The "GOLDEN EGG" - Feed Efficiency??

[backhoeboogie]

down here in Texas you just gotta have some Brahman influence to get a cow capable of hustling for whatever is available as well as utilizing things like range cubes or range meal to the upmost.

Shucks mine are standing belly deep in highly nutritional coastal grass on the river flood plain. There is Hubam clover in the mix still actively growing. All I need is something that can eat good grass in the heat of the summer and wean healthy calves. I have seen cold climate cows turn their noses up at all grain sweet feed after only eating a cup or two in 110 degree heat. They just stand their in the shade panting and appreciating the water you are pouring on their backs. Not much milk for the calves and you are pretty much helpless to do anything for them. They just can't take the heat. Feed conversion means nothing when they won't eat much of anything.

 

[TexasBred]

Boogie...true about the grass "now". '06 tho I was already feeding previous years hay and nothing to buy but maize stalks. My cows came thru the winter looking better than ever. Didnt' mean to imply that there was nothing out there to eat...only that what's there is often all they get. South Texas is in a drought right now. Not a lot of anything to be had but what's there the brahman influence cattle will be out there hustling for every ounce of it while others stand in the shade and starve themselves and their calf.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Texas I can irrigate the flood plains out of the Brazos and produce hay during the worst of droughts. During the drought is when I get my coastal up to 18 %. Last year I had all that rain and couldn't get it cut or couldn't get it cut at the optimum time. The quality of the hay just wasn't what I like.

I keep hearing about the drought down there. I just let out 80 acres to be baled on the halves. LOL maybe I should have just paid the $19 a bale to have it baled and kept it all? I am down to 300 plus bales left from last year. People are buying the old stuff and I am glad to get rid of it. Hence, baling on the halves was not a bad option for me at this point.

But truly back to the issue of feed conversion, when the cows won't eat because of heat, you are simply stuck with them declining. For my situation it is solely about the heat and nothing else. I have some that I can calve in the fall and do okay with. It is just hard to pass up a bargain sometimes and I bought them when I shouldn't have done so.

 

[greenwillowhereford II]

personally hereford has a big roll in efficientcy in the majority of rangeland conditions thoughout the US and the most overlooked breed... we all can put together a animal that can grow like a weed on feed . but making it ediable

Thank you sir. I'm surprised that this conversation about efficiency has made it this far with no discussion of the breed whose efficiency is the hallmark. Furthermore, the AHA is putting its money where its mouth is with the numerous studies being conducted right now from California to Missourri and beyond. The early nineties studies at Colorado State U led to the forming of CHB, and back then Hereford steers were beating the industry standards handily gaining more weight at sharply lower cost. The recent studies have shown that they are still hard to beat.

IMO, the golden egg will consist of some Hereford genetics.

 

[novatech]

I would think that there are two completely different types of efficiency. One being a cow calf pasture operation where maintenance and calf raising efficiency is important. The other being the efficiency in a feed lot operation where feed conversion is more directly involved and less importance is placed on maintenance.

could you explain how are you seeing this as two types of efficiency? in each case an animal is converting feed - either as grass or as a feed ration - into pounds.

ROB

There are many factors that have been discussed and debated on these boards in the past about what makes up an efficient cow herd. It may be genetics. It may be size. It may be breed. It may be the ability to convert feed. It may be fertility. It may be management. ETC. It probably is a combination of all the above. For a cow to be considered efficient she must be able to put pounds of beef on the ground in the form of calves. She must be able to do this at least one time per year and still maintain a BCS of 6. The cost of that production determines efficiency.
The product of these cows is a different story. The calves must be able to put on pounds of meat combined with tenderness and marbling, ( although some prefer lean ) a fast rate. The cost of this production determines efficiency.
This is an over simplification of what I believe the difference is but I hope you can understand my perspective of the difference.

 

[ROB]

There are many factors that have been discussed and debated on these boards in the past about what makes up an efficient cow herd. It may be genetics. It may be size. It may be breed. It may be the ability to convert feed. It may be fertility. It may be management. ETC. It probably is a combination of all the above. For a cow to be considered efficient she must be able to put pounds of beef on the ground in the form of calves. She must be able to do this at least one time per year and still maintain a BCS of 6. The cost of that production determines efficiency.
The product of these cows is a different story. The calves must be able to put on pounds of meat combined with tenderness and marbling, ( although some prefer lean ) a fast rate. The cost of this production determines efficiency.
This is an over simplification of what I believe the difference is but I hope you can understand my perspective of the difference.

i understand your perspective, but i don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that if a replacemeent can convert grass into pounds more efficiently than a current herd matron- she can't put calves on the ground that will be as efficient in the feedlot as that herd matrons (given the fact that all other selection traits are met). i can see that if one uses single trait selection - no matter what the trait - it will normally have undesireable results. selecting for "RFI only" wouldn't be any different. but if you were to add the RFI trait to the selection criteria, how does that not compliment the end result?

ROB

 

[novatech]

There are many factors that have been discussed and debated on these boards in the past about what makes up an efficient cow herd. It may be genetics. It may be size. It may be breed. It may be the ability to convert feed. It may be fertility. It may be management. ETC. It probably is a combination of all the above. For a cow to be considered efficient she must be able to put pounds of beef on the ground in the form of calves. She must be able to do this at least one time per year and still maintain a BCS of 6. The cost of that production determines efficiency.
The product of these cows is a different story. The calves must be able to put on pounds of meat combined with tenderness and marbling, ( although some prefer lean ) a fast rate. The cost of this production determines efficiency.
This is an over simplification of what I believe the difference is but I hope you can understand my perspective of the difference.

i understand your perspective, but i don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that if a replacemeent can convert grass into pounds more efficiently than a current herd matron- she can't put calves on the ground that will be as efficient in the feedlot as that herd matrons (given the fact that all other selection traits are met). i can see that if one uses single trait selection - no matter what the trait - it will normally have undesireable results. selecting for "RFI only" wouldn't be any different. but if you were to add the RFI trait to the selection criteria, how does that not compliment the end result?
I agree with you on the feed conversion. But that is only one trait. The efficient cow also must be of a smaller frame size therfore giving it a better RFI. Efficient genetics in a small package, bred to a terminal bull, producing a larger, faster growing terminal calf. This is why one should not use the same bull for replacements as one would use for terminal production.
Personally I have some very efficient cows, geneticly. I will defend that fact to the n'th degree. The fact of the matter is that I could maxamize that efficiency by a reduction in frame size. When I have accomplished this it will be a matter of crossing them with an equally feed efficient bull, with proper frame score, in order to produce a cow which will again be crossed to a terminal bull, which may have a much larger frame score.

ROB

 

[ROB]

I agree with you on the feed conversion. But that is only one trait. The efficient cow also must be of a smaller frame size therfore giving it a better RFI. Efficient genetics in a small package, bred to a terminal bull, producing a larger, faster growing terminal calf. This is why one should not use the same bull for replacements as one would use for terminal production.
Personally I have some very efficient cows, geneticly. I will defend that fact to the n'th degree. The fact of the matter is that I could maxamize that efficiency by a reduction in frame size. When I have accomplished this it will be a matter of crossing them with an equally feed efficient bull, with proper frame score, in order to produce a cow which will again be crossed to a terminal bull, which may have a much larger frame score.

i never mentioned selecting per one trait - matter of fact i tried to convey just the opposite.
i run moderate framed cows as well. i do so because i believe they are more cost effective to maintain than larger framed ones. even though they are mostly peas out of the same pod- there is a lot of variation in their performance. some flesh easily - others don't. the cows that don't - typically have calves that won't flesh easily on grass and do less than favorably in the feedlot. i guess what im trying to get to is the fact that there is room for improvement. not by changing the whole scheme of things - just being more discriminatory in replacement selection.

and, as some of the RFI studies are showing, there are replacement quality bulls as well as terminal bulls out there that are efficient in converting feed. whether or not they have all the other attributes your looking for - i would have no idea. but i have seen either type of bull available that would suit my own needs - and at todays prices I would rather have either type of bull that could convert substantially less feed into 4 lbs/day gain than another that has an ADG of 6 lbs with a lot more feed.

ROB

 

[ALACOWMAN]

personally hereford has a big roll in efficientcy in the majority of rangeland conditions thoughout the US and the most overlooked breed... we all can put together a animal that can grow like a weed on feed . but making it ediable

Thank you sir. I'm surprised that this conversation about efficiency has made it this far with no discussion of the breed whose efficiency is the hallmark. Furthermore, the AHA is putting its money where its mouth is with the numerous studies being conducted right now from California to Missourri and beyond. The early nineties studies at Colorado State U led to the forming of CHB, and back then Hereford steers were beating the industry standards handily gaining more weight at sharply lower cost. The recent studies have shown that they are still hard to beat.

IMO, the golden egg will consist of some Hereford genetics.

don't doubt that a bit. and it may be in the form of a baldy ;-)

 

[novatech]

Around this area the golden certified F1 Bradford's are bringing big bucks, and for good reason. This is exactly the cross I would go with. Although, one of these days I would like to try some Murry Gray cross to Brahman.

 

[backhoeboogie]

Although, one of these days I would like to try some Murry Gray cross to Brahman.

When you do that, remember to sell me a F1 heifer. I'd like to see what that combination does on my turf.

 

[Busterz]

At this point not much RFI testing has been done and there aren't that many cattle or breeds that have an epd for it yet.

If I were a breed association I'd probably make getting a feed efficiency epd my #1 priority. I think at some point probably sooner than later feed yards are going to start seeking and then demanding cattle identified to be highly feed efficient. Its going to become a highly desireable trait. And if they ever identify some type of feed efficiency gene it will probably become a required trait.

 

[novatech]

At this point not much RFI testing has been done and there aren't that many cattle or breeds that have an epd for it yet.

If I were a breed association I'd probably make getting a feed efficiency epd my #1 priority. I think at some point probably sooner than later feed yards are going to start seeking and then demanding cattle identified to be highly feed efficient. Its going to become a highly desireable trait. And if they ever identify some type of feed efficiency gene it will probably become a required trait.

GeneStar has already identified the gene and the tests are available. Combined with tenderness and quality the test is $65.00.
There are many using the tests and backing it up with real feed efficiency testing. The people doing this are reaping the benefits. Cattle with good test results are commanding high prices.
http://www.imperatorbrahmans.com/
http://www.kallionfarms.com/tech.html

 

[ALACOWMAN]

Around this area the golden certified F1 Bradford's are bringing big bucks, and for good reason. This is exactly the cross I would go with. Although, one of these days I would like to try some Murry Gray cross to Brahman.

i raised several of em. only have one left that is 18 year's old she has been the epitome of efficiency ... but the tiger steers take a beating and cant get good replacements in my area, so brangus has been the most economic option and the brangus steer's sell good here

 

[DOC HARRIS]

[Quote by ROB] - "i never mentioned selecting per one trait - matter of fact i tried to convey just the opposite.
i run moderate framed cows as well. i do so because i believe they are more cost effective to maintain than larger framed ones. even though they are mostly peas out of the same pod- there is a lot of variation in their performance. some flesh easily - others don't. the cows that don't - typically have calves that won't flesh easily on grass and do less than favorably in the feedlot. i guess what im trying to get to is the fact that there is room for improvement. not by changing the whole scheme of things - just being more discriminatory in replacement selection.

and, as some of the RFI studies are showing, there are replacement quality bulls as well as terminal bulls out there that are efficient in converting feed. whether or not they have all the other attributes your looking for - i would have no idea. but i have seen either type of bull available that would suit my own needs - and at todays prices I would rather have either type of bull that could convert substantially less feed into 4 lbs/day gain than another that has an ADG of 6 lbs with a lot more feed."



ROB-

Those of us who have been reading this thread are aware of the complexity of the subject matter, and - - the possibility of misunderstanding the meanings and specific thought directions of the poster's. This subject matter is as complicated to manage as most protocols in ANY business plan in Industry, Working with animals as individual as Beef Cattle requires thorough planning, and the ability to change procedures, and policies as circumstances dictate. In an industry as diverse as Agriculture with its concomitant needs and demands changing, literally with the wind and weather, each operation is different and the protocols which compel a breeder's actions to enable him to make a profit at the end of the year are mandatory to his own particular location and special circumstances.

ROB, I think that you have determined and articulated your "special circumstances" as well as anyone on this thread! In a manner of speaking, you have "balanced" your requirements with the tools you have at hand, and are making the best out of the current conditions at your ranch.

Well done!

DOC HARRIS

 

[KNERSIE]

Although I have read every post I am not going to quote every applicable one in my argument.

As far as efficiency, RFI, actual FCR and rate of gain goes, not everything is easy to measure or easy to create an EPD for.

If efficient cattle in the feedlot automatically meant they were efficient converters of forage, why do so many high gaining tested bulls fall apart on pasture? Why do the majority of cows need grain as supplement to be able to raise a calf and breed back? Why do some animals get fat while others barely survive although those who barely survive outgained the fat ones by miles while they were fed grain after weaning?

You can test bulls all you want, they can gain as much per day as you can imagine in your wildest dreams, but in the real life, we need cattle with doing ability, they must do it on your forage, they must do it well to make a profit for you. Feedlots need cattle that can grow well AND most importantly FINISH within a reasonable amount of time, that means they also need to put fat on, not just lean meat. There is no point in gaining 6lbs+ of lean meat per day for 84 or 112 or 125 or however long your test is when most feedlots want them in and out in less time.

The more expensive corn gets the shorter the feeding time is going to get and the earlier maturing you want the cattle, otherwise eating beef will be a dry experience. Moderation will be the key to success in the future.

 

[EAT BEEF]

GOOD middle of the road cattle seem to do enough things well.It seems that nature likes the avg. We can mess anything up if we try hard enough.Single trait selection makes a mess of everthing with little genetic consistancy,but not many people want to stay the course to breed balenced cattle just move on to the next great thing or sell the cows they screwed up and buy some more screwed up cows that are "right for the times".

I don't really care much for all the gene star and feed efficiency tests bs.When our calves quite selling at the top of the market, nobody wants to buy a bull,and our beef tastes like crap I might think about it a little harder.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not as hard as most of us are trying to make it.

 

[ROB]

something that amuses me is the fact that each of us who buys bulls - no matter where from - is already making a purchase of a highly effecient bull, a middle of the road bull, or a terribly efficient bull. doesn't matter if they havent been tested for effeciency - the trait is still there, we just don't know what the index is. :lol:

ROB

 

[MikeC]

If efficient cattle in the feedlot automatically meant they were efficient converters of forage, why do so many high gaining tested bulls fall apart on pasture?

I have asked a thousand times to be shown this supposed phenomenon but every time I talk to the owner of a bull that "Fell Apart", he tells me his hay was poor or the bull was overworked, or both. Among other poor management type decisions.

I have also brought several-SEVERAL bulls home from tests and haven't actually seen it happen.

I wonder if it really has, or is this just a wives tale?

I had one bull that had a post weaning ADG of 5.47 lbs and he naturally serviced over 60 cows his first breeding season with no problems.

Show me a bull that fell apart in a good pasture and most likely, I'll show you a poor manager running the show.

 

[ROB]

a very good link from Midland Bull Test Station. two pretty large groups of bulls of various breeds which came off test in January and March of this year. and some very interesting reading which discusses a lot of the topics on this thread.

ROB

http://www.midlandbulltest.com/efficiencyresults.php