Feed Efficiency

[Frankie]

Feed conversion is a highly heritable trait and is influenced little by heterosis.

That's my opinion, too. But without something to back it up, I'm pretty quiet about it. When Badlands assured us that crossbred cattle did better in the feedlot, I thought that maybe she had some facts. This has been an interesting discussion, but only the NDSU study actually added any information to my limited stores of knowledge.

 

[jnowack]

Feed conversion is a highly heritable trait and is influenced little by heterosis.

That's my opinion, too. But without something to back it up, I'm pretty quiet about it. When Badlands assured us that crossbred cattle did better in the feedlot, I thought that maybe she had some facts. This has been an interesting discussion, but only the NDSU study actually added any information to my limited stores of knowledge.

Look at table 1.
http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare ... 150web.pdf

 

[dun]

Feed conversion is a highly heritable trait and is influenced little by heterosis.

That's my opinion, too. But without something to back it up, I'm pretty quiet about it. When Badlands assured us that crossbred cattle did better in the feedlot, I thought that maybe she had some facts. This has been an interesting discussion, but only the NDSU study actually added any information to my limited stores of knowledge.

Look at table 1.
http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare ... 150web.pdf

I only skimmed it but what reached out and caught ny eye was, "Highly heritable traits like feed efficiency and carcass quality exhibit little or no heterosis."

dun

 

[MikeC]

Feed conversion is a highly heritable trait and is influenced little by heterosis.

That's my opinion, too. But without something to back it up, I'm pretty quiet about it. When Badlands assured us that crossbred cattle did better in the feedlot, I thought that maybe she had some facts. This has been an interesting discussion, but only the NDSU study actually added any information to my limited stores of knowledge.

I know of a feedlot that would have oodles of that kind of info. I'll shoot them an e-mail and see if they'll share it.

Only way I could see a study like this happening is to take two separate breeds of purebred cows/bulls who have had F/E data collected on them and cross those to measure the F/E data of the calves.

It would take more than a few to get any accuracy.

To say that a generic crossbred animal would or would not get better F/E, with any certainty,would be a foolish statement, IMHO. But common sense tells us that F1's are more hardy than purebreds just by removing the inbreeding potential.

I would guess the F1 would be given the right parents.

Frankie, did you starve that calf of yours until you delivered him to the bull test?

 

[Frankie]

Frankie, did you starve that calf of yours until you delivered him to the bull test?

No. Our weaning weights were off quite a bit last year because of the drought, but he went on test at 754 lbs. We try to put them on test weighing at least 750. I don't think they can really use that hot feed if they're smaller than that.

Putting bulls on that test at a lighter weight can help with ADG, but it hurts you in the end because the Test Index is made up of ADG and Adj. 365 day weight. If you hold them to pump up the ADG, they'll probably fall short at the 365 day weight portion.

 

[Frankie]

jnowack and Dun. Thanks for the link and info.

 

[MikeC]

Frankie, did you starve that calf of yours until you delivered him to the bull test?

No. Our weaning weights were off quite a bit last year because of the drought, but he went on test at 754 lbs. We try to put them on test weighing at least 750. I don't think they can really use that hot feed if they're smaller than that.

Putting bulls on that test at a lighter weight can help with ADG, but it hurts you in the end because the Test Index is made up of ADG and Adj. 365 day weight. If you hold them to pump up the ADG, they'll probably fall short at the 365 day weight portion.

How could that hurt you in the end? Wouldn't the compensatory gain even out the Adj.365 weights, I would think?

Our ratio includes WDA that is supposed to eliminate the compensatory gain advantages.

Ours go on test at 900 lbs. and up usually.

Wasn't your calf almost 10 months old at 754 lbs? Plus ours are on full feed for 28 days before the test starts. (To become accustomed to the Calan Gates)

 

[novatech]

I guess what association is putting out the info. may determine
which is the most feed effecient.

http://www.brahman.com.au/BrahmanNews/l ... emiums.pdf

http://www.beef.crc.org.au/genetics/doc ... 0Paper.pdf

http://www.geneticsolutions.com.au/file ... 010_FE.pdf

And another I found that did not include brahman.

http://www.beefimprovement.org/proceedi ... _02BIF.pdf

 

[Frankie]

How could that hurt you in the end? Wouldn't the compensatory gain even out the Adj.365 weights, I would think?

No. If we put a calf on test light, it seems to take him 28 days to get adjusted to the feed. (We only use a two week warm up period.) We've analyzed lots of feed tests, and a bull put on test at 750-800 lbs seems to have the best chance to get a good ADG and a good adj 365 day weight. A 600 lb calf just can't catch a good gaining 800 lb calf in 112 days. And there are many bulls going on test at 800 lbs that will gain 5+. We'll probably never have a high WDA bull because we don't creep. Our weaning weights aren't as good as some people that we know do creep feed.

Our ratio includes WDA that is supposed to eliminate the compensatory gain advantages.

WDA can be influenced with early feeding.

Ours go on test at 900 lbs. and up usually.

Wasn't your calf almost 10 months old at 754 lbs? Plus ours are on full feed for 28 days before the test starts. (To become accustomed to the Calan Gates)

I'd have to look about age. We test in 60 day groups. They're delivered to the station at 8-9 months, then add the two week warm up, plus 28 days, he may have been 10 months old or older.

We got the ultrasound data today. He has a 16 inch ribeye. But I'd give up two inches of ribeye for better marbling. Too bad we don't have that option. His momma has a Midland bull calf this year.

 

[Badlands]

I know of a feedlot that would have oodles of that kind of info. I'll shoot them an e-mail and see if they'll share it.

Just quoting MikeC to get back on topic.

The Gelbvieh data is from well over 2 millions animals, so I think there is something to it.


Badlands

 

[Badlands]

One thing, and actually the most important thing about FE that hasn't been mentioned too much, and not by some folks at all, is that what breed is most efficient is nearly entirely due to the period of time we measure them for, or the market endpoint at which we measure them for.

In other words, high gainers are generally most efficient over a test period that is measured in days, fat cattle are most efficient to a fat endpoint, and lean cattle are most efficient to a retail product endpoint.

Anytime we expect a biological type to perform to a "different" specification than they are designed for, we lose efficiency.

This is why crossbreds tend to excel-they are matched to both marbling and retail product endpoints, and they can bring gain in form both sides of the equation, plus they get a small boost from heterosis.

So, the argument for GAIN indicating FE covers less than 25% of the argument, and GAIN can only be used to improve FE up to the point that mature cows weights increase beyond environmental constraints.

In other words, for the REAL ranchers around the USA, they have used up about all the GAIN benefit they can get. Farmers can haul more grain and feed to the cows, but ranchers don't or can't afford to.

Anyone still chasing gain to achieve efficiency is completely lost, unless of course their cow MW EPD are below 0 and their YW EPD are below 30-40. In that case, they might still want to select for more gain to improve efficiency.

For ranchers who have their production maxed out with low MW and 40 pounds of YW, someone will hopefully come to their aid in the future in terms of delivering seedstock that are efficient, even if they are smaller.

Variation in FE occurs at all rates of gain and at all mature sizes. To use ADG just eliminates some of the variation, but not all of it, and it only captures the variation that is useful for more high-input environments.

Badlands

 

[MikeC]

Frankie wrote:We got the ultrasound data today. He has a 16 inch ribeye. But I'd give up two inches of ribeye for better marbling.

I see what you mean by the IMF% being low. :shock:
Are you sure he's an angus? That's lower than some Cont data.
I'm sure you're disappointed.

He'd go select. One of your other bulls is pretty good on IMF% though.

No breed does it all.

 

[MoGal]

http://redangus.org/association/crossbreeding/


Table 4. Various biotypes of cattle ranked by cost of gain.
. . . Feedb Cost of gainb
Biotype % Choicea %YG 1 & 2a Conversion /cwtc
3/4 British 1/4 Continental 66 52 6.52 $54.00
1/2 British 1/2 Continental 56 56 6.49 $54.80
100% British 70 38 6.76 $57.50
100% Continental 30 89 6.78 $59.80
1/4 British 3/4 Continental 43 83 6.72 $60.10
a Adapted from U.S. MARC data (Cundiff, 1999).
b Swift & Co. and Gelbvieh Alliance data (T. Schiefelbein, 2003 and D. Schiefelbein, 1998).
c Includes interest.


Not sure that will show up like it is on the page but I think Frankie that is what you are asking for.

 

[Jovid]

http://redangus.org/association/crossbreeding/


Table 4. Various biotypes of cattle ranked by cost of gain.
. . . Feedb Cost of gainb
Biotype % Choicea %YG 1 & 2a Conversion /cwtc
3/4 British 1/4 Continental 66 52 6.52 $54.00
1/2 British 1/2 Continental 56 56 6.49 $54.80
100% British 70 38 6.76 $57.50
100% Continental 30 89 6.78 $59.80
1/4 British 3/4 Continental 43 83 6.72 $60.10
a Adapted from U.S. MARC data (Cundiff, 1999).
b Swift & Co. and Gelbvieh Alliance data (T. Schiefelbein, 2003 and D. Schiefelbein, 1998).
c Includes interest.


Not sure that will show up like it is on the page but I think Frankie that is what you are asking for.

When MARC did the research the 3/4 British was Red Poll / Angus / and Hereford.

 

[Frankie]

Two questions for you Frankie one what was the bull that had the 6pound plus gain what was his actual birth weight?

86 lbs.

Question number two out of your total bulls birthed each year what percent do you cull or send to slaughter? Are you selling all for breeding sires?

We don't cut any bull calves. We send the majority of them to test, if they don't test up to our standards, are infertile, unsound, whatever, we take off the ear tags and haul them to the sale barn....another generic black bull.

 

[DOC HARRIS]

'We don't cut any bull calves." :shock: :shock: :roll: That surprises me considerably, Frankie! Somewhere I seem to have gotten the feeling that you were opposed to not cutting the 'lesser quality' of one's bull calves in order to prevent perpetuation of imperfect genetics. Guess I was wrong.

DOC HARRIS

 

[Shorthornguy]

It's all about dollars. If you are in the business of selling bulls you want to make them look the best. It might be Frankie's corn fed Black Angus,Kit Pharos grass fed Red Angus, my nieghbors silage fed Simmis or the Herefords at the WI test.
Type of feed,protien,and total digestable matter can make a big difference. Treat a bull like a hog and it will gain like a hog.
Enviornment, stress, and cattle management have more to do with feed conversion than ADG.

 

[Frankie]

They go to the sale barn, like thousands of other animals. Some are worth buying and using as breeding stock, some aren't. There are no gurantees at the sale barn. The bulls we sell with our name on them have a breeding gurantee for a year. The bulls we cull will be better than some bulls sold in production sales by the big guys.

 

[Frankie]

'We don't cut any bull calves." :shock: :shock: :roll: That surprises me considerably, Frankie! Somewhere I seem to have gotten the feeling that you were opposed to not cutting the 'lesser quality' of one's bull calves in order to prevent perpetuation of imperfect genetics. Guess I was wrong.

DOC HARRIS

I'm not opposed to anyone cutting whatever they want to cut. "lesser quality" means different things to different people. Every cow on this place is at least two, most three or four, generations of performance Angus genetics. I expect every calf born here to be a good quality animal. We've weaned calves that we weren't happy with, but by the time they're yearlings they're 12-1300 lb bulls and, IMO, would be a satisfactory herd bull for a commercial operation. And we've had calves what we weren't happy with at weaning that went to the sale barn as yearlings weighing 1000 lbs with hundreds of dollars of feed in them. Purebred breeders make our decisions about their bulls, just like the bull buyers make their decisions. And they have the final say.

 

[BAGTIC]

"How many true straight bred breeds are there really out there? The majority of the breeds are crossed up with something or the other."

Galloways and Highlands are probably the oldest and purest breeds. They have been separate for so long that DNA tests show they have the greatest genetic divergence from other European/Briish breeds.