1 / 30

Applying feed intake monitoring systems into producer testing programs

Applying feed intake monitoring systems into producer testing programs. Dr. Daryl R. Strohbehn Extension Beef Specialist Iowa Beef Center @ ISU. Why Feed Efficiency?. With everything else equal or even less wouldn’t you rather have a more feed efficient sire?. Why Feed Efficiency?.

priscilla
Download Presentation

Applying feed intake monitoring systems into producer testing programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Applying feed intake monitoring systems into producer testing programs Dr. Daryl R. Strohbehn Extension Beef Specialist Iowa Beef Center @ ISU

  2. Why Feed Efficiency? • With everything else equal or even less wouldn’t you rather have a more feed efficient sire?

  3. Why Feed Efficiency? • Feed cost represents 60% of the total cost in finishing cattle. (Fox @ 2002 BIF) • Feed cost represents 63% of total financial cost to run a beef cow. (Strohbehn, IA SPA results 2000-04) • A 10% improvement in feed efficiency can improve feedlot profits 43%. (Fox, et.al. 2001) • 65-75% of total dietary energy cost in breeding cows is required for maintenance. (Ferrell & Jenkins 1985; NRC 1996) • A 5% improvement in feed efficiency has an economic impact 4 times greater than a 5% improvement in ADG. (Gibb & McAllister 1999)

  4. Why Feed Efficiency? • Environmental friendly cattle • Selection for improved feed efficiency will: • Lower methane emissions by 9 to 12% (Okine, et.al. 2001) • Reduce manure N, P and K production by 15-17% (Arthur, et.al. 2002)

  5. Why Feed Efficiency? It’s a heritable trait. TraitHeritability Feed conversion (f/g) .36 Feed efficiency (g/f) .42 Feed intake .41 Koots, et.al. 1994

  6. Efficiency Traits – Let’s get our definitions straight Feed Conversion = Feed Intake / Animal Gain Example - 4:1 or 8:1 (lbs of dry matter / lb gain) Feed Efficiency = Animal Gain / Feed Intake Examples: .25 lbs gained / lb feed or .125 lbs gain / lb feed (usually expressed in units of 100% dry matter) Later on I will talk about RFI, NFI and NFE.

  7. I remember when….1960-70’s • Individual fed bulls in separate pens • Example: Wye Plantation in Queenstown, Maryland • Daily hand kept written records • Very, very high labor • No animal peck order, thus no impact from competition

  8. Technology Advancements <-PinPointer 4000 system

  9. Technology Advancements Calan Electronic Feed Gates  - Each animal has its own space and daily written records System at Circle A Angus, MO

  10. GrowSafe System, Canada

  11. Feed Conversion testing with on the farm/ranch systems • Don’t take this job lightly • It’s like milking dairy cows, methodical daily duties. • Requires attention to feed and management details, regardless of intake monitoring system utilized. • Requires meticulous record keeping, both with feed intake and weight gains.

  12. Record analysis assistance may be needed. • Feed conversion is just not feed intake divided by gain. • Most tests are equal time on feed, thus bull weights while on test vary a great deal. • BIF method: account for differences in average bull weights during test. Range in off test weight: 974 - 1541

  13. BIF Methodology • Adjusted Feed Conversion uses metabolic weights. • ( W.75 / Wi.75 ) x ( Feed / Gain ) • W is the mid test weight; the average of the initial weight and final weight. • This method adjusts feed/gain of heavier than average bulls downward and lighter than average bulls upward.

  14. Question ??? • Two bulls have the same Feed Conversion and 3.5 lb ADGs on 120 day test. • 6.5 lbs feed to 1.0 lb gain • Bull A and B have off test weights of 1300 and 1200, respectively. • Are they the same for Feed Conversion? • NO ! • After adjusting for differences in body weight • Bull A’s average test weight was 1090 lbs, Bull B’s average test weight was 990 lbs • Bull A Adjusted FC=6.27 • Bull B Adjusted FC=6.74 Beef Improvement Federation Guidelines

  15. Duane Warden Warden’s Ironwood Angus Council Bluffs, IA 24 years of feed efficiency testing using PinPointer system

  16. Warden’s Adjusted Feed Conversion 1995-2004

  17. Warden’s Adjusted Feed Conversion 1995-2004 New Level bull 0350 bull 701 bull 4 Point 8 bull 3303 bull 4333 bull Influence sires – Past and Present

  18. Warden’s Adjusted Feed Conversion 1995-2004 New Level bull 0350 bull 701 bull 4 Point 8 bull 3303 bull 4333 bull Warden Smarts SireAdj Feed Conversion 701 5.84 New Level 5.02 0350 5.18 4 Point 8 4.82 3303 5.21 4333 5.18

  19. Warden’s Adjusted Feed Conversion 1995-2004 New Level bull 0350 bull 701 bull 4 Point 8 bull 3303 bull 4333 bull Warden Smarts SireRFI 701 -.70 New Level -2.20 0350 -1.33 4 Point 8 -2.61 3303 -1.06 4333 -2.50

  20. Over 40 Years Ago Data from: -Lincoln, NE -Fort Robinson, NE -Fort Reno, OK Breeds: Angus Hereford Shorthorn • Dr. Robert Koch, U of Nebraska research and reported on a new system that adjusted feed intakes for body weight and growth. • Splits feed intake into two portions • 1. feed intake for a given level of growth & size • 2. a residual portion

  21. Thus was born RFI(Residual Feed Intake) • RFI is also known as: • NFI: Net Feed Intake • NFE: Net Feed Efficiency • RFI is the difference between a bull’s actual feed intake and its expected feed intake based on its size and growth. • RFI = actual DMI – expected DMI • Heritability estimates 29% to 46%

  22. RFI(Residual Feed Intake) • Used to identify animals that are either + or – from their expected ME intake. • -NFE = high efficiency • +NFE = low efficiency Individual Bull Expected DMI Individual bull DMI -NFE ADG Wt.

  23. Studies indicate RFI is an independent trait • Warden data no correlation between Off Test Weight and RFI r = -.02

  24. Studies indicate RFI is an independent trait • Warden data no correlation between ADG and RFI. r = -.01

  25. Studies indicate RFI is an independent trait, but related to Adjusted Feed Conversion • Warden data .46 correlation between Adjusted Feed Conversion and RFI r = .46 RFI

  26. Studies indicate RFI is an independent trait, but related to Dry Matter Intake • Warden data .55 correlation between Dry Matter Intake and RFI. r = .55

  27. Other relationships were evaluated…. • A significant correlation between RFI and ultrasound fat cover existed (.17) • Means fatter bulls were less efficient • No significant relationships existed between RFI and other performance parameters. • EPDs (BW, WW, YW, Milk) and ultrasound REA

  28. Dilemma with calculating RFI • Requires doing a regression analysis of the data to develop an equation called Expected Dry Matter Intake. • Expected Dry Matter Intake is then used against Actual Dry Matter Intake to develop the RFI. • Not many producers have the expertise and knowledge of statistics to do this exercise. • Going to require serious expertise involvement either from Extension Service or Breed Association.

  29. Warden-Beedle information gathering system using off the shelf electronic components. Joint project with the Iowa Beef Center, Miraco, ID-ology, and Rice Lake Scales

  30. Our Future…..Let’s Hope. A view from Australia on the possibilities Angus NFI Percentile

More Related