practical to find a way to reduce shrink that occurs early and rapidly. 
Tissue shrink occurs at a much slower pace and is generally observed in transport situations 
greater than 8 h in length. This is the most difficult BW to recover because the animal lost tissue 
mass. Subsequent weight recovery of transported animals has not been studied thoroughly. While 
it is not common practice to monitor weight recovery of freshly shipped calves, it is common to 
monitor health status. If all calves are healthy, they are left alone, provided a receiving diet and 
allowed to rest and eat. However, focusing on weight recovery in freshly shipped calves may 
reveal valuable information to researchers. Which diet is recovering weight the quickest? Is there 
any difference in weight recovery across diets? Does offering hay have any effect on post-
9
transport weight recovery? Does hay allowance affect shrink? All of these questions may be 
answered in monitoring weight recovery of shipped calves, and more research is needed to 
determine weight recovery implications. 
 Either a high-moisture or dry feed diet was fed both with or without hay to 1) examine 
the effects of pre-shipment feeding regimens on shrink and subsequent BW recovery in feeder 
calves subjected to transport shrink, and 2) determine the effects of pre-shipment hay offering on 
shrink and subsequent BW gains throughout the recovery period. Weights were recorded at the 
beginning, mid-trial, shipment, arrival, 30-h post-shipment, and every subsequent day throughout 
the recovery period in two 45- to 50-d backgrounding studies. 
 
10
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Two trials were conducted at the EV Smith Beef Cattle Research Center in Shorter, 
Alabama. All procedures were previously reviewed and approved by the Auburn University 
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. 
Data Collection
Experiment 1
 Fourty-Eight British x Continental steers (initial BW 351 kg) were assigned randomly to 
one of two diets and fed for a 45-day period (four steers/pen; three pens/diet). Total pen space in 
each pen was 286-m
2
, containing a 72-m
2
 concrete covered loafing area, and inline feed bunks 
6.7 meters in length. Diets, on a dry matter basis, were as follows: 1) 82% corn silage and 18% 
pelleted corn gluten feed (HM), 2) 40% pelleted peanut hulls, 40% soybean hull pellets, and 20% 
pelleted corn gluten feed (DF). Both diets were fortified with a mineral-vitamin supplement 
(manufactured by Sweetlix; Kowpoke-4). Monensin was added to each diet to provide 
200mg/hd/d. Bunk management was used in order to determine the amount of feed to add each 
day. Steers were weighed initially, on d 21, prior to loading, and after shipment throughout the 
next 6 d. Forty-eight hours prior to shipment, d 43, half of the pens within each diet were either 
offered hay or no hay at a rate of 10.7 kg/hd. The hay was offered as square bales fed in the 
bunk. On d 45, half of the steers shipped while half of the steers remained in their respective pen 
of origin (24 shipped; 24 unshipped). Steers were assigned randomly to one of two trailers. 
11
Steers were loaded on two trailers (11.3 m
2
; 12 steers/trailer; one from each pen) with an average 
stocking density of 413 kg BW/m
2
. Average shipping BW was 393 kg. Transported calves 
remained on the trailer for approximately 21 h, then unloaded and returned to their pen of origin. 
No further hay was offered and both pre- and post-transport diets were the same. BW were 
recorded immediately upon arrival, 30-h post-transport, and at 24-h increments throughout the 
following 6 d to monitor subsequent BW gain.  
Experiment 2
 Everything was the same as Experiment 1, in regards to diet and hay offering; however, 
one-hundred eighteen calves representing both genders were used (54 heifers; 64 steers), with an 
initial BW of 297 and 320 kg, respectively. Calves were sorted by gender, then randomly 
assigned to one of two diets fed for 49 d opposed to 45 d in Experiment 1. Calves were weaned 
over a 2-d period and received soybean hull pellets at a rate of 2.7 kg/hd throughout the first 7 d, 
which included the weaning period. Shipped calves were loaded on a semi, double decker pot 
trailer, in cuts of 4, 25, 26, and 4 (59 shipped; 59 unshipped). Stocking densities reported for 
each cut were as follows: 187 kg BW/m
2
, 421 kg BW/m
2
, 438 kg BW/m
2
, and 129 kg BW/m
2
. 
Stocking densities reported agree with the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) space 
guideline of 0.021BW
0.67 
(FAWC, 1991).  Following a 21-h transport period, shipped calves 
returned to their pen of origin. BW were recorded immediately upon arrival, 30-h post transport, 
and twice daily the following 7 d, using an average BW for those d. BW were also recorded both 
11 and 15 d post-transport to monitor BW gains.
12
Chemical Analysis
 Feed samples were ground using a Wiley Mill to pass a 2-mm screen. Duplicates from 
each sample were used for chemical analysis to have a repeatable, and accurate sample. Dry 
matter, CP, NDF, and ADF were analyzed for each sample. Crude protein was determined using 
the Kjeldahl nitrogen determination method (AOAC, 1995). NDF and ADF for all samples were 
analyzed sequentially using the Van Soest Fiber Analysis procedure (Van Soest et al., 1991). 
Fiber concentrations were determined using an ANKOM 
200/220 
Fiber analyzer and filter bags 
with a pore size of 57 microns. 
Statistical Analysis
Experiment 1 and Experiment 2
 Data from Experiments 1 and 2 were analyzed as a completely randomized design using 
the Proc GLM procedure of SAS. A (2 x 2 x 2) factorial arrangement of treatments was used 
where the factors imposed were; HM or DF, hay or no hay, ship or not shipped. Pen was used as 
the experimental unit. Test of significance was determined at ! < 0.05.
13
RESULTS
 Diet analysis and nutrient composition for year 1 are shown in Table 1. Year 2 analyses 
and nutrient composition are shown in Table 2. Diets fed were the exact same both years, but due 
to variation of by-product feedstuffs chemical analysis showed some differences between the two 
trials.
Experiment 1
  Initial BW was not different (P > 0.05) across treatments (Table 3). ADG was not 
different (P > 0.10) during the backgrounding period and averaged 0.94 kg/day. Shipping/final 
BW was not different (P > 0.05) across treatments and averaged 393 kg. Following a 21-h 
transport period, BW were decreased (P < 0.05) for shipped calves (28.0 kg) versus their 
unshipped pen mates (1.5 kg; Table 4). Neither HM or DF (Table 5) or hay (Table 6) affected 
shrink (P > 0.10). Throughout 6 d post-shipment BW differences between shipped calves and 
unshipped calves remained different (P < 0.05; 9.40 kg vs 0.0 kg). Pre-shipment diets or 48-h 
hay offering did not affect BW post shipment (P  > 0.10). 
Experiment 2
  Initial BW was not different (P > 0.10) and averaged 309 kg. Shipping/final BW was not 
different (P > 0.10) across treatments and averaged 346 kg (Table 7). Upon arrival, BW were 
decreased (P <  0.05) for transported calves (29.0 kg) versus their unshipped pen mates (0.0 kg; 
Table 8). Neither HM or DF (Table 9) or hay (Table 10) affected shrink (P > 0.10). Following 
14
transport, 5 d post-shipment DMI was not different between diets (Table 11). Throughout 15 d 
post-shipment BW differences between shipped calves and unshipped calves remained different 
(P < 0.05; 4.5 kg vs. 10.8 kg). Post-shipment weight recovery was faster for the pens that 
received hay 48 h prior to shipment (P <  0.05; Table 10).
15
Table 1: Average nutrient composition of diets fed in experiment 1.
Feed Mixture 
Nutrient 
a
High Moisture 
bd
Dry Feed 
cd
DM, % 44.4 91.0
NDF, % 39.7 64.7
ADF, % 17.7 48.9
CP, % 13.4 11.6
a 
Dry-matter basis 
b 
82 % corn silage : 18 % corn gluten feed pellets
c  
40 % soyhull pellets : 40 % peanut hull pellets : 20 % corn gluten feed pellets
d
 diets fortified with a mineral-vitamin supplement (manufactured by Sweetlix; Kowpoke-4). 
monensin was added to each diet to provide 200mg/hd/d.
16
Table 2: Average nutrient composition of diets fed in experiment 2.
Feed Mixture 
Nutrient 
a
High Moisture 
bd
Dry Feed 
cd
DM, % 47.5 91.5
NDF, % 32.7 57.6
ADF, % 15.6 43.5
CP, % 10.5 12.4
a 
Dry-matter basis 
b 
82 % corn silage : 18 % corn gluten feed pellets
c  
40 % soyhull pellets : 40 % peanut hull pellets : 20 % corn gluten feed pellets
d
 diets fortified with a mineral-vitamin supplement (manufactured by Sweetlix; Kowpoke-4). 
monensin was added to each diet to provide 200mg/hd/d.
17
Table 3: Body weights, ADG, and daily DMI for steers prior to shipment. (Experiment 1)
Feed Mixture
High Moisture Dry Feed SE
Initial BW, kg
350 352
5.9
Final BW, kg 390 396 6.0
ADG, kg/d 0.90 0.97 0.05
Feed intake, kg/hd/d 9.7
a
12.0
b
0.06
ab 
values differ (P < 0.05)
18
Table 4: Effect of 21-h transport on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
backgrounded for 45 d 
a 
(Experiment 1)
Treatment
Home Shipped SE
Initial, kg
350 352
5.9
Final, kg 393 393 6.0
Arrival 
b
-1.50 
c
-28.3 
d
1.3
30 h -1.40 
c
-22.2 
d
1.3
Day 2 -3.60 
c
-15.8 
d
1.0
Day 3 -3.06 
c
-15.7 
d
1.4
Day 4 -2.80 
c
-11.80 
d
1.4
Day 5 -3.60 
c
-9.40 
d
1.4
Day 6 0.0 
c
-9.40 
d
1.5
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
 
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 6
cd  
values within a row significantly different (P < 0.05)
19
Table 5: Effects of diet on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded for 45 
d 
a 
(Experiment 1)
Treatment
High Moisture Dry Feed SE
Initial, kg
350 352
5.9
Final, kg 390 396 6.0
Arrival 
b
-16.0 -13.7 1.3
30 h -12.3 -11.4 1.3
Day 2 -11.3 
c
-8.1 
d
1.0
Day 3 -11.2 
e
-7.6 
f
1.4
Day 4 -6.9 -7.7 1.4
Day 5 -5.9 -7.1 1.4
Day 6 -6.3 
e
-2.6 
f
1.5
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 6
cd  
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
ef  
values within a row differ (P < 0.10)
20
Table 6: Effects of 48-h pre-shipment hay offering or no 48-h pre-shipment hay offering on BW 
loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded for 45 d 
a 
(Experiment 1)
Treatment
Hay No Hay SE
Initial, kg
352 350
5.9
Final, kg 390 396 6.0
Arrival 
b
-13.7 -16.0 1.3
30 h -10.0 
e
-13.5 
f
1.3
Day 2 -8.7 -10.7 1.0
Day 3 -6.4 
c
-12.4 
d
1.4
Day 4 -6.0 -8.6 1.4
Day 5 -7.6 -5.4 1.4
Day 6 -3.7 -5.3 1.5
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 6
cd  
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
ef  
values within a row differ (P < 0.10)
21
Table 7: Body weights, ADG, and daily DMI for calves prior to shipment. (Experiment 2)
Feed Mixture
High Moisture Dry Feed SE
Initial, kg
306 311
4.6
Final, kg 351 341 5.0
ADG, kg/d 0.81
a
0.53
b
0.04
Feed intake, kg/hd/d 7.0
a
7.9
b
0.12
ab 
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
22
Table 8: Effects of 21-h transport on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves 
backgrounded for 49 d 
a
 (Experiment 2)
Treatment
Home Shipped SE
Initial Weight, kg
311 305
4.7
Final, kg 346 345 5.0
Arrival 
b
0 
c
-29.0 
d
1.3
30 h 2.9 
c
-14.0 
d
0.8
Day 2 -1.0 
c
-10.0 
d
0.9
Day 3 -1.7 
c
-11.3 
d
1.0
Day 4 1.0 
c
-9.2 
d
1.1
Day 5 -2.6 
c
-12.3 
d
1.1
Day 6 -2.4 
c
-10.1 
d
1.4
Day 7 -2.5 
c
-10.1 
d
1.3
Day 11 5.7 
c
-1.0 
d
1.4
Day 15 10.8 
c
4.5 
d
1.3
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 15
cd  
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
23
Table 9: Effects of diet on BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded for 49 
d 
a
 (Experiment 2)
Treatment
High Moisture Dry Feed SE
Initial Weight, kg
306 311
4.6
Final, kg 351 341 5.0
Arrival -14.5 -14.6 1.3
30 h 
b
-3.8
 c
-7.3
 d
0.8
Day 2 -5.5 -5.9 0.9
Day 3 -6.9 -6.1 1.0
Day 4 -5.1 -3.4 1.1
Day 5 -7.3 -7.6 1.1
Day 6 -7.5 -5.0 1.4
Day 7 -8.4 
c
-4.3 
d
1.3
Day 11 0.0 
c
4.6 
d
1.4
Day 15 6.9 8.5 1.3
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 15
cd 
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
24
Table 10: Effects of 48-h pre-shipment hay offering or no 48-h pre-shipment hay offering on 
BW loss and subsequent BW recovery in calves backgrounded for 49 d 
a
 (Experiment 2)
Treatment
Hay No Hay SE
Initial Weight, kg
307 310
4.7
Final, kg 344 347 5.0
Arrival 
b
-13.6 -15.5 1.3
30 h -5.7 -5.4 0.8
Day 2 -4.2 
c
-7.2 
d
0.9
Day 3 -5.4 -7.6 1.0
Day 4 -2.6 
c
-5.9 
d
1.1
Day 5 -5.4 
c
-9.5 
d
1.1
Day 6 -3.8 
c
-8.7 
d
1.4
Day 7 -4.8 -7.9 1.3
Day 11 3.4 1.3 1.4
Day 15 9.5 5.9 1.3
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
b 
value is the difference, in kg, between that particular day weight-final weight for arrival through 
Day 15
cd
 values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
25
Table 11: Effects of diet on DMI 5 d post-shipment 
a
 (Experiment 2)
Treatment
High Moisture Dry Feed SE
Arrival, kg/hd 8.33 8.88 0.64
Day 2, kg/hd 8.31 8.88 0.37
Day 3, kg/hd 7.68 8.03 0.20
Day 4, kg/hd 7.68 7.38 0.33
Day 5, kg/hd 7.68 
b
8.88 
c
0.15
a 
ANOVA showed no two- or three-way interactions (P > 0.10); therefore main effect means are 
shown
bc 
values within a row differ (P < 0.05)
26
DISCUSSION 
  Shipped calves shrank 7.1% during trial 1 and 8.4% during trial 2. Self and Gay (1972) 
reported similar values where they noted shipped calves in their study shrank in a range of 7.2 to 
9.1% of their pre-haul weight. In both experiments 1 and 2 calves fed the HM diet consumed less 
feed than calves on the DF diet (P < 0.01). Both diets were fed one time per day. Twice per day 
feeding may have improved intake of the HM diet. In both studies, offering hay prior to shipment 
did not reduce shrink compared to calves who received no supplemental hay. Hutcheson et al. 
(1984) showed that steers fed hay exhibited less shrink than those fed a 55% concentrate diet. 
Cattle off of dry pasture shrank 3.5% after a two-hour haul compared to 5.3% for animals off of 
lush, green forage (Barnes et al., 2007). Furthermore, Cravey et al. (1991) stated cattle 
conditioned with grass hay before hauling were found to shrink less than if removed directly 
from wheat pasture prior to shipment and found a 24% decrease in shrink following a four hour 
shipment period for the grass hay vs wheat pasture treatments. No incidences of morbidity or 
mortality, at the expense of shrink, was observed post-transport during either of the two trials. 
Ribble et al. (1995) reported stress of transportation may make feeder cattle more susceptible to 
bovine respiratory disease (BRD) thus increasing morbidity and mortality rates. In a model 
produced by Cernicchiaro et al. (2012) there was linear relationship between BW loss during 
transit and BRD morbidity risk in excess of 5% shrink but levels out shortly thereafter. The lack 
of morbidity and mortality seen in our trials may be attributed to the fact that the cattle did 
27
undergo backgrounding and preconditioning period during the feeding trial portion of this study. 
Preconditioning is a management practice that not only helps during  pre-shipment, but also aids 
calves during the post-shipment phase as seen with reduced morbidity and mortality. 
Preconditioning results in more calves on feed quicker post-shipment. Hutcheson and Cole 
(1986) found that upon arrival, calves that were naive to bunks only ate 0.5% of BW the first 
seven days, whereas the calves that were from a backgrounding lot and knew how to eat from a 
bunk averaged eating 1.5% of BW. However, preconditioning was not found to reduce weight 
loss following transportation in several studies (Cole and Hutcheson, 1985; Prichard and 
Mendez, 1990). With this study all calves used underwent the same preconditioning strategies. 
 While diet had no effect on shrink, the calves receiving the DF diet had a much more 
consistent weight recovery than the calves on the HM diet. In trial 2, calves receiving hay prior 
to shipment recovered lost BW much more rapidly, day two through day six, than those not 
receiving hay during that same time period. Post-shipment DMI was not different across diets.   
Calves that received hay may have started consuming water at a quicker rate post-shipping; 
however, water consumption was not measured for this particular trial. Further research is 
needed on the effects of offering hay prior to shipment on post-shipment BW recovery. Previous 
research concerned with weight recovery post-shipment shows wide ranges in the number of 
days needed to recover BW loss due to shrink. Cravey et al. (1991) revealed that in cattle that are 
consuming a high moisture diet and experience primarily fill shrink, recovery time will be 
minimal. Barnes et al. (2007) stated cattle that are subjected to considerable tissue shrink, due to 
long hauls, coupled with continuing sources of stress will require several d, even wk to regain 
their pre-market weight. Transport time in our studies was 21-h, which far exceeds the limits of 
28
only fill shrink which is seen in the onset of handling and occurs very rapid the first three to four 
hours of transport (Coffey et al., 2001). While we did observe immediate weight gain, in neither 
trail were the calves able to reach pre-transport weight. The immediate weight gain is the 
equivalent of the calves being able to recover fill shrink. That aspect of the study agrees with 
Barnes et al. (2007) stating that fill shrink is recovered in a short period of time after feed and 
water intake returns to normal. 
29
IMPLICATIONS
 Experiments 1 and 2 revealed there is a wide range of variation with shrink and 
subsequent weight recovery in feeder calves. With two very different diets, in terms of 
composition, we were unable to manipulate shrink. The inability to manipulate shrink may be 
due to the fact that all cattle used during the study were preconditioned and backgrounded for 45- 
d in trial 1 and 49-d in trial 2. That may also lead to the reason that no morbidity or mortality was 
observed throughout the two trials. 
 Hay offering prior to shipment did not effect shrink, but did improve post-transport BW 
recovery during year two of the study and tended to improve BW recovery during year one. 
Further research is needed to pinpoint the reason this occured, and how to minimize shrink that is 
lost early during the fasting period. It is the quickest lost; therefore, if there?s a way to minimize 
this shrink we could possibly decrease the total percent shrink. Hutcheson and Cole (1986) found 
it to be more beneficial that feeder calves have access to feed and water all times possible during 
marketing. 
30
LITERATURE CITED
AOAC. 1995. Official methods of analysis. Association of Analytical Chemists, 
 Washington, D. C.
Barnes, K. C., S. Smith, and D. Lalman. 2007. Managing shrink and weighing conditions in beef 
 cattle. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Bulletin F-3257. 
Barnes, K. C., J. W. Walker, and K. S. Lusby. 1990. Effect of weaning management of 
 spring- born calves on calf sale weigh and cow weight changes. Anim. Sci. Res.  
 Rep. p 19. Oklahoma Agric. Exp. Stn., Stillwater, OK.
Cernicchiaro, N., B. J. White, D. G. Renter, A. H. Babcock, L. Kelly, and R. Slattery. 2012 
 Effects of body weight loss during transport from sale barns to commercial feedlots on 
 health and performance in feeder cattle cohorts arriving to feedlots from 2000 to 2008. J. 
 Anim. Sci. 90: 1940-1947.  
Coffey, K. P., W. K. Coblentz, J. B. Humphry, and F. K. Brazile. 2001. Review: Basic priciples 
 and economics of transportation shrink in beef cattle. Prof. Anim. Sci. 17:247-255
Cole, N. A., and D. P. Hutcheson. 1985. Influence of prefast feed intake on recovery from feed 
 and water deprivation by beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 60: 772
Cole, N. A., and D. P. Hutcheson. 1987. Influence of pre-fast dietary roughage content on 
 recovery from feed and water deprivation in beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 65: 1049.
Cravey, M. D., G. W. Horn, K. B. Poling, and B. G. McDaniel. 1991. Shrinkage of wheat pasture 
 stocker cattle. Pages 99?104 in Anim. Sci. Res. Rep., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.
Crookshank, H. R., M. H. Elissalde, R. G. White, D. C. Clanton, and H. E. Smalley. 1979. Effect 
 of transportation and handling of calves upon blood serum composition. J. Anim. Sci. 48: 
 430-435. 
FAWC. 1991. Report on the European Commission proposals on the transport of animals. Farm 
 Animal Welfare Council, Ministry of Agric., Fisheries, and Food, London. 
Grandin, T. 1997. Assessment of stress during handling and transport. J. Anim. Sci. 75:249-257. 
31
Hale, W. H., B. Taylor, B. Theurer, and H. Essig. 1967. Methods of starting new feeder steers. 
 Arizona Cattle Feeders Day, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson. 
Hutcheson, D. P., N. A. Cole, and J. B. McLaren. 1984. Effects of pretransit diets and postransit 
 potassium levels for feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 700. 
Hutcheson D. P. and N. A. Cole. 1986. Management of transit-stress syndrome in cattle: 
 Nutritional and environmental effects. J. Anim. Sci. 62: 555-560. 
Lalman, D. L., J. D. Hess, M. S. Kerley, S. Casteel, B. W. Hess, E. Cole, and R. C. Crawford. 
 1994. Influence of grazing mineral supplementation on receiving performance of stocker 
 steers. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia. Agric. Exp. Sta. Anim. Sci. Prog. Rep. 465. 
Mintert, J. 2003. Beef feedlot industry. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 19:387-395
Phillips, W. A., N. A. Cole, and D. P. Hutcheson. 1985. The effect of diet on the amount and 
 source of weight lost by beef steers during transit or fasting. Nutr. Rep. Int. 32:765. 
Phillips, W. A., P. E. Juniewicz, and D. L. VonTungeln. 1991. The effect of fasting, transit plus 
 fasting, and administration of adrenocorticotropic hormone on the source and amount of 
 weight loss by feeder steers of different ages. J. Anim. Sci. 69:2342. 
Prevatt, W., D. Garcia, and C. Prevatt. 2010. U.S. cattle cycles and Alabama seasonal cattle price 
 trends. Alabama Cooperative Ext. Sys. Bulletin DAERS 2010-2. 
Prithchard, R. H., and J. K. Mendez. 1990. Effects of preconditioning on pre- and post-shipment 
 performance of feeder calves. J. Anim. Sci. 68:28. 
Ribble, C. S., A. H. Meek, P. E. Shewen, G. K. Jim, and P. T. Guichon. 1995. effect of 
 tranportation on fatal fibrinous pneuminia and shrinkage in calves arrivin at a large 
 feedlot. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 207: 612-615. 
Self, H. L. and N. Gay. 1972. Shrink during the shipment of feeder cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 
 35:489-494.
Swanson, J. C. and J. Morrow-Tesch. 2001. Cattle transport: Historical, research, and future 
 perspectives. J. Anim. Sci. 79 (E. Suppl.):E109-E109.
Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral 
 detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 
 74: 3583-3597. 
32
Voisinet, B. D., T. Grandin, J. D. Tatum, S. F. O?Connor, and J. J. Struthers. 1997. Feedlot cattle 
 with calm temperaments have higher average daily gains than cattle with excitable 
 temperaments. J. Anim. Sci. 75:892
Warriss, P. D. 1990. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat 
 quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 28: 171-186. 
White, B. J., D. Blasi, L. C. Vogel, and M. Epp. 2009. Assodiations of beef calf wellness and 
 body weight gain with internal location in a truck during transportation. J. Anim. Sci. 
 87:4143-4150.
Woods, G. T., M. E. Mansfield, and R. J. Webb. 1973. A three year comparison of acute 
 respiratory disease, shrink and weight gain in preconditioned and non-preconditioned 
 Illinois beef  calves sold at the same auction and mixed in a feedlot. Can. J. Comp. Med. 
 37:249.
33
Appendix: Internal dimensions of a standard Wilson 53? double decker cattle trailer used to  
calculate stocking density
34