Factors Contributing to Carcass Value and Profitability in Early-Weaned Simmental Steers

1
BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCYOPPORTUNITIES FOR
IMPROVEMENT
Dan Faulkner Department of Animal Sciences
2
What about Inputs?

• We have done a good job of selecting for outputs.

3
Feedlot Profit Model (Quality Grid)
Variables Partial
R2 MS 0.2456 HCW2 0.1703 GF 0.1287 YG2 0.
0639 MS2 0.0625 YG 0.0562 GF2 0.0153 HCW
0.0097
4
Why Efficiency is Becoming More Important

• Decreasing acres for crop production
• Increasing world population
• Increased utilization of food for fuel
• Increasing feed cost (including forages)
• Other inputs increasing in cost (fuel,
  transportation, fertilizer)

5
Feed Cost Represent 65-70 of Beef Production
Costs
6
A 1 improvement in feed efficiency has the same
economic impact as a 3 improvement in rate of
gain
7
On a feedgain basis, beef cattle are least
efficient compared to other livestock
lt 21
lt 3.51
gt 61
8
Poultry Improvement

• 250 improvement in efficiency since 1957

9
Why are beef cattle less efficient?

• Feed higher fiber diets

10
Why are beef cattle less efficient?

• No selection for feed efficiency
• Why?
• Individual feeding
• Expensive facilities
• High labor requirement
• Lack of social interaction decreases feed intake
• Difficult to compare at similar body compositions

11
Combining the GrowSafe and Ultrasound
technologies allows feed efficiency comparisons
at different endpoints

• Endpoints
• Weight
• Backfat
• Marbling
• Age
• Time on Feed

12
Risks of selecting for Feedgain

• Selecting for FG
• Increase cow size
• Increase leaness
• Increase feed intake resulting in decreased
  digestibility, increased organ weights, and
  increased heat increment

13
Net Feed Efficiency(Residual Feed Intake)
Is the difference between an animals actual feed
intake and expected feed intake based on its size
and growth over a specific test period Is
moderately heritable (0.30 0.45) and may
reflect an animals maintenance energy
requirement Is independent of body size and
growth rate
14
Selection for RFI will

• Not effect rate of gain
• Not effect animal size
• Reduce feed intake by 10-12
• Improve FG by 9-15

15
Processes for Variation in Feed Efficiency

• Feed consumption
• Feed digestion and associated energy costs
• Metabolism
• Activity
• Thermoregulation

16
Genetic of RFI

• There is genetic variation in RFI and it is
  moderately heritable
• Progeny of cattle selected for low RFI consume
  less feed at the same level of growth
• On low quality pastures, cattle selected for low
  RFI will exhibit higher growth rates
• Low RFI cattle remain efficient throughout their
  life
• Low RFI cattle have a strong genetic correlation
  only with feed intake
• Genetic improvement in feed efficiency can be
  achieved by selection for low RFI

Review by Paul Arthur
17
Why are the opportunities to improve feed
efficiency greater now than ever before?

• GrowSafe system
• Ultrasound
• Net Feed Efficiency

18
Angus Project

• High use Angus Bulls bred to commercial SimAngus
  cows
• Goal of 15-20 progeny per bull
• Complete measurements
• Heifer mates evaluated on a high forage diet

19
Data Collected

• All standard performance information
• Individual feed intake, efficiency and RFI
• All standard carcass measurements
• Serial ultrasound and hip height
• Chute exit speed (behavior)
• DNA (blood) collected on every animal

20
2007 Study

• Three diets varying in starch level
• Early weaned calves (85 days)
• Base price 83.35
• Five year average grid

21
Feedlot Performance
Sire RFI F/G DMI ADG No.
A -.58 4.53 17.9 3.95 23
B -.42 4.65 18.2 3.91 19
C -.10 4.42 17.8 3.85 17
D .10 4.78 18.1 3.78 27
E .12 4.74 17.7 3.73 23
F .95 4.96 17.9 3.61 18
22
Carcass Data
Sire HCW Value REA BF Marb
A 835 1144 14.5 .61 547
B 866 1226 13.9 .61 586
C 821 1174 14.0 .59 608
D 833 1231 14.8 .68 622
E 789 1122 13.6 .73 612
F 772 1078 13.6 .59 579
23
Comparing RFI
Sire Grain RFI Forage RFI
A -.58 -.18
B -.42 -.03
C -.10 -.46
D .10 .44
E .12 .29
F .95 .00
24
Angus Bulls (2008 data)

25
Feedlot Performance
Sire RFI F/G DMI ADG No.
A -1.18 4.86 20.9 4.30 5
B -0.98 5.45 21.0 3.85 4
C -0.90 5.20 22.3 4.31 8
D -0.69 5.26 21.7 4.15 7
E -0.55 5.20 22.0 4.24 9
F -0.27 5.28 22.7 4.30 15
G -0.18 5.20 24.5 4.73 8
H -0.16 5.48 23.0 4.23 7
26
Feedlot Performance
Sire RFI F/G DMI ADG No.
I -0.10 5.32 23.0 4.36 8
J 0.02 5.36 23.4 4.38 11
K 0.13 5.31 22.8 4.30 20
L 0.13 5.29 22.1 4.18 10
M 0.38 5.33 23.7 4.44 11
N 0.63 5.59 23.3 4.20 3
0 0.74 5.50 23.7 4.32 8
P 0.85 5.61 23.6 4.24 12
27
Carcass Data
Sire HCW Value REA BF Marb
A 786 996 12.2 0.66 540
B 797 968 12.9 0.64 480
C 850 1039 12.5 0.75 583
D 808 1003 12.4 0.66 589
E 814 1031 12.1 0.73 671
F 836 1054 12.4 0.66 632
G 915 1109 13.5 0.72 621
H 848 979 11.4 0.74 552
28
Carcass Data
Sire HCW Value REA BF Marb
I 838 969 11.6 0.76 595
J 857 1031 12.1 0.79 658
K 817 960 11.7 0.77 523
L 785 992 12.3 0.63 595
M 847 1090 13.2 0.69 613
N 823 1000 12.3 0.66 515
O 834 1021 12.3 0.82 649
P 823 993 12.2 0.71 568
29
Comparing RFI
Sire No. on Grain Grain RFI Forage RFI No. on Forage
A 5 -1.18 -.12 4
B 4 -0.98 -.33 12
C 8 -0.90 .88 2
D 7 -0.69 -.28 7
E 9 -0.55 -.35 8
F 15 -0.27 .78 8
G 8 -0.18 -.38 8
H 7 -0.16 -.52 4
30
Comparing RFI
Sire No. on grain Grain RFI Forage RFI No. on Forage
I 8 -0.10 .38 10
J 11 0.02 .93 12
K 20 0.13 -1.06 12
L 10 0.13 .18 4
M 11 0.38 .21 5
N 3 0.63 .03 5
O 8 0.74 -.47 5
P 12 0.85 .61 4
31
Forage Intake

• Measure voluntary forage intake of purebred
  heifers as cows (5 two week long observations
  throughout the yearly cycle)
• Relate this to RFI on forage as heifers and to
  RFI of steer mates

32
Variation in Heifer Intake

• T008 weighed 1360 lbs and ate 38.3 lb/d (2.8 BW)
• T032 weighed 1357 lb and ate 53.5 lb/d (3.9 BW)
• T073 weighed 1359 lb and ate 30.1 lb/d (2.2 BW)
• T007 weighed 1529 lb and ate 47.5 lb/d (3.1 BW)
• T106 weighed 1020 lb and ate 48.6 lb/d (4.8 BW)

33
Assessment of US Cap and Trade Proposals

• MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of
  Global Change
• Paltsev et al., 2007 (Report No. 146)

34
Proposals

• There is a wide range of proposals in the US
  congress that would impose mandatory controls on
  green house gas emissions yielding substantial
  reductions in us greenhouse gas emissions
  relative to a projected reference growth. The
  scenarios explored span the range of stringency
  of these bills.

35
Pricing of CO2 Equivalents (metric ton)

• Economy wide Cap
• In 2015 prices for three cases are 18, 41 and
  53
• In 2050 prices for three cases would reach 70,
  161, and 210
• Agricultural, Households, Services excluded
• In 2015 prices for the three cases are 14, 31
  and 41
• In 2050 prices for the three cases would reach
  54, 121, and 161

36
Three Ways to Reduce Methane Emissions From Beef
Cattle

• Manipulate the diet
• Use genetic selection to improve efficiency
• Reduce the life cycle of the animal

37
Dietary Factors

• Level of feed intake
• Type of carbohydrate in the diet
• Feed processing
• Adding lipid to the diet (Alberta Protocol)
• Alterations of rumen fermentation with products
  like ionophores

38
Level of Intake

• Higher the level of intake higher the rate of
  methane production
• Limit feeding
• Programmed feeding
• RFI
• Manure production is related to intake

39
Type of Diet

• High grain diets produce less methane
• High forage diets produce more methane

40
Feed Additives to Reduce Methane

• Ionophores
• Not a change in practice for the feedlot industry
• Could be a change for the cow/calf industry
• Essential Oils (Calsamiglia et al., 2007 JDS)

41
Genetic selection to Improve Efficiency
42
RFI on Methane Production

• Ten high and low RFI steers were selected out of
  76 steers to evaluate Methane production
• Steers with the lowest RFI emitted 25 less
  methane daily
• When expressed per unit of ADG the reduction was
  24

Hegarty et al., 2007
43
RFI on Methane Production

• Twenty seven steers were selected out of 306
  based on their RFI (high, medium and low)
• Methane production was 28 and 24 less in the low
  RFI animals compared with high and medium RFI
  animals

Nkrumah et a., 2006
44
Bull Selection for RFI

• Using high efficiency bulls will allow producers
  to capture carbon credits
• Initially direct measurement of bulls will be the
  only means of evaluating efficiency
• Breed Associations are currently compiling
  information on feed intake and efficiency of
  bulls and may develop EPD in the near future
• Phenotypes and genotypes are being evaluated to
  develop genetic markers to predict efficiency of
  cattle

45
Reduce the Life Cycle of the Animal

• This has the largest potential reduction in
  methane production

46
Beef Life Cycle (Alberta Protocol)

• Beef cattle in Canada are slaughtered at 18
  months of age (range of 14-21 months)
• Must prove that a change has occurred (reduced
  age) relative to practices in the baseline
  (before project) conditions

47
Challenges

• Size of cow/calf operations
• Documenting ration changes
• Documenting baseline data

48
Days on feed (Alberta Protocol)

• Must prove that a change has occurred (less days)
  relative to practices in the baseline (before
  project) conditions
• Attained by placing heavier cattle
• This system actually increases methane emissions
  throughout the life cycle (but reduces methane in
  the finishing as documented)

49
Methods to Reduce the life Cycle

• Creep feeding
• Early weaning
• Feeding higher energy diets
• Reduces intake which decreases methane production
• High concentrate diets reduce methane production
• Increases rate of gain (reduced age at slaughter)
• Improves efficiency in the feedlot

50
Verification

• Independent third party verification will be
  required to generate carbon credits
• Process verified programs could expand to fill
  this role
• Entities to aggregate and market the credits will
  need to be developed
• Potential returns are large
• Producers need to document current practices to
  get carbon credits for making changes

51
Other Related Carbon Credit Sources

• Anaerobic digesters
• Rangeland management
• Manure reduction
• No-till

52
Value of Credits

• Unlike land based carbon credits which are stored
  in the soil and are reemitted with practice
  change, those generated from cattle are permanent
• Larger amounts of credits are worth more per unit
• Advantage for large operations like feedlots

53
Conclusions

• There is potential to create carbon credits
  through beef production practices
• There are challenges in documenting the changes,
  aggregating the credits and marketing the credits
• Potential returns are large
• It is important to document current production
  practices

54
Questions?