easy keepers

[ROB]

not to hijack another thread currently discussed on the forum, i would like to see what others think about an idea i've been kicking around concerning easy keepers. first of all, i raise all my own replacement heifers. they all have the conformation, disposition, frame size, etc. that i want - but they are not always easy keepers as i would like them to be. green springs bull test station has introduced RFI measurements at their facility of which i plan to take advantage of in the fall '08. what i would also like to do is an RFI test on replacement heifer prospects. it would seem to me that if an animal can effectively convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should also excell in the pasture (easy keeper). although the cost for RFI testing heifers would initially be a set-back, the hope is that the future progeny of RFI tested Bulls & Cows would be genetically superior to what i am now raising and the dams would cost less to maintain, producing a future overall savings. any thoughts?

ROB

 

[MikeC]

To me, the biggest hinderance for a cow to be an easy keeper is high milk production.

Of course that RFI data couldn't hurt.........................it will pay off in the long run.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

ROB-

As with all 'investigative' testings, or experimental quantifiability, there are many sub-liminal factors which enter into the determination of viable and definable results. We wish it were not so, but that is the name of all games relating to achieving "Positive and Reliable Results."

I think that your idea about the determination of "easy keepers" is one which should be examined in specific detail, because, in my opinion, that makes more sense than a lot of the seemingly senseless feeding facts that pervade our information sources from time to time. Are you certain that MARC or some of the Universities are NOT doing this at this time? I don't really know. It would be so much easier to have hard, solid facts and figures to 'plug' into our feeding protocols - so that we could all live happily everafter" :clap: The genetics of all of our beef animals are so complex, that it seems to me that the RFI measurements can make a large impact on arriving at some standards by which a Breeder can use - with his OWN animals, and his OWN home-raised forage and purchased supplementation and Minerals, if necessary, just as environmental influences affect how different animals perform in different parts of the country (world).

One would think that if an animal can convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should excell in the pasture - but that needs to be determined convincingly - and untimately be predictable by way of EPD's. That seems more logical to me than some of the "out-in-space" differences some of the breeds are coming up with!

The important factor which we must all bear in mind is: Single trait selection will NOT work because many other factors are blended and mixed with the overall Genetic soup! The trick here is being able to select the trait you are seeking - and concurrently select for the other positive characteristics at the same time without "throwing out the baby with the bath water" - and the rubber ducky also!

I agree with your hypothesis, and encourage you to hang in there! Great idea!

DOC HARRIS

 

[EAT BEEF]

Fleshing ability and fertilty are not the same thing,they do go together somtimes but fertility is what makes your cowherd profitable.

 

[JMichal]

I plan on bringing a calf to this test in June. I was contemplating the the RFI test, but it is an additional $100. I didn't know if it would help to market the bull. And what if he is a super good testing Bull, but likes his meals?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

And what if he is a super good testing Bull, but likes his meals?

Thats a good thing. It means that not only is he going to be efficient at converting feed to gain, he's also going to grow quickly. The theory behind all these feed efficiency measurements is that your true cost of feeding an animal is not based on raw lbs/day gain, but rather how many pounds of feed it takes to get the critter to gain 1 lb. However they fail to take into account that there is a cost associated with having an animal around the place. In otherwords, even if the animal is super efficient at converting feed to gain, they're still worthless if they can only gain 1/2 lb per day. This isn't as true with cow/calf guys, but feedlots need to rapidly turn animals around, not feed them for a year.

Rod

 

[turning grass into beef]

it would seem to me that if an animal can effectively convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should also excell in the pasture (easy keeper).

.
Doc, I appreciate your posts and usually agree with your thinking, but both you and Rob had this in your post and this time I am going to have to disagree with both of you on this one.
Feed test rations at bull tests are usually high energy rations (No one wants to buy a yearling or 2 year old bull in poor condition). In my experience, cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently. Almost always the opposite is true. If an animal is able to get fat on grass it will also efficiently convert high energy rations into beef.
Rob, if your goal is to have a group of cows that are easy keepers then make sure you retain heifers from the cows that are easy keepers (as long as the meet you other selection criteria as well). If you purchase bulls from other breeders then go and see how they manage their mature cowherd. As well, see how they feed their mature bulls.
At our place the mature bulls eat grass in the summer and hay in the winter. NO GRAIN. If the bulls we are using cannot stay in shape year round without grain supplementation then how can we expect their daughters to do the same?

 

[dun]

it would seem to me that if an animal can effectively convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should also excell in the pasture (easy keeper).

.
Doc, I appreciate your posts and usually agree with your thinking, but both you and Rob had this in your post and this time I am going to have to disagree with both of you on this one.
Feed test rations at bull tests are usually high energy rations (No one wants to buy a yearling or 2 year old bull in poor condition). In my experience, cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently. Almost always the opposite is true. If an animal is able to get fat on grass it will also efficiently convert high energy rations into beef.
Rob, if your goal is to have a group of cows that are easy keepers then make sure you retain heifers from the cows that are easy keepers (as long as the meet you other selection criteria as well). If you purchase bulls from other breeders then go and see how they manage their mature cowherd. As well, see how they feed their mature bulls.
At our place the mature bulls eat grass in the summer and hay in the winter. NO GRAIN. If the bulls we are using cannot stay in shape year round without grain supplementation then how can we expect their daughters to do the same?

HOORAY, a voice of sanity

 

[MikeC]

In my experience, cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently. Almost always the opposite is true. If an animal is able to get fat on grass it will also efficiently convert high energy rations into beef.

RFI is different from Feed Conversion Ratios in that there is no correlation in RFI to ADG or mature size as in the case with using FCR's.

High Energy rations would have no bearing on the fact that RFI's calculate energy efficiency above and beyond "Maintenance Requirements".

Also, there is a very high correlation in cattle that can convert both feed and forage.

 

[ROB]

HOORAY, a voice of sanity

please expound.

ROB

 

[ROB]

it would seem to me that if an animal can effectively convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should also excell in the pasture (easy keeper).

.
Doc, I appreciate your posts and usually agree with your thinking, but both you and Rob had this in your post and this time I am going to have to disagree with both of you on this one.
Feed test rations at bull tests are usually high energy rations (No one wants to buy a yearling or 2 year old bull in poor condition). In my experience, cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently. Almost always the opposite is true. If an animal is able to get fat on grass it will also efficiently convert high energy rations into beef.
Rob, if your goal is to have a group of cows that are easy keepers then make sure you retain heifers from the cows that are easy keepers (as long as the meet you other selection criteria as well). If you purchase bulls from other breeders then go and see how they manage their mature cowherd. As well, see how they feed their mature bulls.
At our place the mature bulls eat grass in the summer and hay in the winter. NO GRAIN. If the bulls we are using cannot stay in shape year round without grain supplementation then how can we expect their daughters to do the same?

currently, i save all replacement heifers out of one bloodline on the female side. in my herd this particular bloodline has consistently produced the best calves...and have shown to be the easiest of keepers as mature cows. what i am wanting to do now is save the best of the best. since nearly all the heifer prospects are consistent in performance and conformation, it's getting more difficult to "visually" make a sound decision on new replacement heifers. that is why if feel i should be looking at actual performance tests (RFI and not ADG). with the excessive price of hay, grains, and protein...i want to get ahead of the game as much as possible to trim my operating costs.

ROB

 

[J. T.]

I wonder if the "hard keeper" gene could be spliced into the human genome? I'd take advantage of that!

 

[rocket2222]

it would seem to me that if an animal can effectively convert feed test rations into pounds of gain, that same animal should also excell in the pasture (easy keeper).

.
Doc, I appreciate your posts and usually agree with your thinking, but both you and Rob had this in your post and this time I am going to have to disagree with both of you on this one.
Feed test rations at bull tests are usually high energy rations (No one wants to buy a yearling or 2 year old bull in poor condition). In my experience, cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently. Almost always the opposite is true. If an animal is able to get fat on grass it will also efficiently convert high energy rations into beef.
Rob, if your goal is to have a group of cows that are easy keepers then make sure you retain heifers from the cows that are easy keepers (as long as the meet you other selection criteria as well). If you purchase bulls from other breeders then go and see how they manage their mature cowherd. As well, see how they feed their mature bulls.
At our place the mature bulls eat grass in the summer and hay in the winter. NO GRAIN. If the bulls we are using cannot stay in shape year round without grain supplementation then how can we expect their daughters to do the same?

currently, i save all replacement heifers out of one bloodline on the female side. in my herd this particular bloodline has consistently produced the best calves...and have shown to be the easiest of keepers as mature cows. what i am wanting to do now is save the best of the best. since nearly all the heifer prospects are consistent in performance and conformation, it's getting more difficult to "visually" make a sound decision on new replacement heifers. that is why if feel i should be looking at actual performance tests (RFI and not ADG). with the excessive price of hay, grains, and protein...i want to get ahead of the game as much as possible to trim my operating costs.

ROB

Looks to me, the smart thing to do, would be use ALL the tools available to you, why ignore ADG.

 

[MikeC]

Looks to me, the smart thing to do, would be use ALL the tools available to you, why ignore ADG.rocket2222

RFI does not ignore ADG.

RFI is the amount of feed intake for ADG, minus the expected "Maintenance" requirement.

 

[rocket2222]

Looks to me, the smart thing to do, would be use ALL the tools available to you, why ignore ADG.rocket2222

RFI does not ignore ADG.

RFI is the amount of feed intake for ADG, minus the expected "Maintenance" requirement.

Figured someone would say something about this one. RFI is the difference between actual and expected feed intake, Its the "expected" part that bothers me. I still think you should look at the actual ADG, [real numbers], but incorporating RFI also when available can only help in the decision process. Thats why I said don't ignore ADG.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

If I understand correctly, the University of Missouri and U of W Virginia are doing studies on this type of concept.

 

[ROB]

Looks to me, the smart thing to do, would be use ALL the tools available to you, why ignore ADG.rocket2222

RFI does not ignore ADG.

RFI is the amount of feed intake for ADG, minus the expected "Maintenance" requirement.

Figured someone would say something about this one. RFI is the difference between actual and expected feed intake, Its the "expected" part that bothers me. I still think you should look at the actual ADG, [real numbers], but incorporating RFI also when available can only help in the decision process. Thats why I said don't ignore ADG.

taken from green springs web site:

The GSBT E-Test is one of the more advanced tools used to make bull selections. This is an individual feed intake efficiency test. GSBT can accurately measure within 10 grams what each bull on the system eats daily. Due to the design and sensitivity of the system bulls have access to feed at anytime and at any E-Test bunk, making the data gathered accurate and unaffected by bunk dominance or feed delivery systems.

the testing i am referring to is not expected, rather it is actual. additionally once the test is completed you can compare actual feed intake to average daily gain. with this information i could select an animal which has an acceptable ADG while at the same time has an above average RFI. previously, i stated that i could look at RFI and not ADG...i should have stated that i could look at RFI in addition to the ADG to make sound decisions for bull selection, or in this case heifer replacements. up until now all i have looked at with respect to feed tests was the ADG. with these new tools available for use we have the ability to look even further. now we can accurately determine how many of the high ADG'ers are actually feed wasters. in the feedlot it has been noted that 'time is of the essence' - true statement. but in this day and age, to look at ADG without RFI is a costly practice. you can still have two animals that gain 5.0#/day and finish in the same amount of time, the difference is one animal might take an additional 150# of feed to get there.

on a previous post, it was noted that "cattle that convert high energy rations efficiently into beef don't always convert grass into beef efficiently." if that is the case, there are a lot of commercial cattlemen that pay a pretty premium for bulls that have performed well on feed tests - in hopes to sell a few extra pounds of backgrounded yearling calves.

ROB

 

[MikeC]

rocket 2222 wrote: Its the "expected" part that bothers me.

What bothers you about this? Maintenance and growth requirements of cattle is down to a science.

They are looking for only the "Biological" differences in the RFI research.

At a large feedlot in Kansas that uses the CVDS software, among other tools, they can predict almost exactly how much feed it will take to finish a pen of steers, how long it will take to finish them, what they will yield and grade at finishing, and the cost of doing so.

I've seen the data and it would surprise the skeptics.

 

[Elder Statesman]

rocket 2222 wrote: Its the "expected" part that bothers me.

Maintenance and growth requirements of cattle is down to a science.

They are looking for only the "Biological" differences in the RFI research.

Ok, help out the village idiot here. How can a yearling bull in a test have a good feed conversion, good ADG, good REA, good IMF, low backfat, but have a worse RFI than a contemporary that had a terrible feed conversion and lower ADG with slightly lower backfat?

I'm probably missing the big picture, but out of those two animals, I know which one I'm picking. While I do believe RFI will become an important tool, I'm not sure they have it perfected yet.

 

[ROB]

rocket 2222 wrote: Its the "expected" part that bothers me.

Maintenance and growth requirements of cattle is down to a science.

They are looking for only the "Biological" differences in the RFI research.

Ok, help out the village idiot here. How can a yearling bull in a test have a good feed conversion, good ADG, good REA, good IMF, low backfat, but have a worse RFI than a contemporary that had a terrible feed conversion and lower ADG with slightly lower backfat?

I'm probably missing the big picture, but out of those two animals, I know which one I'm picking. While I do believe RFI will become an important tool, I'm not sure they have it perfected yet.

are you looking at the RFI indicator correctly? a lower RFI indicator means better feed conversion. a negative RFI is a good thing. an animal with a good feed conversion will have a lower RFI indicator than an animal with poorer feed conversion. ADG is a seperate beast...as is REA, IMF, backfat...keep in mind that two animals with the same ADG probably didn't consume the same amount of feed to get that gain. we are too accustomed to averages, we are use to end wt. minus start wt. of a particular animal divided into the total amount of feed - fed to a group of calves shared equally over a specific time period: which equates to 'average daily gain'. check out the green springs bull test web site. they have info on-line of recent feed tests and results thereof. they still don't show total amount of feed consumed - but they do give the RFI, ADG, IMF, REA, backfat...

ROB