feed conversion

[blacksnake]

These are the averages of the Express ranch animals

Tenderness 4.05 out of 6 possible
QG 1.38 out of 8 possible
Feed Efficiency 5.4 out of 8 possible

 

[novatech]

Thanks for the response. This seems to verify what I have read. Leaner cattle tend to be more feed efficient.
I would like to see some results on Murry Greys.
Also I have read that some alleles are more important than others as far as their contribution to the trait.
I beleive that Genestar is now testing for a temprament gene. Bovigen is the US branch of Genestar.

 

[purecountry]

I've always heard that feedlots sell time and grain. Why
would they want cattle that finish early? I don't know,
but suspect that not a lot of people retain ownership
....but even if you retain ownership, doesn't the feedlots
make more money on the cattle that take longer to
finish???? :?:

Feedlots are in the business of selling the most pounds of meat with the least amount of inputs. Feed being an input less of it would be better. I'm not sure where you heard we sell time and grain but both are wrong that info must have came from a poorly managed feedyard. We buy grain and time is money ask the banker as he gets paid more the longer you have his money. Both are expenses. Maybe things are changing but where I'm from it is hard to sell an expense.

somn, you're right in the case of feeding your own calves, obviously. A local feedlot is custom feeding some yearlings for me right now, and they know full well that I have a market for the animals when they are finished. Is that not them selling me feed, and providing labor? There is both in the feedlot industry, just maybe not at your feedlot.

 

[somn]

I've always heard that feedlots sell time and grain. Why
would they want cattle that finish early? I don't know,
but suspect that not a lot of people retain ownership
....but even if you retain ownership, doesn't the feedlots
make more money on the cattle that take longer to
finish???? :?:

Feedlots are in the business of selling the most pounds of meat with the least amount of inputs. Feed being an input less of it would be better. I'm not sure where you heard we sell time and grain but both are wrong that info must have came from a poorly managed feedyard. We buy grain and time is money ask the banker as he gets paid more the longer you have his money. Both are expenses. Maybe things are changing but where I'm from it is hard to sell an expense.

somn, you're right in the case of feeding your own calves, obviously. A local feedlot is custom feeding some yearlings for me right now, and they know full well that I have a market for the animals when they are finished. Is that not them selling me feed, and providing labor? There is both in the feedlot industry, just maybe not at your feedlot.

Again both are expenses you can't sell an expense. You are paying the feedlot for feed and labor both are expenses. The feedlot is buying the feed somewhere and making employee payroll every week both are expenses. They are selling you a service that service being raising the most amount of pounds of beef with the least amount of inputs. If they are really selling time and feed like you think trust me they won't be in business long. When the owner of the cattle doesn't show profit neither will they. It is hard to make money with an empty feedlot.

 

[ROB]

Herefords have always been known for feed conversion, at least according to the AHA web site. ;-) I'm sure, just like anything else, there will be good and bad animals in every breed, but some breeds will fare better than others overall.

It'll be interesting but, just like with the tenderness thing, whatever they come up with needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't know, I have a feeling that this trait will have more of an impact.

I agree. It will probably have a huge impact, especially for the feedlot buyers. I'm just saying we need to pay close attention to the way Bovigen arrives at their conclusions.

I'm thinking this "FE" genetics thing cannot pinpoint animals with any degree of certainty and is just another misnomer by Bovigen.

There are way too many variables. Pancreas insulin production, body temperature, saliva production, bone structure, to name a few.

Thay might have identified a couple of unique genes in animals that are efficient, but selection for those genes may offset other valuable characteristics.

I'd like to see the research on this project.......... :roll:

Leaner type cattle are always more efficient that those little short, fat, butterballs. Takes way more calories to put on fat.

MikeC- i posted an article i found from Beef Magazine in the feedlot forum concerning testing for feed conversion. tests completed to date suggests that selection for feed conversion traits does not effect frame, scrotal, carcass, and other valuable characteristics.

ROB

 

[Crystalized]

Go to the feed efficiency test and at the bottom there is a icon...click and it gives a 8 page summary of how the test works, including some results on breeds.

 

[Jovid]

There is one major problem I see with this is their data or should I say lack of data. If you read the article all this is based on them testing 1472 animals from 7 different breeds. I don't believe 200 animals from each breed on ONE test is enough information to make the claims they are. Now if it was 14,000 animals on several different test you might consider it valid data.
Keep in mind Bovigen is in the business to make money and the the way they do that is by having people test the DNA of their cattle. I wouldn't base my breeding program or decision to buy an animal based on their results

 

[ROB]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

 

[SEC]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

This is where I grow a little skeptical of actually trying to figure out what the conversion is.

Bulls are different creatures;

Bull A is a testorone charge bull that is pawing, roaring etc all the time. He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot because he's sexually charged. Does this make him less valuable? No, in fact some of this is good.

Bull B is more like a steer, eats and lays down, no sexual definition to him he'd better gain well.

which would you rather have!

 

[Brandonm2]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

This is where I grow a little skeptical of actually trying to figure out what the conversion is.

Bulls are different creatures;

Bull A is a testorone charge bull that is pawing, roaring etc all the time. He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot because he's sexually charged. Does this make him less valuable? No, in fact some of this is good.

Bull B is more like a steer, eats and lays down, no sexual definition to him he'd better gain well.

which would you rather have!

I bet if you turned both of them loose with 20 cows they both would get the job done. Ranchers like to see a young bull who gets all goofy and is always trying to mount a cow, checking heats, running around, bellowing; but most of the time a laid back veteran bull who knows when the cow is "right" jumps up there, does his thing, and goes back to eating is the bull that gets the most cows bred. Of the two young bulls, (assuming both pass the BSE) give me the one with the higher ADG every time. That is a measurable quantifiable advantage. Your just guessing that his poor gaining ability proves his machoness. More likely he is just scared of that bad attitude other bull who is eating all the feed!!! and if they get turned out together the little scrawny bull is still going to be scared of his pen mate.

 

[ROB]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

This is where I grow a little skeptical of actually trying to figure out what the conversion is.

Bulls are different creatures;

Bull A is a testorone charge bull that is pawing, roaring etc all the time. He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot because he's sexually charged. Does this make him less valuable? No, in fact some of this is good.

Bull B is more like a steer, eats and lays down, no sexual definition to him he'd better gain well.

which would you rather have!

I bet if you turned both of them loose with 20 cows they both would get the job done. Ranchers like to see a young bull who gets all goofy and is always trying to mount a cow, checking heats, running around, bellowing; but most of the time a laid back veteran bull who knows when the cow is "right" jumps up there, does his thing, and goes back to eating is the bull that gets the most cows bred. Of the two young bulls, (assuming both pass the BSE) give me the one with the higher ADG every time. That is a measurable quantifiable advantage. Your just guessing that his poor gaining ability proves his machoness. More likely he is just scared of that bad attitude other bull who is eating all the feed!!! and if they get turned out together the little scrawny bull is still going to be scared of his pen mate.

in the example, ADG was the same. RFI was the difference. (and the two bulls were your final selection based on visual inspection, bloodlines, EPD's) RFI could be a valuable tool to use - maybe not quantifiable across a particular breed as in EPD's...as of yet. if you save back replacement heifers - maintenance cost for your cows should decrease over time. - if you feed out calves your feed costs should be reduced. - if you sell seedstock, premiums should be awarded...until everybody is testing for RFI.
how many times have we all heard "man if i just would have done..." this may be one of those times. I going to have a few bulls on test next october at Green Springs. If they happen to make the cut for the production sale i'll let you know how it went.
ROB

 

[SEC]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

This is where I grow a little skeptical of actually trying to figure out what the conversion is.

Bulls are different creatures;

Bull A is a testorone charge bull that is pawing, roaring etc all the time. He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot because he's sexually charged. Does this make him less valuable? No, in fact some of this is good.

Bull B is more like a steer, eats and lays down, no sexual definition to him he'd better gain well.

which would you rather have!

I bet if you turned both of them loose with 20 cows they both would get the job done. Ranchers like to see a young bull who gets all goofy and is always trying to mount a cow, checking heats, running around, bellowing; but most of the time a laid back veteran bull who knows when the cow is "right" jumps up there, does his thing, and goes back to eating is the bull that gets the most cows bred. Of the two young bulls, (assuming both pass the BSE) give me the one with the higher ADG every time. That is a measurable quantifiable advantage. Your just guessing that his poor gaining ability proves his machoness. More likely he is just scared of that bad attitude other bull who is eating all the feed!!! and if they get turned out together the little scrawny bull is still going to be scared of his pen mate.

I never said that one was a veteran bull, I am meaning the bulls both being yearlings. My point of this part of the post was the sexual character is a trait that shouldn't be overlooked.

I should have stated that the NFI was different rather than the gain.

I can appreciate a good point but yapping about machoness and little scrawny bull was never mentioned in anything I posted.

 

[Brandonm2]

whether or not the DNA testing is accurate, individual feed testing has been going on for quite a few years on a small scale basis. as an example, Circle A Ranch has been conducting tests since 1996. from the information i have found regarding their testing, RFI data is a valid selection tool they are using in their own herd. But to come up with an EPD for RFI seems unlikely. too many factors involved with feed efficiency to compare animals from various regions. feed rations, ambient temperature and conditions, herd health, on-test weight, pre-conditioning...
But...lets say you were going to a production sale to purchase a new herd sire and you had narrowed your selection down to two bulls that had a 4.25 ADG on feed test. RFI data obtained from the feed test was available on both bulls - one was positive, one was negative. which one would you try to take home?

ROB

This is where I grow a little skeptical of actually trying to figure out what the conversion is.

Bulls are different creatures;

Bull A is a testorone charge bull that is pawing, roaring etc all the time. He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot because he's sexually charged. Does this make him less valuable? No, in fact some of this is good.

Bull B is more like a steer, eats and lays down, no sexual definition to him he'd better gain well.

which would you rather have!

I bet if you turned both of them loose with 20 cows they both would get the job done. Ranchers like to see a young bull who gets all goofy and is always trying to mount a cow, checking heats, running around, bellowing; but most of the time a laid back veteran bull who knows when the cow is "right" jumps up there, does his thing, and goes back to eating is the bull that gets the most cows bred. Of the two young bulls, (assuming both pass the BSE) give me the one with the higher ADG every time. That is a measurable quantifiable advantage. Your just guessing that his poor gaining ability proves his machoness. More likely he is just scared of that bad attitude other bull who is eating all the feed!!! and if they get turned out together the little scrawny bull is still going to be scared of his pen mate.

in the example, ADG was the same. RFI was the difference. (and the two bulls were your final selection based on visual inspection, bloodlines, EPD's) RFI could be a valuable tool to use - maybe not quantifiable across a particular breed as in EPD's...as of yet. if you save back replacement heifers - maintenance cost for your cows should decrease over time. - if you feed out calves your feed costs should be reduced. - if you sell seedstock, premiums should be awarded...until everybody is testing for RFI.
how many times have we all heard "man if i just would have done..." this may be one of those times. I going to have a few bulls on test next october at Green Springs. If they happen to make the cut for the production sale i'll let you know how it went.
ROB

In the example SEC suggested "He will eat but he doesn't gain a lot" there are two yearling bulls in a pen one has good gain and the other one sucks. This is a very straight forward example. In this scenario, you cull the low gaining bull instead of alibing and making excuses for his poor performance. That does NOT mean the "Good" bull WILL work; just that your test identified the bull who needed to be gone.

 

[Brandonm2]

I can appreciate a good point but yapping about machoness and little scrawny bull was never mentioned in anything I posted.

My post was written hastily and quickly got off point so was "yappy". To clarify WHY test for conversion if it is not to identify the poor convertors? WHY test for ADG if it is not to identify the poor gainers? IF you are going to go to the trouble of conducting any kind of test, then use the knowledge gained from the test in your selection criteria. If you are going to ignore the data, and pick the bull you "like" (for whatever reason) anyway, don't test them in the first place.

 

[SEC]

My point was that this all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Guess I should have said that in the first place

 

[waihou]

We in NZ have access to Genestar testing in Australia. They have identified 4 pairs of genes each for Tenderness, Marbling and Feed Efficiency-so possible top scores are 8 for each.

The figures I have read are that the top scoring breeds for feed efficiency are Brahmans, followed by Santa Gertrudis. The top British breed is Shorthorn, which is way behind the Bos Indicus breeds.

My thoughts on feed efficiency is that it must surely be a useful tool for more than just knowing which animals will do well in feed lots. Not only a bulls ability to eat and keep condition, but on efficient cows which can convert feed to both their own body and milk production at the same time.

I did ask a question of one of the Aussie gurus as to what part a cow with a good milk EBV (EPD) is inflenced by her feed efficiency genes, or those passed on to her calf in converting milk to growth, but as yet have had no reply.

This question was prompted after we got one of our top cows gene tested. She is already in the top (world?) 5% on International Group Breedplan for milk EBV, her score is +16 to a Murray Grey Breed average of +3. When her Genestar results came back she is also 7 out of 8 stars for feed efficiency, and 8/8 for tenderness. I would be interested if any of you had thoughts on whether you think feed efficiency works for the growth of the calf thereby is also expressed in a cows Milk EBV.[/quote]

 

[novatech]

We in NZ have access to Genestar testing in Australia. They have identified 4 pairs of genes each for Tenderness, Marbling and Feed Efficiency-so possible top scores are 8 for each.

The figures I have read are that the top scoring breeds for feed efficiency are Brahmans, followed by Santa Gertrudis. The top British breed is Shorthorn, which is way behind the Bos Indicus breeds.

My thoughts on feed efficiency is that it must surely be a useful tool for more than just knowing which animals will do well in feed lots. Not only a bulls ability to eat and keep condition, but on efficient cows which can convert feed to both their own body and milk production at the same time.

I did ask a question of one of the Aussie gurus as to what part a cow with a good milk EBV (EPD) is inflenced by her feed efficiency genes, or those passed on to her calf in converting milk to growth, but as yet have had no reply.

This question was prompted after we got one of our top cows gene tested. She is already in the top (world?) 5% on International Group Breedplan for milk EBV, her score is +16 to a Murray Grey Breed average of +3. When her Genestar results came back she is also 7 out of 8 stars for feed efficiency, and 8/8 for tenderness. I would be interested if any of you had thoughts on whether you think feed efficiency works for the growth of the calf thereby is also expressed in a cows Milk EBV.

[/quote]
NFI tests are done in the feed lot. So if the test results are good it would it would only tell you that the calf would do good on less milk and of course the more milk the better. It would only be a comparison of calves getting the same amount of milk. Therefore it would not be expressed in a cows milk EBV.
On another note, can you say what the Murry Gray cows marbleing score was? Personely I would be willing to sacrefice some of those tenderness and efficency stars to get some marbleing stars. I beleive a more balanced animal is more important as with EBV's.

 

[novatech]

My point was that this all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Guess I should have said that in the first place

If one can increase the NFE Of animals going to feed lot it is no "grain of salt" when you consider the hundreds of thousands of cattle being fed out on a daily basis.

 

[waihou]

I realise tests for NFI are done in a feed lot situation, but coming from a background of breeding meat chickens, working for a national poultry organisation I fully understand the issue of feed efficiency and feed conversion.

My point re the milk is as follows.
If a breeding animal has excellent potential for feed efficiency due to its gene make up, whether you put it in a feed lot or not, it is still going to perform (given the right environment) better than one on the same feed, but with poor or no feed efficiency genes.

So following on from that, if a calfs growth rate during suckling on its dam is better than other calves in the mob, giving the cow a higher Milk 200 day EBV-in the case of the cow I mentioned in my thread-how much of this can attributed to her milk production and how much to the fact the calf has more feed efficiency genes, inherited from both his parents, than other calves in the group-which may in fact have drunk more milk?

Perhaps we'll never know-I was just wondering

I read somewhere that the average marbling score for Murray Greys was 1.7 stars out of 8 possibles. I will do a search today and see if I can find that reference again. It was an Australian data result.

Here in NZ we do not feed lot cattle for domestic use, I think there is only one or two and their beef is exported mainly to Japan and Korea. Marbling though desirable to some extent ,is not favoured, or paid for!
Our Meat Board is promoting "Lean red meat" (beef and lamb) to the public!

 

[MikeC]

My point was that this all needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Guess I should have said that in the first place

If one can increase the NFE Of animals going to feed lot it is no "grain of salt" when you consider the hundreds of thousands of cattle being fed out on a daily basis.

The last ones I fed, there was a $50 net profit difference between the most efficient and least efficient.

Now if I had fed 2000-3000, that would have been quite a profit addition.

Yes, there are feedlots that will calculate feed efficiency.

The "Feed Efficiency" expert on these boards is Badlands.