Table 3.

Simple effect means of corn type and milling method on finishing cattle performance, energy content of diets, fecal starch, and carcass characteristics (experiment 1)

	ROLL1			HAMMER			SEM	Corn type	Mill type	Corn × Mill
Item	DC	BLEND	HMC	DC	BLEND	HMC
Initial BW, kg	412	413	413	414	413	414	0.4	0.39	0.02	0.22
Live performance
Final BW, kg	698	690	691	696	691	688	3.4	0.06	0.66	0.82
Dress, %	61.9	62.4	62.5	62.2	62.3	61.9	2.37	0.35	0.54	0.13
Carcass-adj. performance2
Final BW, kg	685	683	685	686	683	676	4.1	0.45	0.44	0.32
DMI, kg/d	13.1	12.8	12.1	13.2	12.8	12.3	0.13	<0.01	0.40	0.88
ADG, kg	2.04	2.03	2.04	2.04	2.03	1.96	0.032	0.42	0.32	0.32
G:F	0.156b,c	0.158b,c	0.169a	0.155c	0.158b,c	0.161b	0.0021	<0.01	0.07	0.09
NEm, Mcal/kg3	1.86c	1.89b,c	1.99a	1.85c	1.89b,c	1.92b	0.019	<0.01	0.07	0.10
NEg, Mcal/kg	1.22c	1.26b,c	1.34a	1.22c	1.25b,c	1.28b	0.016	<0.01	0.04	0.16
ME, Mcal/kg	2.80c	2.83bc	2.96a	2.79c	2.83b,c	2.87b	0.021	<0.01	0.06	0.10
Fecal Starch, %	15.9b,c	13.0b	7.4a	17.4c	16.7b,c	16.6b,c	1.40	<0.01	<0.01	0.02
Carcass characteristics
HCW, kg	432	430	432	432	430	426	2.6	0.42	0.41	0.34
LM area, cm2	92.3	94.2	94.8	94.2	94.8	94.2	1.10	0.29	0.46	0.31
Marbling score 4	484b	515a	475b	488b	477b	474b	10.7	0.12	0.18	0.09
12th rib fat, cm.	1.35	1.32	1.30	1.27	1.30	1.27	0.051	0.93	0.14	0.66
Calculated YG 5	3.29	3.10	3.09	3.20	3.15	3.10	0.06	0.05	0.85	0.52
Liver Abscess, %	28.0	27.0	38.8	24.2	29.0	28.4	5.8	0.19	0.43	0.37

¹Treatments were corn processed with a roller mill (ROLL) or hammer mill (HAMMER) and fed as dry corn (DC), 50:50 blend of DC and high-moisture corn (BLEND) or high-moisture corn (HMC).

²Calculated from final BW adjusted to a common dressing percent of 63%.

³Calculated using ADG, DMI, and final BW using equations adapted from NRC, 1996.

⁴400 = small, 500 = modest, 600 = moderate.

⁵Yield grade = 2.50 + (0.98425 × 12th rib fat, cm) + (0.2 × 2.5 KPH, %) + 0.00837 × HCW, kg) − (0.0496 × LM area, cm²), where KPH is assumed to be 2.5%.

^a,b,c Means without common superscripts differ (P ≤ 0.05).