Feed Efficiency

[Badlands]

A drop in FC is good. 6.5:1 is lower than 7:1.

A gain in FE is good. 0.153 is better than 0.142.

If you take out your calculator, you will find that a FC of 6.5 is equal to a FE of 0.153. And a FC of 7 is equal to a FE of 0.142.

Badlands

 

[Frankie]

http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/research/1985/breed85.htm

I've seen some info similar to this. Thank you. As you can see, none of those crossbreds gained very well, 3.44 down to 3.03. It is older data and as they said, subject to conditions, individuals, etc.

I know there are differences in feeding bulls and steers. But I pay attention to bull tests and I see bulls of several breeds, not just Angus, gain better than the reports I've seen on crossbred steers.

One large ranch here in OK used to test a Continental breed at OBI. They didn't compare to Angus for ADG. When the ranch added Angus to their program, they tested some crossbred bulls. They might have improved their ADG some and had a few higher gainers, but still weren't especially competitive with the purebred Angus.

I'm simply looking for research that backs up the perception that crossbreds gain better in the feedlot. As corn prices go up, I think feed efficiency cattle will be more valuable and we should be identifying those cattle today.

 

[Frankie]

This is the best I could do. Looks to me if your a cow calf operator your a sucker not to go cross bred, but as for feed conversion there is a slight drop over the average of the two parents.

Table 1. Heritability and Heterosis Estimates for Some Economically Important Traits.

Trait /Heritability a /Total heterosis (%) b

Calving rate / .02 - .17 / 6
Calf survival to weaning / .10 - .15 / 4
Weaning rate / .17 / 8
Birth weight direct / .31 / 6
Weaning weight direct / .24 / 11
Milk production / .20 / 9
Post-weaning gain / .31 / 3


Yearling weight / .33 / 4
Mature cow weight / .50 / 1
Feed conversion (TDN/gain) / .32 / - 2
Dressing % / .39 / 0
Rib eye area / .42 / 2
% cutability/retail product / .47 / 0
Marbling/quality grade / .38 / 2
Tenderness / .29 / 0

a Koots et al. (1994).
b Kress and Nelsen (1998).

Thank you, TOD. Is there a link to this? Do we know what the -2 means? Two pounds less feed or a negative in heterosis. We can see that some traits have a 0 for Total Heterosis.

 

[Badlands]

Gain better, or are more efficient? I have no qualms with your point about Angus gaining more than other breeds. They have been able to do that for 20 years. Old news. Of course, now the weigh as much or more than some other breeds as cows, so we know that the gain was also accompanied by larger cow size.


Just because the data is older, doesn't mean that efficiency has or has not changed.


Badlands

 

[Frankie]

Gain better, or are more efficient? I have no qualms with your point about Angus gaining more than other breeds. They have been able to do that for 20 years. Old news. Of course, now the weigh as much or more than some other breeds as cows, so we know that the gain was also accompanied by larger cow size.

Cheap shots all you've got left? :lol:

Just because the data is older, doesn't mean that efficiency has or has not changed.


Badlands

I acknowledged that. It shows those crossbred steers didn't do as well as bulls I've seen on tests over the years of several different breeds.

 

[Badlands]

Table 1. Heritability and [b]Heterosis[/b] Estimates for Some Economically Important Traits.

Trait /Heritability a /Total heterosis (%) b

Badlands

 

[Frankie]

Table 1. Heritability and [b]Heterosis[/b] Estimates for Some Economically Important Traits.

Trait /Heritability a /Total heterosis (%) b

Badlands

So we have a -2% correlation between heterosis and feed conversion?

 

[Frankie]

Frankie, I don't know if there is data that says "crossbred cattle are more feed efficient" in general. That would all depend on the breeds you are crossing. If you take this quote from the article:
"Meat Animal Research Center data, as well as research at many universities, support the theory that the leaner, growth breeds, including Gelbvieh, have the edge in feed efficiency. British breeds deposit more fat; energy-wise that comes with a high price tag."


I don't think anyone would disagree that:
1.) it takes less feed to put on muscle than it does to put on fat.
2.)continentals and continintalXbritish crosses are generally leaner and heavier muscled than straight british cattle.

Is is on those 2 facts that one could come to the reasonable conclusion that the continentals and the continintalxbritish crosses would generally be more feed efficient.

You should know by now that I disagree with lots of commonly agreed on statements.

At one time we thought you could feed an animal to Choice. Today we know if that's true for some animals, it's not cost efficient. Once we thought marbling was the last fat deposited. Now we know that's wrong. Once we thought beef was a commodity. Today we know that's not true for high quality beef.

I know that the Angus breed has a problem with backfat. Yet I see them often outgain other breeds on bull tests around the country. So how can your statement be true?

 

[Badlands]

No cheap shot there, frankie, just a look a biology.

Please direct me to where you acknowledged feed efficiency in the post. I see you acknowledged ADG, but not FE.

I've seen some info similar to this. Thank you. As you can see, none of those crossbreds gained very well, 3.44 down to 3.03. It is older data and as they said, subject to conditions, individuals, etc.

I know there are differences in feeding bulls and steers. But I pay attention to bull tests and I see bulls of several breeds, not just Angus, gain better than the reports I've seen on crossbred steers.

One large ranch here in OK used to test a Continental breed at OBI. They didn't compare to Angus for ADG. When the ranch added Angus to their program, they tested some crossbred bulls. They might have improved their ADG some and had a few higher gainers, but still weren't especially competitive with the purebred Angus.

I'm simply looking for research that backs up the perception that crossbreds gain better in the feedlot. As corn prices go up, I think feed efficiency cattle will be more valuable and we should be identifying those cattle today.

Like I said, you talk about ADG, but in no way do you acknowledge FE, other than to say it will be valuable in the future.

Have you looked at any of the MARC reports, frankie?


Badlands

 

[Frankie]

No cheap shot there, frankie, just a look a biology.

Please direct me to where you acknowledged feed efficiency in the post. I see you acknowledged ADG, but not FE.

I've seen some info similar to this. Thank you. As you can see, none of those crossbreds gained very well, 3.44 down to 3.03. It is older data and as they said, subject to conditions, individuals, etc.

I know there are differences in feeding bulls and steers. But I pay attention to bull tests and I see bulls of several breeds, not just Angus, gain better than the reports I've seen on crossbred steers.

One large ranch here in OK used to test a Continental breed at OBI. They didn't compare to Angus for ADG. When the ranch added Angus to their program, they tested some crossbred bulls. They might have improved their ADG some and had a few higher gainers, but still weren't especially competitive with the purebred Angus.

I'm simply looking for research that backs up the perception that crossbreds gain better in the feedlot. As corn prices go up, I think feed efficiency cattle will be more valuable and we should be identifying those cattle today.

Like I said, you talk about ADG, but in no way do you acknowledge FE, other than to say it will be valuable in the future.

Have you looked at any of the MARC reports, frankie?


Badlands

I have looked at MARC reports that have similar info as the North Dakota SU link, several reports on crossbreeding effects on growth, gain and carcass quality. But I've seen none of them that show the crossbred steers gained noticably better than purebred bulls of various breeds, including Angus. I'd be happy to look at some if you will post links. I can learn. The question seems to be can you teach?

Feed Efficiency is difficult to track in real life. There are many bull test/development stations across the US. Most of them use ADG as an indicator of efficiency. The sire of our 6 lb test gainer also produced a bull that they named 4point8 because of his feed efficiency.

 

[Badlands]

Again, you changed the subject, frankie.

We have repeatedly talked about FE, but you bring up ADG which complicates the issue.

When you are ready to admit that you have changed the subject from FE to ADG, and are ready to talk about FE, we can pick this up.


Badlands

 

[Frankie]

Again, you changed the subject, frankie.

We have repeatedly talked about FE, but you bring up ADG which complicates the issue.

When you are ready to admit that you have changed the subject from FE to ADG, and are ready to talk about FE, we can pick this up.


Badlands

I'm not changing the subject. As far as my test station and most of them around the country, feed efficiency is not tested. BUT we know ADG is highly correlated to FE. Only in the safe and secure walls of the university will you ignore the links between the two.

As an expert, are you going to answer my question:

So we have a -2% correlation between heterosis and feed conversion?*

*According to TOD's post.

 

[jnowack]

Frankie, I don't know if there is data that says "crossbred cattle are more feed efficient" in general. That would all depend on the breeds you are crossing. If you take this quote from the article:
"Meat Animal Research Center data, as well as research at many universities, support the theory that the leaner, growth breeds, including Gelbvieh, have the edge in feed efficiency. British breeds deposit more fat; energy-wise that comes with a high price tag."


I don't think anyone would disagree that:
1.) it takes less feed to put on muscle than it does to put on fat.
2.)continentals and continintalXbritish crosses are generally leaner and heavier muscled than straight british cattle.

Is is on those 2 facts that one could come to the reasonable conclusion that the continentals and the continintalxbritish crosses would generally be more feed efficient.

You should know by now that I disagree with lots of commonly agreed on statements.

At one time we thought you could feed an animal to Choice. Today we know if that's true for some animals, it's not cost efficient. Once we thought marbling was the last fat deposited. Now we know that's wrong. Once we thought beef was a commodity. Today we know that's not true for high quality beef.

I know that the Angus breed has a problem with backfat. Yet I see them often outgain other breeds on bull tests around the country. So how can your statement be true?

So which part of that do you disagree with? There are good Angus cattle out there. There are some that are gain very well and there are some that are very lean. You can find individuals in any breed that are much better or much worse than the average. Bull tests have their place, but they never have been nor will they ever be an accurate representation of the average genetics of each breed involved in the test, or by any means an unbiased comparison of breeds. It is cattle from a small group of producers from a small geographic area with limited genetic sample of the breeds represented.
The facts remain that the average straight angus is fatter and lighter muscled and therefore less feed efficient than the average continental or continental cross. It is scientific fact that it takes more energy (feed) to produce fat than it does to produce muscle.

 

[Badlands]

Your tenacity would be admirable if it wasn't so misguided.


Badlands

 

[oakcreekfarms]

Frankie, I would guarntee you that if you used one of my hereford bulls on your black cows you would increase your weights by at least 10lbs on average. IF you run 100 calves that's another $1000 in your pocket, and the hereford cross will cut your feed costs

 

[Tod Dague]

This is the best I could do. Looks to me if your a cow calf operator your a sucker not to go cross bred, but as for feed conversion there is a slight drop over the average of the two parents.

Table 1. Heritability and Heterosis Estimates for Some Economically Important Traits.

Trait /Heritability a /Total heterosis (%) b

Calving rate / .02 - .17 / 6
Calf survival to weaning / .10 - .15 / 4
Weaning rate / .17 / 8
Birth weight direct / .31 / 6
Weaning weight direct / .24 / 11
Milk production / .20 / 9
Post-weaning gain / .31 / 3


Yearling weight / .33 / 4
Mature cow weight / .50 / 1
Feed conversion (TDN/gain) / .32 / - 2
Dressing % / .39 / 0
Rib eye area / .42 / 2
% cutability/retail product / .47 / 0
Marbling/quality grade / .38 / 2
Tenderness / .29 / 0

a Koots et al. (1994).
b Kress and Nelsen (1998).

Thank you, TOD. Is there a link to this? Do we know what the -2 means? Two pounds less feed or a negative in heterosis. We can see that some traits have a 0 for Total Heterosis.

http://old.redangus.org/newredsite/cros ... breed.html

I took it as a negative heterosis by 2%. But it could mean 2% less fees per lb of gain. After doing the calculation for myself as advised by Badlands I am of the opinion that it is 2% less feed.

 

[novatech]

If you are interested in what the NFI of your bull is these people can help you, for a price.

http://www.texasbulltest.com/

Many angus, brangus, brahman, and other seed stock producers are have there bulls tested there.
I believe they are independent of any breed assoc.

 

[P.A.L]

Here is Australian research about NFI.

http://www.herefords.com/research/hfr7.pdf

 

[jnowack]

Feed conversion is a highly heritable trait and is influenced little by heterosis. The reason that British X Continental are more feed efficient is because they are leaner and heavier muscled than straight bred british cattle. It is breed complimentarity that helps you with highly heritable traits and the heterosis that helps with the lowly heritable traits.

 

[Frankie]

Frankie, I would guarntee you that if you used one of my hereford bulls on your black cows you would increase your weights by at least 10lbs on average. IF you run 100 calves that's another $1000 in your pocket, and the hereford cross will cut your feed costs

Where are you testing your Hereford bulls to gurantee that a Hereford bull would cut my feed costs? If I fed them myself, maybe. But I can guarantee you that if I take them to a sale in my area, I'll get less for a calf with a white face than a solid black one. Even on Superior Auctions, I see them sometimes offering to cut out the white faced calves from a group to help get prices up.