Auburn Eating Contest @ 56 Days

[Frankie]

Enough for what?

Mike told us Auburn shortened the lengh of their test because of concerns of bull health. I don't see that anywhere in your post. In spite of my requests, he's yet to provide anything supporting that claim. The article you post here from L. A. Kriese-Anderson doesn't back up his claim either.

Yes, it's cheaper and easier to only feed 84 days. But the point of the test is not to be easy and cheap for the producers of the bulls, but to provide efficient bulls to the buyers. I guess it depends on which side of the fence you're standing on.

Here are only a few places running 112 day tests. Mike's claim that 112 days on feed is unhealthy should be pointed out to these guys. I'm sure they'd immediately cut their test back. :roll: As you say the BDCT runs 112 days.

University of TN
http://animalscience.ag.utk.edu/beef/pd ... 006-07.pdf

Virginia
http://bcia.apsc.vt.edu/bull%20test%20info.html

Ohio State
http://bulltest.osu.edu/06/rules06.htm

Kansas
http://www.kansasbulltest.com/PDF/RULES ... 0TEST1.pdf

So Illinois
http://www.siu.edu/~animal/bulltest/BullReq.doc

Tucumari
http://spectre.nmsu.edu/dept/docs/anima ... OK.pdf.pdf

When/if the BIF recommends a shorter test, I imagine my test station will shift gears. Our genetics have improved greatly over the years, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Badlands]

Wow!

Enough for what?

To show:

1) That bull tests have decreased the length of the testing period over time, and may continue to do so.

2) That people still do research. In this case to see how to help add some economic efficiency to testing for feed efficiency, to decrease costs to producers and buyers. Win/Win.

3) To show that most of the people that are testing for feed intake are shifting towards shorter time periods. It helps defray the cost of labor to run the trials. In a couple cases, the animals are turned around quickly, so in those cases, the shorter time allows for more animals to be tested each year.

This has nothing to do with genetics, it has to do with costs. I noticed the Angus bulls at the AU test were sired by BR Midland, VRD, Hyline RT, New Day, Next Step, Future Direction, Neutron, 1407, 004, New Frontier, Grid Maker, WAR Alliance, and two other bulls that were sons of 5175 and Krugerrand. I doubt if any of these bulls would be exclusively limited to the Southeast, so I don't think genetics has too much to do with it.

I sure don't know how just adding some peer-reviewed articles to this string made it turn so bad. I was just adding some work that has documented that we can shorten test periods for intake trials.

As to the high energy diet points. There are some things that we really don't need much (or any) research on to tell us something. And that goes for length of test, as well as energy content of the ration.

The Australians use 70 days, and have for a good number of years, also. I forgot to mention that in my last post.

Badlands

 

[bulldealer]

My question was answered

 

[jscunn]

It certainly fits with phrases like "peer review" in the thread.

Hi Dave

 

[Badlands]

Effects of dietary energy on scrotal surface temperature, seminal quality, and sperm production in young beef bulls
G. H. Coulter, R. B. Cook and J. P. Kastelic
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
The objective of this study was to determine the effect of dietary energy, breed (British vs Continental x British crosses), and their interactions on scrotal surface temperature (SST), seminal quality, and sperm production in bulls. This experiment, replicated over 2 yr, included 72 Angus, Angus x Simmental, or Hereford x Simmental bulls fed either a moderate- (100% forage) or high-energy (80% grain, 20% forage) diet for 168 d after weaning. At the end of the feeding period, SST was determined by infrared thermography, seminal samples (two ejaculates) were collected by electroejaculation, and reproductive tracts were collected at slaughter. Bulls fed the high-energy diet were heavier (P < .0001; diet x time interaction), had thicker backfat (P < .05; diet x line x time interaction), and had a larger scrotal circumference (P < .05). Testicular tone decreased over time (P < .0001) with a diet x time interaction (P < .05). There was no significant effect of diet on top, bottom, or average SST. However, bulls fed the moderate-energy diet had a larger (P < .02) SST gradient (3.9 vs. 3.4 degrees C). Bulls fed the moderate-energy diet had more (P < .01) morphologically normal spermatozoa (68.8 +/- 2.1 vs 62.5 +/- 2.5%) and a higher proportion (P < .006) of progressively motile spermatozoa (53.4 +/- 2.1 vs 44.5 +/- 2.4%). No effects (P > .05) of dietary energy on epididymal sperm reserves or daily sperm production were detected. Increased dietary energy may affect scrotal or testicular thermoregulation by reducing the amount of heat that can be radiated from the scrotal neck, thereby increasing the temperature of the testes and scrotum.

Effects of 84-, 112- and 140-day postweaning feedlot performance tests for beef bulls
A. H. Brown Jr, J. J. Chewning, Z. B. Johnson, W. C. Loe and C. J. Brown
Dept. of Anim. and Poult. Sci., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701.
Changes in performance traits in beef cattle over the last 30 yr necessitate the re-evaluation of central testing procedures to ensure that they are cost effective and appropriate for current test objectives. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for reducing the length of evaluation from 140 d to either 112 or 84 d. Data evaluated were postweaning feedlot performance test records (collected from 1977 to 1986) on 1,830 individually fed bulls. Bulls representing 13 breeds (n greater than 25 per breed) were evaluated in the University of Arkansas Cooperative Bull Tests at Fayetteville, Hope, and Monticello, Arkansas. Models were fit for ADG, daily feed intake (FI) and feed conversion (FCONV) from d 1 to d 140 (ADG1-140, FI1-140 and FCONV1-140, respectively) and from d 1 to d 112 (ADG1-112, F11-112 and FCONV1-112, respectively). Models fit for ADG1-140, FI1-140, and FCONV1-140 using information up to d 112 had R2 of .90, .99, .88, and .94, respectively, and using information up to d 84 had R2 of .82, .94, and .80, respectively. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (all P less than .0001) were .93 for ADG1-140 and ADG1-112, .93 for ADG1-112 and ADG1-84, .99 for FI1-140 and FI1-112, .91 for FCONV1-140 and FCONV1-112, and .90 for FCONV1-112 and FCONV1-84. These coefficients indicate that bulls ranked similarly for performance traits at 84, 112, and 140 d. If the primary objective of central station testing is to evaluate ADG during the linear phase of growth, and if testing procedures are those currently recommended by the Beef Improvement Federation, then feeding bulls beyond 112 d has no advantage because the information upon which selection decisions are made is similar at both 112 and 140 d

.
This article was from 1991, BTW.

"The length of test required to measure liveweight change when testing for feed efficiency in cattle

G. A. Kearney, B. W. Knee, J. F. Graham and S. A. Knott

Abstract

Measuring differences in the efficiency of converting feed to liveweight gains of beef cattle depends on assessments of feed intake and animal growth over a specified period. Previous studies have shown that feed intake can be measured with sufficient precision after 35 days, however, to assess growth rate with acceptable precision, a feeding period of 70 days is required when the cattle are weighed fortnightly. In order to test if more frequent weighing could improve the precision of estimates of liveweight, or reduce the duration of tests, animals were tested in units where an automatic weighing system recorded the liveweight of an animal every time it entered a feeder. Eight groups of beef bulls (171 animals in total) were tested. A random coefficient regression model including a cubic spline for time was used to estimate average daily gain. Evaluation of the residual variance, slope (average daily gain), and its standard error from the models showed that through the use of automated liveweight measurement, the duration of tests could be decreased to 56 days without reducing the precision of estimates of liveweight change. Depending on the precision required, further decreases in testing time could be accommodated.

Keywords: feed efficiency, beef bulls, test length.

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44(5) 411 - 414 "

Badlands

PS Hi jscunn.

 

[Frankie]

Badlands, if you're arguing for an 84 day test, you're arguing with yourself. If/when the BIF recommends an 84 day test, I'm sure my test station will make the switch and we'll continue to test there.

I jumped into this discussion because

MikeC said:

Our bull test only lasts for 84 days. After much consideration and deliberation, the researchers at Auburn found that health was sometimes compromised on a 112 day test. (It was 112 days for years).

and

The Auburn test is the longest running test in the U.S. They have extensive data on how the bulls have performed in the pasture after the test for over 50 years.

and

Whether Frankie wants to believe it or not, having healthy bulls was the primary reason for these changes.

Basically, he claimed bulls from a 112 day test (like mine) were less healthy. When I challenged him to provide some published research from that 50 years that influenced Auburn to change their test from 112 days because it was damaging the bulls' health, he started spinning. Your articles are interesting and smarter people than me will eventually decide about bull testing. We've tested in 84 day tests and the bulls were certainly less stressed and not as fat.

 

[MikeC]

Basically, he claimed bulls from a 112 day test (like mine) were less healthy. When I challenged him to provide some published research from that 50 years that influenced Auburn to change their test from 112 days because it was damaging the bulls' health, he started spinning. Your articles are interesting and smarter people than me will eventually decide about bull testing. We've tested in 84 day tests and the bulls were certainly less stressed and not as fat.

Basically YOU ARE A LIAR. I never insinuated that your bulls were not healthy. If you'll notice that I said "health was sometimes compromised on a 112 day test"

I'd like to see your guarantee that a 112 day test has NEVER harmed a bull. :roll:

What a spin job you are putting on here! You have been shown that full feed can and does damage an animals health and that their is no advantage to the 112 day tests.

I for one, appreciate the fact that someone is looking out for my concerns in regards to the bull tests. You should do the same. Does the OBI guarantee your bulls? Or do you?

What I found amazing in your arguments that you compared the health of a steer in a feedlot to a working bull. That in itself shows your complete ignorance. But 'feeding a bull like his calves will be fed' took the cake. :lol:

As far as I know there is no damn published research yet from Auburn. The Graduate students working on the "Auburn Bull Test" papers have not finished them yet. I'm sure it will shed some light but until then, I'll take Lisa's word for it from the polling she has done on the bull test buyers.

YOU are the one who blew this out of proportion because I corrected your inaccuracy on our 84 day test.

Manure! to you too! :lol: [/b]

 

[Frankie]

Basically YOU ARE A LIAR. I never insinuated that your bulls were not healthy. If you'll notice that I said "health was sometimes compromised on a 112 day test"

Anyone can read what you said and make their own decision. You said Auburn shortened their test from 112 days because it might damage the health of the bull. That suggests a bull tested 112 days might be less healthy than one tested 84 days, that for 50 years Auburn had followed up on the health of their bulls. I asked for published articles showing 84 day fed bulls were more healthy and that was the reason for the change. Have you provided those? No.

I'd like to see your guarantee that a 112 day test has NEVER harmed a bull. :roll:

I'd like to see your guarantee that an 84 day test has NEVER harmed a bull.

What a spin job you are putting on here! You have been shown that full feed can and does damage an animals health and that their is no advantage to the 112 day tests.

It's not a question of 84 day test versus 112 day test. It's your claim that 112 day test damages a bull's health and that's the reason Auburn shortened their test. Show me the documentation.

I for one, appreciate the fact that someone is looking out for my concerns in regards to the bull tests. You should do the same. Does the OBI guarantee your bulls? Or do you?

Appreciate all you want. But until you can provide something that Auburn has taken data from 50 years of bull testing and made the decision to shorten their test BASED ON THE HEALTH OF THE BULLS, I'll continue to call manure.

What I found amazing in your arguments that you compared the health of a steer in a feedlot to a working bull. That in itself shows your complete ignorance. But 'feeding a bull like his calves will be fed' took the cake. :lol:

Spinning again. Changing the subject from your claim that Auburn changed their test because the 112 day test compromised the health of the bulls.

As far as I know there is no be nice published research yet from Auburn. The Graduate students working on the "Auburn Bull Test" papers have not finished them yet. I'm sure it will shed some light but until then, I'll take Lisa's word for it from the polling she has done on the bull test buyers.

YOU are the one who blew this out of proportion because I corrected your inaccuracy on our 84 day test.

Manure! to you too! :lol: [/b]

No published work? Lisa's polling? What happened to the 50 years of data?

 

[MikeC]

It's your claim that 112 day test damages a bull's health

You're lying again. I never said that.

Want to try for 3 out of 4? :lol:

 

[MikeC]

It's your claim that 112 day test damages a bull's health

You're lying again. I never said that.

Want to try for 3 out of 4? :lol:

As I said, anyone can read the thread. You said:

Our bull test only lasts for 84 days. After much consideration and deliberation, the researchers at Auburn found that health was sometimes compromised on a 112 day test. (It was 112 days for years).

Yet you refuse to provide any such research from the 50 years of the Auburn test.

What would you pay for the research? If I've got to go to any trouble for you, it would need to be worth my time.

I've already told you the papers are not finished yet. But I might pull some strings and get a preview.

What is there to understand about this?
1-You have been shown data that calves on full feed can be compromised.
2-You have been shown that there is no need to test as long as we do.

It's obvious that you either, cannot read, or have a hard time comprehending.


Are you really as dumb as you are acting? I'm being serious here, no joke.

Quit going round in circles. It'll make you dizzy and it won't get you anywhere.

 

[Frankie]

What would you pay for the research? If I've got to go to any trouble for you, it would need to be worth my time.

I've already told you the papers are not finished yet. But I might pull some strings and get a preview.

If Auburn is a research station, I imagine the taxpayers are paying for the research. So I don't expect it should cost anything. The fact that you ran your mouth before you've seen the research tells me all I need to know. You don't have anything showing a 112 day test damages a bull's health.

What is there to understand about this?
1-You have been shown data that calves on full feed can be compromised.
2-You have been shown that there is no need to test as long as we do.

I haven't been shown anything that shows Auburn used 50 years of data from their bull test and decided the 112 day test damaged the health of the bulls. You apparently haven't seen anything either.

It's obvious that you either, cannot read, or have a hard time comprehending.
Are you really as dumb as you are acting? I'm being serious here, no joke.
Quit going round in circles. It'll make you dizzy and it won't get you anywhere.

Insults and calling names doesn't change the facts here. You claimed something that you can't back up. Spinning and changing the subject don't work.

 

[MikeC]

I was at the meeting when the decision was made to shorten the test from 112 to 84 days.

There were no papers handed out.

Please tell me why YOU think the test was shortened?

I won't be able to come out and play today because I must finish seeding. "Willie" is drunk again.

But I want you to think about it real hard and come up with a plausible answer.

This is an excerpt from the sale catalog in 2000:

"As the Auburn University BCIA Bull Test embarked on it's second 50 years of testing bulls, several significant changes were implemented. First, the test length was shortened to 84 days. It is obvious many of our breeds have changed the growth curve of their cattle. Bulls were maturing before the end of of the 112 day feeding period. By shortening the test by 28 days, we hope to bring you a harder, healthier set of bulls, which will be ready to work on a select set of females this spring.
For the first time, the EPD values of the bulls were added to the final index, which also included average daily gain, feed efficiency and weight per day of age."

LKA

OK Frankie, I'll accept your apologies now. :heart:

Toodles.

 

[Frankie]

Apology? Dream on.

You bashed me when I said Future Beef didn't want YG1 steers because their moms were less likely to breed back, they had more sickness, and didn't grade as well. You called me ugly names and insulted me. I provided a link that showed I was right and you were left hanging in wind.

Twice you've quoted Red Angus press releases and claimed they proved Red Angus could be CAB. Twice I got emails from Red Angus officials that said it wasn't true. Again, you're left hanging in the wind.

You claim Auburn used 50 years of test history and changed their test from 112 days to 84 because the longer test might compromise the health of the bulls, even though dozens of test stations around the US use the 112 day standard. For two days you've been twisting and spinning, unable to come up with any facts. So what do you have now? First a poll done by Lisa, now a catalog insert. When you get some research from Auburn that tells us bulls tested for 84 days are healthier than bulls tested 112 days and the data that proves it, come back and we can talk. :roll: Until then, you're just hanging out in the wind AGAIN.

You sure have a hard time understanding that just because you say it's so, doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[MikeC]

Grasping at straws again I see and twisting the facts as usual.


Go ahead and try to turn this into another argument like you usually do.

Do you still equate the nutrional needs of a growing bull with a slaughter steer? :lol:
Do we still need to feed our bulls like their calves will be fed? :lol:



Answer my question. It's not that hard.

 

[Frankie]

Grasping at straws again I see and twisting the facts as usual.


Go ahead and try to turn this into another argument like you usually do.

Do you still equate the nutrional needs of a growing bull with a slaughter steer? :lol:
Do we still need to feed our bulls like their calves will be fed? :lol:



Answer my question. It's not that hard.

Why should I answer your questions? You made the claim; I called you on it; you have nothing to back up the claim. You're shown to be full of hot air AGAIN. 8)

 

[MikeC]

Grasping at straws again I see and twisting the facts as usual.


Go ahead and try to turn this into another argument like you usually do.

Do you still equate the nutrional needs of a growing bull with a slaughter steer? :lol:
Do we still need to feed our bulls like their calves will be fed? :lol:



Answer my question. It's not that hard.

Why should I answer your questions? You made the claim; I called you on it; you have nothing to back up the claim. You're shown to be full of hot air AGAIN. 8)

With all the data that you have been shown that proves there is no need for a longer bull test? Surely you jest Frankie. :lol:

You should answer my question because you don't know what you are talking about. It's obvious that you don't believe the test was shortened because of health reasons and you must have an alternative reason or you wouldn't do so.

Make a stab at it. I'm calling you out on your wisdom, or lack of. :shock:

And who's full of hot air?

 

[alabama]

Mike is the eating contest over yet? Did you put any bulls in the EPD sale?

 

[MikeC]

Mike is the eating contest over yet? Did you put any bulls in the EPD sale?

I think they might have weighed in the past couple of days.

I might mail the papers today for the EPD sale. They didn't have enough Chars last year and it might prove fruitful.

 

[alabama]

The cutoff for the EPD sale is today but i bet she will take them for a few more days. I am sending mine in todays mail.

 

[MikeC]

The cutoff for the EPD sale is today but i bet she will take them for a few more days. I am sending mine in todays mail.

Good deal. How many you taking? I've thought about taking about 10 or so. Think that's too many? They only have 2-3 junior calves at Auburn.

I think I'll call Lisa today and see how many have been nominated.