A new way to study cow profitability?

[cypressfarms]

Don't you have bull growth tests where the intake is measured in the USA?

Ofcourse we do Knersie. I'd rather the bull tests where the bull is actually grown with peers on grass. That way I can see how he performs, in comparison with peers, in a natural grass based diet. I can then also be somewhat comforted that the bull won't melt when he starts working on my place.

But with actual cows, how many cattlemen out there have any clue as to the efficiency of there cows? (including myself) Sure everyone can tell you which cow is a "poor doer", which one's wean the best, which one breeds every year earlier and so on. But that does not address efficiency. Actual efficiency is all about how many pounds a cow can gain based on pounds eaten. A simple input versus output scenario. You could substitute output to mean milk (or pounds of calf gained) instead of pounds gained for lactating cows.

So lets take a real world example:
All in a 205 day weaning context:

Cow #1, a 900 pound cow requires inputs of X to wean a calf to weight Y.
Cow #2, a 1300 pound cow requires inputs of X plus (something unknown) to wean a calf to weight Z (we'll assume cow #2 will wean a bigger calf)

A lot of variables above. I have an idea of X, but don't really know exactly - which is dangerous, read assume here. Y and Z I know, because I weigh the calves at sale and can calculate an adjusted 205 day weight. Remember, inputs (X) are everything from hay to Ivomec to grass to minerals. So what is the optimum? I have no idea :?

 

[Willow Springs]

DNA markers are shaky at best; they have only identified a few genes for each trait they are measuring; many more remain unknown. You could be culling animals that are actually more feed efficient than the ones you are keeping. ABS DNA tested their AI sires, and then did live progeny tests for the same traits. They found that their was very little correlation between the two tests. As an example; they top DNA feed efficiency bull was near the bottom and vice-versa; maybe not that dramatic but DNA is not a way to select your stock yet.

As far as what a producer can do to improve feed efficiency. Our local government station did a bunch of work on Net Feed Efficiency. Becasue they are a government station the cows were never really limit fed, and the effect of boss cows was nulified. They had weight and BCS values going back several years and then did some feed efficiency tests. The cows that tested the most efficient were also the heaviest and fattest at avery point in the production cycle over several years. Seems reasonable. In the real worls if you are limit feeding during the winter those big boss cows will get more and be bigger and fatter. If you are not limiting feed, or are grazing most of the year, this may be a viable way to select for feed efficiency. Also important to note that in all the tests they did with PB bulls, commercial steers and cows there wasn't any difference in breed efficiency. Also that a 2000 lb cow can be more feed efficient than a 1000 lb cow; the 2000 lb cow probably isn't as environmentally efficient though.

As fas as the original thread; there are studies going back at least 30 years that confirm that a smaller cow will wean a higher percentage of her bodyweight than a bigger cow. As cow/calf producers we need to balance our cow size with what we can sell into the marketplace to feeders and packers; if we go too far one way or the other we will profitability issues unless a person is direct marketing. Most PB breeders don't seem to have to follow that same rule; the government, universities, feedlots and packers have done a good job of pushing their performance agenda, and most cattleman as still under the false assumption that production equals profit.

 

[novatech]

Although efficiency is very important, how can a small time farmer ever measure it?

So from my point of view, the best way to measure a cow's performance is by the calves she weans off. I know the weight of the calves, that is fact. I know their birth weight, that is fact. I can calculate weight gain per day, 205 day weight, etc. But I cannot calculate a cow's efficiency unless she's kept in a sterile environment where I control her intake. How many of us can do that?

I really would not think anyone in the commercial cattle business would ever do it. About the only way they would ever consider it is buying a breed that is known for having better efficiency. Or buying from a breeder that selects for these qualities.
Efficiency is a very broad term. One animal may be more efficient in the way it converts food, another because it has fewer health problems, another because it forages on lower quality forage. These are all things that must be considered when selecting ones foundation stock in their own environment. The end result is that you have to end up with the lowest investment per pound and get the most pounds per acre.
In a commercial herd there are ways of selecting the more efficient cows. It has been shown that cattle selected for high efficiency, through DNA testing, also are more likely to be cows than can maintain BCS while producing adequate milk to produce high weaning weight calves. The opposite should also be true. By getting rid of the theory that cows get poor because they produce more milk and retain only those cows that raise high weaning weight calves and still retain BCS then you are selecting for efficiency. The calves generated by those efficient cows do not need as much milk as they are also efficient at conversion of the milk and the grass they eat. Overproduction of milk is inefficient. The cow ends up doing the work for both of them. The most advantageous benefit from this type of selection is that you are selecting for your personal environment.
Best Productive discussion on here in a long time.

 

[HerefordSire]

This caught my attention. It is a sign of things to come. It makes allot of sense to do this with cows and not just bulls. Notice the author below is referring to graphics not shown here but on the web page referred to at the end of the post.



Feed Efficiency

We have taken a major step in measuring feed efficiency with our newly installed feed efficiency measurement system. Up until recently, the cost of gathering this data has been so expensive that only taxpayer funded research institutions were able to do it. This is slowly changing. Profit Maker Bulls has just completed its installation of a Grow Safe Feed Intake Measurement System. We are one of only 6 privately owned and funded operations in the US that has this system.

In cowboy terms, this system uses an electronic identity tag to record who is eating and samples the weight in the feed unit each second to determine how much feed that animal has eaten. In this photo 3 of the 4 individual feed stations are occupied.

We can view in real time the information that is being recorded. Here, each vertical bar represents an individual feed unit. The red bars identify the individual feed stations that were occupied at the time that this snapshot was taken.

We can also monitor the individual feed consumption patterns. Note the relatively level graph representation of daily feed intake for this animal. This is what is normally expected for healthy animals.

The feed consumption on this animal has suddenly dropped. A pattern like this is an early warning that this animal may be getting sick and needs to be checked and possibly treated.

At the end of the test, the quantity of feed that each animal should have eaten for his weight and gain is calculated and compared to the quantity actually eaten. If the animal ate less than expected, he is efficient. If he ate more than expected, he is inefficient.

The animal scientists call these differences between expected and actual feed consumption "Residual Feed Intake".



Residual Feed Intake, whether positive or negative, is moderately heritable. This means that genetic selection can be used to propagate cattle that can reduce our feed costs by as much as 10 to 15 percent. Feed efficiency is not related to frame size. Both efficient and inefficient cattle can be large or small framed or anything in between. At this time, there are no known negative antagonisms.

http://www.profitmakerbulls.com/feed_efficiency.htm

Brandon...look at the bold print above.

 

[whitecow]

The Grow Safe System and the resulting RFI data are great tools to measure true feed efficiency in a feedlot environment. As it has been stated by several on this thread, there are many variables in the pasture/cow-calf environment that can not be measured by Grow Safe. Most of the Grow Safe work has been done on growing cattle, not mature cows. There was a study that looked at the dams of calves whose efficiency had been studied with Grow Safe (Basarab (sp?), 2007)....I'll look for the reference. They found a few interesting correlations: 1) twinning rate was much higher in dams of inefficient calves, 2) dams of efficient calves maintained a higher body condition, 3) dams of efficient calves gave birth an average of 5 days later. They also suggested a high correlation between growth rate and effciency. The heritability of feed efficiency was estimated to be 0.40.

 

[TexasBred]

Ok...we increase feed efficiency, we cull those that do not qualify and replace with more feed efficient animals. How much do all these tests cost us in real $$$ as well as the cost of culling and replacingt and our additional man hours per year. Are we really ahead in the end???

 

[cypressfarms]

Here's another weird side affect to throw into the equation:

per:

http://www.ext.vt.edu/news/periodicals/ ... s-398.html

There is a critical temperature where when below, a cow's energy requirements increase. No surprise for anyone right? However, a 1000 pound cow requires 10% more energy than a 1300 pound cow below this level. The web article shows low critical temps for all seasons, which when the temp falls below will require added energy intake for the cow to maintain. Easy to understand how people in the north would prefer bigger cows. However, even down in the deep south we do occasionaly dip below the listed low critical temp. So in this scenario, a 900 pound cow would require a higher percentage of her weight to maintain than a 1300 pounder.

Been also doing some research on the added costs of bigger cows for me. 1300 vs 900

This is all for one 1300 pound cow vs one 900 pound cow:
-would cost $15 more a year for Ivomec per.
-would consume 800 pounds more of hay each winter (I feed about 100 days tops, calculating 2% per day)
-Not sure about mineral consumption

The quest continues....

 

[Willow Springs]

I guess being in the south you Ivomec a lot more often? As a total aside; how often do you Ivomec? Up here in the frozen north most only do it once a year; in the fall after freeze-up. The worms don't do to well in snow. Some will also worm on pasture in mid June to early July.

 

[HerefordSire]

The Grow Safe System and the resulting RFI data are great tools to measure true feed efficiency in a feedlot environment. As it has been stated by several on this thread, there are many variables in the pasture/cow-calf environment that can not be measured by Grow Safe. Most of the Grow Safe work has been done on growing cattle, not mature cows. There was a study that looked at the dams of calves whose efficiency had been studied with Grow Safe (Basarab (sp?), 2007)....I'll look for the reference. They found a few interesting correlations: 1) twinning rate was much higher in dams of inefficient calves, 2) dams of efficient calves maintained a higher body condition, 3) dams of efficient calves gave birth an average of 5 days later. They also suggested a high correlation between growth rate and effciency. The heritability of feed efficiency was estimated to be 0.40.

Great post whitecow! That is the solution I am looking for then....

Don't issue the Grow Safe test on the cows, but only on all cow's calves for three sequential years. If she doesn't calf, she is culled. The three year target should compensate for the heritability factor of .40. In other words, test all of the dam's calves for three years, then don't ever test the calves of the dam again. After three years, the feed efficiency of the dam could be calculated with a high degree of accuracy. All new cows should have three years of calf efficiency data to be compared against all cows. Reminder....this would only be the feed efficiency portion of the formula and not the formula to maximize profit.

 

[novatech]

Feed efficiency is not related to frame size.

I agree. But isn't Net Feed Efficiency?
Here is another ranch that has been using the same feeders for several years. He does the DNA testing as well. You may note that he has reduced the frame size of his cattle as well, if you read all about his program.
http://www.kallionfarms.com/program.html
I do not think anybody other than seedstock producers would introduce these tests into their operations directly. But as Knersie said you can start with a bull. You should also note those that have spent the money and done the breeding to generate these highly efficient bulls do not give them away. I also believe that implementing some sort of selection now may very well be the edge needed to continue cattle business. It will take many years for the dribble down effect to have influence on the commercial producer.

 

[backhoeboogie]

I guess being in the south you Ivomec a lot more often?

You are absolutely correct. An injection in the spring cattle work. Pour on follow ups later.

 

[Caustic Burno]

I guess being in the south you Ivomec a lot more often? As a total aside; how often do you Ivomec? Up here in the frozen north most only do it once a year; in the fall after freeze-up. The worms don't do to well in snow. Some will also worm on pasture in mid June to early July.

Halloween and Memorial Day as that is when conditions are prime for brown stomach worms here, it is wet enough for them to complete the life cycle.

 

[HerefordSire]

So lets take a real world example:
All in a 205 day weaning context:

Cow #1, a 900 pound cow requires inputs of X to wean a calf to weight Y.
Cow #2, a 1300 pound cow requires inputs of X plus (something unknown) to wean a calf to weight Z (we'll assume cow #2 will wean a bigger calf)

Now you have a new variable and you can figure out what you are after. We can refer to is as RFI or residual feed intake which is the same as net feed intake. I think your formula could be constructed as a work in progress after many edits and posts to perfect it. I would start something like this:

RFI = cow feed efficiency (based upon 3 calves)
CW = cow weight
BW = calf birth weight
WW = calf weaning weight
WWR = calf weaning weight ratio
WWP = dam weaning weight percentage
DMV = dam current local market value
CMV = calf current local market value
WM = weather maintenance factor (see post of cypressfarms above)

Did I forget any variables? In the meantime, I will be working on a formula we can plug some realistic numbers into so the formula can be tweaked and then we can determine if the cow is a cull or keeper.

 

[SRBeef]

After reading the comments on this thread, I went back and looked at the data from my 11/1/08 working of my small herd and weaning of the calves.

What I found was a bit surprising, at least to me.

There was a big difference in the 205 day adjusted weaning weight to dam cow weight that day of the heifers vs the steers.

The heifers AWW averaged about 43% of their dam cow's weight that day. The steer calves AWW averaged about 53% of their dam cow's weight that day.

What was surprising is that within each group (heifers and steers) the lighter cows weaned calves that were a higher percent of the cow's weight that day.

For heifers, the 205 day AWW was about 40% for the heavier (avg about 1350-1400lb) cows and 46% for the lighter cows (avg about 1100-1200lb).

For steers, the 205 day AWW was about 50% for the heavier cows and about 56% for the lighter cows.

The lighter cows consistently weaned a higher percent of their body weight than the heavier cows. And this was every one, there was no exception.

A couple of my less than stellar looking cows actually had the best weaned calf to dam weight ratios. Where a couple of my visual favorites actually did not have the best weaning wt ratios.

Now if we could say that a lighter cow consumes less feed than a heavier cow we'd have something here. However I'm not sure we can say that.

 

[cypressfarms]

Now you have a new variable and you can figure out what you are after. We can refer to is as RFI or residual feed intake which is the same as net feed intake. I think your formula could be constructed as a work in progress after many edits and posts to perfect it. I would start something like this:

RFI = cow feed efficiency (based upon 3 calves)
CW = cow weight
BW = calf birth weight
WW = calf weaning weight
WWR = calf weaning weight ratio
WWP = dam weaning weight percentage
DMV = dam current local market value
CMV = calf current local market value
WM = weather maintenance factor (see post of cypressfarms above)

Did I forget any variables? In the meantime, I will be working on a formula we can plug some realistic numbers into so the formula can be tweaked and then we can determine if the cow is a cull or keeper.

Now Herefordsire, I think we're getting somewhere. An actual formula that can be tailored to suit differing environments. Still not sure how much 'ol belle actually grazes in grass terms could be factually tracked. Too many variables on this one. I've seen my cows graze several different types - no joke. One when they are foraging because they are hungry and trying to survive, one when they are just let into a ryegrass pasture - they graze while walking - I actually think they want to be the first one's to get to the "good" grass, and the third type is normal summer grazing.

There are indeed many factors, but if we can manage to get our arms around them just a little bit, I think we'll all gain from it. I mean gain in more than one sense :nod:

 

[HerefordSire]

cypressfarms...I think the good grass / bad grass cow number will show up in the RFI variable. For now, we need to know all the variables we are working with. Any others?

 

[cypressfarms]

cypressfarms...I think the good grass / bad grass cow number will show up in the RFI variable. For now, we need to know all the variables we are working with. Any others?

I think that's it as long as the Weather/Maintenance factor includes all things necessary for the upkeep of the cow - hay cost, medicine costs, vaccine cost, and any other directly related cost specific to the cow. As I'm thinking you could almost cancel out any cost that is the same for every cow to simplify things. For example, all of my cows get a combo vaccine - the dose is always 5cc's regardless of weight. This wouldn't necessarily need to be counted since ALL cows receive it. On the other hand though, only my hereford and cows with totally white faces recieve a pinkeye vaccine, so that would be an added cost for that specific cow. What were trying to peg is almost a variable cost per cow - if I were some sort of accountant - I'm not.

I wouldn't want anyone to confuse this with determining a farm's profit. We are not talking about depreciating your old Ford tractor here. Only cow specific items that will give a true idea of the actual cost of a particular cow in a certain environment. Then it would be up to the cattlemen to use the info to decide what's best for him/her in their farm, and to turn a profit and make frogs (as Caustic would say) or go into the red. (and I don't mean hereford)

 

[cypressfarms]

On another note, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this thread. Turned out, in my opinion, to be full of viable/valuable opinions from greatly varied members. And no negative posts, not one! That is a great thing :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[HerefordSire]

cypressfarms...I think the good grass / bad grass cow number will show up in the RFI variable. For now, we need to know all the variables we are working with. Any others?

I think that's it as long as the Weather/Maintenance factor includes all things necessary for the upkeep of the cow - hay cost, medicine costs, vaccine cost, and any other directly related cost specific to the cow. As I'm thinking you could almost cancel out any cost that is the same for every cow to simplify things. For example, all of my cows get a combo vaccine - the dose is always 5cc's regardless of weight. This wouldn't necessarily need to be counted since ALL cows receive it. On the other hand though, only my hereford and cows with totally white faces recieve a pinkeye vaccine, so that would be an added cost for that specific cow. What were trying to peg is almost a variable cost per cow - if I were some sort of accountant - I'm not.

I wouldn't want anyone to confuse this with determining a farm's profit. We are not talking about depreciating your old Ford tractor here. Only cow specific items that will give a true idea of the actual cost of a particular cow in a certain environment. Then it would be up to the cattlemen to use the info to decide what's best for him/her in their farm, and to turn a profit and make frogs (as Caustic would say) or go into the red. (and I don't mean hereford)

You are correct. There is no need in calculating common denominator values. We just need to know the variances as long as you manage all cows as one group. If you manage more than one group, then you would obviously have another variance, or another variable to contend with and likewise incorporate the variable into the formula.

Do you want to remove any variables?

Something that is bothering me though.....I need a couple of posters to agree that cows providing three years of calf data will overcome the heredity factor of 0.4 for RFI. Also, I need to see the reference that the heredity of 0.4 is estimated accurately or from a reliable source that can be believed.

 

[KNERSIE]

I've deliberately stayed out of the discussion for the last few pages to let it run a bit, but I'll throw another spanner in the works...

Animals that were actually tested to be efficient in a feedlot situation DIDN'T neccesarily proved to be as efficient as some of the lower performing animals in the feedlot on grass or rangeland. This studies is still an ongoing thing here in SA.

We have two official types of growth tests for young bulls, both are done by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC). The phase C test is an intensive feedlot test where the bulls go to bull test centres that is mostly privately owned, but managed by the ARC. The system is basically the same as the grow safe system someone mentioned, the go in aged 151-250 days old, have an adaptation period of 28 days and 84 days in the test so they spend a total of 112 days at the test centre and consume roughly 1 ton of feed. The ration is reasonably high in proteien (16%), but moderate in energy not to get the bulls fat. They are weighed every week and indexed with the entire population bulls of that breed that has been tested at that centre the last 10 years as the contemporary group. At the end of the test they receive a merit based on how they have performed, WW, ADG, FCR indexes as well as information from the ultrasound scan are used to determine this. The cost is very much in line with what it would cost to grow a bull out on bought feed by the bag so although more expensive than it would be if you used your own grain its not breaking the bank.

The extensive veld test is called the phase D test where a minimum of 10 bulls out of 2 sires are grown out on the farm at the rate and level of nutrition the owner decides on. The ARC will still come out and take the official weights and measurements at the start and finish of the test and they will calculate the data. This test is by far the more usefull one if done correctly. Typically bulls run on veld with just a phosphate and protein lick. From next year onwards I'll be doing this test and that was part of the reason I quit the two calving seasons, to get a bigger and more representative contemporary group.

I have 2 bulls in a phase C test at the moment, I have taken a few photos of the feeders and bulls with the magnetic keyfobs around their necks, but I fear that would not be appropriate to post photos of what can be considered intellectual property of the ARC on a public forum.