Auburn Eating Contest @ 56 Days
- Thread starter MikeC
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
- Status
MikeC":3gyuebsn said:
As I said before, if Auburn wants to change their test rules to fit the animals instead of encouraging breeders to change genetics, I'm not going to argue with them. You've provided no research showing me they changed the rules because bulls were being adversely affected by feeding for 112 days. I'm sure the dozens of bull tests that feed for 112 days would be interested in reading any actual published material.
Really? I looked your link over pretty well and don't see a single thing about being a BIF sanctioned test. Please take time to point it out to me.
http://www.albcia.org/
The joke's on you, Mike. You read the BIF recommendations and Auburn isn't in compliance with them. The BIF may change them next year, but they may not, too. And as of today, they recommend a 112 day test.
Badlands":4njx4w0b said:
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "formal recommendations" , but from my earlier post:
""8.1: Full-Feed Central Bull Tests
The following procedures and policies are specifically recommended for full-feed central bull tests:
There should be a minimum pre-test adjustment period of 21 days.
The minimum length of the test should be 112 days.
Test rations with 60-70% TDN (total digestible nutrients) on an as-fed basis should be fed free-choice.
BIF recommends that central test stations use the following formula for calculating Adjusted 365-Day Yearling Weight:
Adj. 365-Day Yearling Wt = (Final Wt - Birth Wt) * 365
Age (days)
+ Birth Weight
+ Weaning weight Age-of-Dam adjustment
Efficiency of feed conversion should be expressed as pounds of feed (as- fed) per pound of gain adjusted to a common body weight because weight differences affect feed requirements for maintenance. Appendix 12.5 contains a method for adjusting feed conversion values for differences in maintenance requirements associated with weight differences.
Full feed centrally tested bulls can benefit from a post test period (4-6 weeks) of reduced grain intake and exercise prior to cow herd exposure to facilitate optimal reproductive and performance efficiency."
Mike told us specifically that this test used to be 112 days and they cut it back because of the health of the bulls.
Tod Dague
Well-known member
Mike
Not to change the subject but when will they be Ultrasounding the bulls?
Not to change the subject but when will they be Ultrasounding the bulls?
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie, read this and tell me you really don't believe that the Auburn test doesn't know what they are doing. :lol: I think what you don't understand is that BIF gets their information from events such as these and then sets their guidelines according to the research. In short, if there was no research, everything would stay the same. :roll:
"The Beef Improvement Federation honored Lisa Kriese-Anderson (right), Auburn University, with its Continuing Service Award during an awards luncheon April 20 at the 2006 BIF Annual Meeting and Research Symposium in Choctaw, Miss. Presenting the award is Lynn Pelton, 2005 BIF president.
...
CHOCTAW, Miss. (April 20, 2006) , The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored Lisa Kriese-Anderson with its Continuing Service Award during the organization,s 38th annual meeting April 18-21 in Choctaw, Miss. The award recognizes individuals for their service to the organization and to the beef industry.
Kriese-Anderson is an associate professor in the department of animal sciences at Auburn University. She earned a bachelor,s degree from Cornell University, a master,s degree from Kansas State University, and doctorate from the University of Georgia. Now in her 12th year at Auburn, Kriese-Anderson holds responsibilities in all areas of the land-grant university , teaching, research and Extension. As a faculty member, she has developed solutions and designed programs in beef cattle breeding to help beef producers in Alabama. She has led many research projects evaluating the application and use of expected progeny differences (EPDs), along with studies on the use of ultrasound to determine carcass traits in beef cattle.
She provides leadership to a number of Extension programs throughout the state. She serves the Alabama Beef Cattle Improvement Association (BCIA) as advising geneticist, supervises the Auburn University Bull Test and analyzes BCIA data. Kriese-Anderson has played an essential role in the Alabama BCIA program, helping it grow to meet the performance and marketing needs of its cattle producers.
Kriese-Anderson coordinates the Alabama Pasture-to-Rail program, allowing retained ownership for small-scale beef producers. This provides them the opportunity to obtain feedlot data and carcass information on their cattle.
Within Extension, Kriese-Anderson serves as team leader for the Animal Science and Forage Extension Team, and she helped develop the National Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Pilot Project and the Alabama Master Cattle Producers Training Program. She is a member of the Ultrasound Guidelines Council (UGC) Governance Committee that certifies ultrasound technicians.
She has been an avid supporter of BIF, appearing on the program numerous times, and she was instrumental in bringing the BIF convention to Birmingham, Ala., in 1996."
You're joking right? You still think the test is not legit? If you do, PM me your e-mail address and I will have Lisa herself assure you that it is.
"The Beef Improvement Federation honored Lisa Kriese-Anderson (right), Auburn University, with its Continuing Service Award during an awards luncheon April 20 at the 2006 BIF Annual Meeting and Research Symposium in Choctaw, Miss. Presenting the award is Lynn Pelton, 2005 BIF president.
...
CHOCTAW, Miss. (April 20, 2006) , The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored Lisa Kriese-Anderson with its Continuing Service Award during the organization,s 38th annual meeting April 18-21 in Choctaw, Miss. The award recognizes individuals for their service to the organization and to the beef industry.
Kriese-Anderson is an associate professor in the department of animal sciences at Auburn University. She earned a bachelor,s degree from Cornell University, a master,s degree from Kansas State University, and doctorate from the University of Georgia. Now in her 12th year at Auburn, Kriese-Anderson holds responsibilities in all areas of the land-grant university , teaching, research and Extension. As a faculty member, she has developed solutions and designed programs in beef cattle breeding to help beef producers in Alabama. She has led many research projects evaluating the application and use of expected progeny differences (EPDs), along with studies on the use of ultrasound to determine carcass traits in beef cattle.
She provides leadership to a number of Extension programs throughout the state. She serves the Alabama Beef Cattle Improvement Association (BCIA) as advising geneticist, supervises the Auburn University Bull Test and analyzes BCIA data. Kriese-Anderson has played an essential role in the Alabama BCIA program, helping it grow to meet the performance and marketing needs of its cattle producers.
Kriese-Anderson coordinates the Alabama Pasture-to-Rail program, allowing retained ownership for small-scale beef producers. This provides them the opportunity to obtain feedlot data and carcass information on their cattle.
Within Extension, Kriese-Anderson serves as team leader for the Animal Science and Forage Extension Team, and she helped develop the National Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) Pilot Project and the Alabama Master Cattle Producers Training Program. She is a member of the Ultrasound Guidelines Council (UGC) Governance Committee that certifies ultrasound technicians.
She has been an avid supporter of BIF, appearing on the program numerous times, and she was instrumental in bringing the BIF convention to Birmingham, Ala., in 1996."
You're joking right? You still think the test is not legit? If you do, PM me your e-mail address and I will have Lisa herself assure you that it is.
MikeC
Well-known member
Tod Dague":dl5oexaj said:
The bulls were ultrasounded a week from last Friday. The results are at the lab and should be getting back soon.
You'd better not let Frankie know though....... she still thinks they have to be done at the end of a 112 day test. :lol:
I never said the test wasn't legitimate. I think any testing of breeding stock is a good thing. I was willing to let this thread die, but you called me out so I'm happy to point out where you've made claims you can't back up. I'm sure Lisa Kriese-Anderson is a fine person and deserves the award that the BIF gave her. You can search and spin all you want, but the bull test obviously isn't being run as the BIF recommends. The BIF may change their recommendations tomorrow or next week or in five years, but as of today the test isn't being run as they recommend.
You've said they shortened the test because it damaged the bulls' health. There's nothing in this article that supports that claim. I'd be glad to read any published research that shows it does. You've claimed it's a BIF "sanctioned event". But nothing on the wetsite shows that to be true.
You've said they shortened the test because it damaged the bulls' health. There's nothing in this article that supports that claim. I'd be glad to read any published research that shows it does. You've claimed it's a BIF "sanctioned event". But nothing on the wetsite shows that to be true.
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie":bqly9akr said:
********. You have certainly proposed that the test wasn't legitimate because you said it didn't meet BIF guidlines. I in turn showed you where the test supervisor works very closely with BIF and even the President of BIF is on the bull test committee. These people provide some of the data that drives the BIF!
If you are too dumb to understand that ANY time a bull that is expected to go to work for the rest of his life goes on full feed he is subject to various problems associated with a growing ration. That claim is common sense and needs no backup whatsoever. That goes for bulls in Montana, Oklahoma, or Alabama.
I called you out because you were stupid enough to equate a steer in the feedlot that gets slaughtered with a growing bull that must put on his working clothes. I have to admit. That was very "Classic". :roll: And dumb. :shock:
Your short amount of time in the cattle business and the meager few 15 head you raise are surely showing now.
I ask you this. Are you just jealous because your bull test supervisor is not an actual scientist or researcher?
No. Every bull on a 112 day feed test does not get screwed up for life from eating too much feed. But some do and sometimes there is no way to tell because the problems can be hidden for long periods of time.
Are you trying to tell me that none of the bulls at OBI have never bloated? If they haven't, they must not have much of an appetite. Are you trying to tell me that none have gotten acidosis? If you say no you are lying because almost all get it to a certain degree without anyone knowing and that in itself is not healthy. How many of your test workers have done a PH test on the manure of the bulls on test? I'd bet none.
Our objective is to let the cream rise to the top in the shortest period of time that supplies the needed data and supply the buyers with the best bulls they can afford. It's as simple as that.
Oh, and you saying that the test is not sanctioned by BIF. Do you really think that just because it's not on the website that it's not? Your ignorance and arrogance is showing again. :heart:
I offered to let Lisa tell you. But I guess you don't believe what you've said either. :lol:
Go to bed. You're showing your "CAB" side again 8)
You are more fun than a barrel of monkeys. :heart:
1. There's nothing on the website that says this is a BIF test.
2. They are not following the BIF recommendations of a 112 day test.
So why are you saying they are BIF "sanctioned"?
As far as I know, the BIF doesn't sanction anything. They put out recommended guidelines and it's up to the test station to use them or not. Apparently Auburn has decided not to. If one wants to do a Google search for "bull test stations", they'll find lots that do feed for 112 days. Amazing how so many have been able to stay in business all these years. :roll:
2. They are not following the BIF recommendations of a 112 day test.
So why are you saying they are BIF "sanctioned"?
As far as I know, the BIF doesn't sanction anything. They put out recommended guidelines and it's up to the test station to use them or not. Apparently Auburn has decided not to. If one wants to do a Google search for "bull test stations", they'll find lots that do feed for 112 days. Amazing how so many have been able to stay in business all these years. :roll:
MikeC
Well-known member
Whatever Frankie.
Here, go to school a little:
Acidosis. As the name implies, acidosis occurs when the rumen and the blood become acidic. It is caused by two factors; excess acid production in the rumen and decreased buffering of the rumen digesta as a result of decreased saliva flow. Saliva contains large amounts of sodium bicarbonate which is a buffer that neutralizes acids. Acids in the rumen are produced by rumen bacteria during the fermentation of feed. These acids are absorbed and provide the major source of energy to cattle. Two types of acidosis occur; acute acidosis and subacute or chronic acidosis. Acute acidosis is uncommon in well managed cattle. It usually occurs when non-grain adapted cattle accidentally gain access to a large quantity of grain and engorge themselves. This results in a rapid drop in rumen and blood pH (due to excess acid production during fermentation) which often causes sudden death. Subacute acidosis is more common in feedlot cattle and is more costly to the producer. Subacute acidosis occurs when feedlot cattle fed high grain diets are not able to balance acid production with the buffering capabilities of saliva. Cattle normally produce 5 to 10 gallons of saliva daily. Most of this saliva enters the rumen during rumination, the cud chewing process. When finishing diets low in roughage are fed, cattle are not able to regurgitate effectively which greatly reduces rumination, saliva flow and subsequently buffering capacity. The cattle feeder must always walk a tightrope between high acid production and excessive rumen acidity. High grain diets are necessary to maximize performance and economic returns; however, chronic acidosis may cause founder and reduces feed intake, growth and economic return. Our best ally in combating acidosis is the use of ionophores such as Rumensin and Bovatec. These compounds reduce the incidence of acidosis and are largely responsible for our ability to successfully feed diets with little or no roughage. The role of roughage in a feedlot diet is to stimulate rumination which reduces acidosis. However, excessive use of roughage is costly and decreases growth and feed efficiency. The incidence of acidosis can also be reduced by feeding whole corn rather than processed corn and by feeding more than once a day. These practices reduce acid load in the rumen by spreading out the fermentation of starch throughout the day. Good bunk management is also important for hand fed cattle. Empty bunks followed by over feeding the next day often causes acidosis.
Rumenitis. Rumenitis is an inflammation or irritation of the rumen wall. It is caused by long term feeding of high grain diets which results in continuous acidic conditions and lack of physical stimulation or abrasion of the tissue. Feeding some roughage provides a "scratch factor" which helps keep the tissue healthy. This principle is analogous to the recommendation that humans should have adequate fiber in their diets to keep the colon healthy. Like acidosis, a low level of rumenitis is a fact of life when high grain diets are fed. In general, the problem worsens the longer cattle are on their finishing diet. When rumenitis becomes severe, the tissue lining the rumen wall becomes ulcerated and is no longer effective in absorbing nutrients. We see this as cattle that stop growing towards the end of the feeding period. The packer sees it as liver abscesses. When ulcers develop in the rumen wall, bacteria normally present in the rumen pass through to the blood, travel to the liver and cause abscesses. Surprisingly, only cattle with severe liver abscesses have reduced performance. Feeding antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, reduce the incidence of liver abscesses but do not prevent rumenitis. We are currently doing research to see if "stall out" due to rumenitis can be prevented by adding roughage to the diet late in the finishing period.
Feedlot bloat. One of the results of ruminal fermentation is gas production. In normal situations, cattle are able to belch and relieve this gas that is produced. Feedlot bloat is not caused by increased gas production, but rather, the inability to release gas via the belching process. The use of finely ground feeds promote foaming or frothiness in the rumen. This increases the incidence of bloat because the gasses are trapped in the foam and belching is prevented. High grain diets also encourage the growth of certain rumen bacteria which produce a slimy substance that traps gasses. Acidic conditions in the rumen tend to stabilize the foam. Saliva contains antifoaming agents, but as discussed above, saliva production is greatly reduced on high grain diets. All of these factors contribute to the occurrence of feedlot bloat. If bloating is a problem in your cattle, several steps may be taken. Feeding Rumensin, Bovatec, oxytetracycline, poloxalene (Bloat Guard) and/or long roughage are effective in reducing the incidence of bloat. Death from bloat is believed to be caused by asphyxiation. The rumen becomes so distended that the animal can no longer breathe.
In summary, the diseases discussed above are all associated with feeding high grain diets. The cattle feeder must be able to define the line where the use of these diets maximizes cattle performance and profitability without causing metabolic disorders to the extent that they reduce performance and economic return.
Here, go to school a little:
Acidosis. As the name implies, acidosis occurs when the rumen and the blood become acidic. It is caused by two factors; excess acid production in the rumen and decreased buffering of the rumen digesta as a result of decreased saliva flow. Saliva contains large amounts of sodium bicarbonate which is a buffer that neutralizes acids. Acids in the rumen are produced by rumen bacteria during the fermentation of feed. These acids are absorbed and provide the major source of energy to cattle. Two types of acidosis occur; acute acidosis and subacute or chronic acidosis. Acute acidosis is uncommon in well managed cattle. It usually occurs when non-grain adapted cattle accidentally gain access to a large quantity of grain and engorge themselves. This results in a rapid drop in rumen and blood pH (due to excess acid production during fermentation) which often causes sudden death. Subacute acidosis is more common in feedlot cattle and is more costly to the producer. Subacute acidosis occurs when feedlot cattle fed high grain diets are not able to balance acid production with the buffering capabilities of saliva. Cattle normally produce 5 to 10 gallons of saliva daily. Most of this saliva enters the rumen during rumination, the cud chewing process. When finishing diets low in roughage are fed, cattle are not able to regurgitate effectively which greatly reduces rumination, saliva flow and subsequently buffering capacity. The cattle feeder must always walk a tightrope between high acid production and excessive rumen acidity. High grain diets are necessary to maximize performance and economic returns; however, chronic acidosis may cause founder and reduces feed intake, growth and economic return. Our best ally in combating acidosis is the use of ionophores such as Rumensin and Bovatec. These compounds reduce the incidence of acidosis and are largely responsible for our ability to successfully feed diets with little or no roughage. The role of roughage in a feedlot diet is to stimulate rumination which reduces acidosis. However, excessive use of roughage is costly and decreases growth and feed efficiency. The incidence of acidosis can also be reduced by feeding whole corn rather than processed corn and by feeding more than once a day. These practices reduce acid load in the rumen by spreading out the fermentation of starch throughout the day. Good bunk management is also important for hand fed cattle. Empty bunks followed by over feeding the next day often causes acidosis.
Rumenitis. Rumenitis is an inflammation or irritation of the rumen wall. It is caused by long term feeding of high grain diets which results in continuous acidic conditions and lack of physical stimulation or abrasion of the tissue. Feeding some roughage provides a "scratch factor" which helps keep the tissue healthy. This principle is analogous to the recommendation that humans should have adequate fiber in their diets to keep the colon healthy. Like acidosis, a low level of rumenitis is a fact of life when high grain diets are fed. In general, the problem worsens the longer cattle are on their finishing diet. When rumenitis becomes severe, the tissue lining the rumen wall becomes ulcerated and is no longer effective in absorbing nutrients. We see this as cattle that stop growing towards the end of the feeding period. The packer sees it as liver abscesses. When ulcers develop in the rumen wall, bacteria normally present in the rumen pass through to the blood, travel to the liver and cause abscesses. Surprisingly, only cattle with severe liver abscesses have reduced performance. Feeding antibiotics, such as chlortetracycline, reduce the incidence of liver abscesses but do not prevent rumenitis. We are currently doing research to see if "stall out" due to rumenitis can be prevented by adding roughage to the diet late in the finishing period.
Feedlot bloat. One of the results of ruminal fermentation is gas production. In normal situations, cattle are able to belch and relieve this gas that is produced. Feedlot bloat is not caused by increased gas production, but rather, the inability to release gas via the belching process. The use of finely ground feeds promote foaming or frothiness in the rumen. This increases the incidence of bloat because the gasses are trapped in the foam and belching is prevented. High grain diets also encourage the growth of certain rumen bacteria which produce a slimy substance that traps gasses. Acidic conditions in the rumen tend to stabilize the foam. Saliva contains antifoaming agents, but as discussed above, saliva production is greatly reduced on high grain diets. All of these factors contribute to the occurrence of feedlot bloat. If bloating is a problem in your cattle, several steps may be taken. Feeding Rumensin, Bovatec, oxytetracycline, poloxalene (Bloat Guard) and/or long roughage are effective in reducing the incidence of bloat. Death from bloat is believed to be caused by asphyxiation. The rumen becomes so distended that the animal can no longer breathe.
In summary, the diseases discussed above are all associated with feeding high grain diets. The cattle feeder must be able to define the line where the use of these diets maximizes cattle performance and profitability without causing metabolic disorders to the extent that they reduce performance and economic return.
bulldealer
Well-known member
MikeC Wrote:
"I ask you this. Are you just jealous because your bull test supervisor is not an actual scientist or researcher?"
By supervisor do you mean the person that is there with the cattle everyday or the university faculty member that is a part of it to keep the ties with the university. In the case of OBI, the test station manager has been there for over 20 years and has fed over 15,000 bulls at the test facility. The faculty member who is the Executive Secretary of OBI has been on the Oklahoma State faculty for nearly 40 years and has authored numerous reaserch papers and journal articles. So I think that OBI is in very capable hands. If it wasn't it would not have survived for 34 years and grown to the 2nd largest bull test in America. You are bashing a facility that I have been a part of on both ends, assistant manager and bull owner. BIF guidelines are plain and simple, 21 day warm-up and 112 day test. If your only feeding on an 84 day test then your facility is not abiding by BIF recomendations, whether the president is on the board or not.
"I ask you this. Are you just jealous because your bull test supervisor is not an actual scientist or researcher?"
By supervisor do you mean the person that is there with the cattle everyday or the university faculty member that is a part of it to keep the ties with the university. In the case of OBI, the test station manager has been there for over 20 years and has fed over 15,000 bulls at the test facility. The faculty member who is the Executive Secretary of OBI has been on the Oklahoma State faculty for nearly 40 years and has authored numerous reaserch papers and journal articles. So I think that OBI is in very capable hands. If it wasn't it would not have survived for 34 years and grown to the 2nd largest bull test in America. You are bashing a facility that I have been a part of on both ends, assistant manager and bull owner. BIF guidelines are plain and simple, 21 day warm-up and 112 day test. If your only feeding on an 84 day test then your facility is not abiding by BIF recomendations, whether the president is on the board or not.
MikeC
Well-known member
Frankie":1dg83ciu said:
How would you know how their calves will be fed?
With the large number of feedlots in the U.S. that all use a unique ration because of their location in reference to a local feed source, it is not possible.
How could you possibly know? :roll:
I'll throw the BS flag again here.
As the article says;
"Like acidosis, a low level of rumenitis is a fact of life when high grain diets are fed."
On a test, all you can do it put a balanced ration and hay before the bulls and let them go. But keep in mind, most folks want their bulls to last just a little longer than a slaughter steer would. :lol:
With an abundance of caution, I think I'll stick by the 84 day test. Especially since I am the one the buyer looks to in the future.
MikeC
Well-known member
bulldealer":261ode9m said:
My intent was not to bash the OBI at all. I am sure they are in capable hands.
The statement you are referring to was a swipe at Frankie, not your test. Sorry if you took it that way.
I am just not a fan of bull tests, as you can see from the title of my original post. re: "Eating Contest".
*
You can see that we have shortened the test period quite a bit over time.
As we learn more, we adjust these things to better fit our labor and management. Some of the first tests were 150-180 days.
The Bull Development Center of Texas tests bulls for 112 days for performance, but uses the 84 day date for feed intake.
There are a few goofy oddities in here since I was changing formats to get this work here. I don't have time to get all the little kinks out.
If anyone needs more information, I might be able to find more peer-reviewed articles.
I hope this will be enough.
Badlands
- Status
