Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 1
David Lalman, Megan Rolf, Robert Kropp, Mike Brown, Miles Redden, Corbit Bayliff, Jarrod Cole and Adam McGee
1898
Champion Hereford Bull Ohio State Fair Imported from
England
1953
Champion Angus Female
Chicago International
Exposition
1969
Grand Champion Steer
Chicago International
Exposition
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 2
2012
Grand Champion Steer
Tulsa State fair
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 3
Matching Forage Resources: Are we getting closer?
¡ Early sexual maturity ¡ High rate of reproduction ¡ Low rates of dystocia ¡ Longevity ¡ Minimum maintenance requirements ¡ Ability to convert forage resource to pounds of calf / beef
Dickerson, 1970
¡ Kansas: Kansas Farm Management Association § Kevin Herbel
¡ North Dakota: Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) Summary § Dr. Kris Ringwall
¡ New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) Summary § Dr. Stan Bevers 350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
550.0
600.0
650.0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
Wea
ning
Weigh
t (lb)
Southwest
Kansas
North Dakota
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
1991
19
92
1993
19
94
1995
19
96
1997
19
98
1999
20
00
2001
20
02
2003
20
04
2005
20
06
2007
20
08
2009
20
10
2011
20
12
2013
Wea
ning
(%)
Southwest
Kansas
North Dakota
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 4
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
1960
19
62
1964
19
66
1968
19
70
1972
1974
1976
19
78
1980
19
82
1984
19
86
1988
19
90
1992
19
94
1996
19
98
2000
20
02
2004
20
06
2008
20
10
2012
Kuehn and Thallman, 2014
-‐15
-‐10
-‐5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Milk Produ
c7on
EPD
's
Angus
Red Angus
Hereford
Charolias
Limousin
Brangus
Simmental
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 5
¡ More milk = higher year-‐long maintenance requirements (NEm) Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984 Montano-‐Bermudez et al., 1990
¡ Related to greater visceral organ mass relative to empty body weight § Rumen, small and large intestine, liver, heart, kidneys
Ferrell and Jenkins, 1988
11.8
15.2
52.6
Lewis et al. (1990)
Effect of milk yield on conversion of milk to calf gain Level of milk
High Low
Lewis et al., (1990)
Total Milk Yield, kg 1,600 875
Ratio of TMY/WW (kg/kg) 52.6 11.8
Clutter et al., (1987)
Total Milk Yield, kg 1,718 1,157
Ratio of TMY/WW (kg/kg) 31.3 18.9
Mallinckrodt et al., (1993)
Total Milk Yield, kg 1,539 1,090
Ratio of TMY/WW (kg/kg) 43.9 29.1
Average
Total Milk Yield, kg 1,619 1,041
Ratio of TMY/WW (kg/kg) 42.6 20.0
Is there a limit of milk production that YOUR forage can support?
Brown et al., 2005
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 6
Kuehn and Thallman, 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Yearling Weight E
PD's Angus
Red Angus
Hereford
Charolias
Limousin
Brangus
Simmental
Genetic trend for mature height has been flat since 1987
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
1990
19
91
1992
19
93
1994
19
95
1996
19
97
1998
19
99
2000
20
01
2002
20
03
2004
20
05
2006
20
07
2008
20
09
2010
20
11
2012
20
13
Mature Weigh
t EPD
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 7
1320
1368
1388 1401 1406 1408
1417
1260
1280
1300
1320
1340
1360
1380
1400
1420
1440
Gelbvieh Charolais Limousin Simmental Red Angus Angus Hereford
LBS
Breed Kuehn and Thallman, 2014
-‐0.2
-‐0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1990
19
91
1992
19
93
1994
19
95
1996
19
97
1998
19
99
2000
20
01
2002
20
03
2004
20
05
2006
20
07
2008
20
09
2010
20
11
2012
20
13
Ribey
e Area EP
D's
Angus
Red Angus
Hereford
Brangus
¡ The answer is not clear ¡ Minor increase in NEm
Ferrell, 1988 ¡ Increased mature weight
MacNeil, 1984 ¡ More muscle = less fat at same live weight ¡ “Undesirable associations between maternal traits and
retail product appear to be mediated through fat thickness” Tess, 2002
¡ Lower adipose composition is associated with: § Older age at puberty § Lower conception rate § Lower calving rate Splan et al., 1998
Fat y = .03768 x
Protein y = -0.668 x + 20.09
Percen
t of E
mpt
y Bod
y Weigh
t
Condition Score or Live Weight
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100
Wea
ning
Weigh
t (lb)
Cow BW (lb)
Mourer et al., 2010 = 0.064
Urick et al., 1971 = 0.042
Dobbs, 2011 = 0.060
y = 0.0607x + 459
Gadberry, 2006 = 0.15
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 8
Annual cost / 100 lb of additional cow BW = $42 (Doye and Lalman, 2011)
Growth and Feed Intake
Kuehn and Thallman, 2014
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Yearling Weight E
PD's Angus
Red Angus
Hereford
Charolias
Limousin
Brangus
Simmental
A nutritionist’s view of selection for growth and associated feed efficiency ¡ High growth cattle
§ Eat more feed: more calories left over for growth (NEg) after NEm has been met
§ NEm is lower § Efficiency of feed used for growth (NEg) is “better”
¡ There is a positive genetic correlation between growth and feed intake Arthur et al., 2001
¡ Increased feed intake and gut capacity results in increased visceral organ mass relative to live body weight (yes, just like milk)
¡ The GI and liver make up less than 10% of the cow’s body mass
¡ The GI and liver combine to use 40 to 50% of total energy expenditure in a beef cow Ferrell, 1988
David Lalman presenta0on Oct. 8, 2014
ARSBC 2014 9
¡ Teaching guidelines based on conditions that reflect a nutrient status that maximizes reproductive performance
¡ A major limitation is focus on short term effects with little consideration of long term implications
“Feeding to maximize reproductive rate does not result in differential retention between females with high and low feed requirements. In contrast, managing cows under reduced feed inputs would more likely result in culling of cows with high feed requirement due to reproductive failure. Furthermore, increasing the proportion of cows with reduced feed requirements may provide producers a margin of safety at times when feed resources are scarce or costly.”
Dr. Andy Roberts USDA ARS Miles City Montana
¡ Requires long term commitment § Moderate size, milk and muscle § Cull open cows ▪ Be willing to challenge them ▪ Resist the temptation to gradually modify the environment
§ Keep only early-‐born heifers § Keep only early-‐bred heifers § Buy (or keep) bulls out of cows that always calve early
¡ Tools available § RADG, RFI, Feed Intake, ME, Longevity, Stayability § Selection indexes for maintenance and profit § Optimal Milk Module
¡ Find source of seedstock that: § Puts PRIORITY on ERT’s related to fertility and forage use efficiency
§ Culls open cows § Keeps only early-‐born heifers § Keeps only early-‐bred heifers § Puts environmental pressure on their cattle – weed out those that do not “match”
¡ Purchase bulls out of cows that are managed like yours are or worse, have never missed a calf, and calve early
¡ No strong evidence that commercial cow efficiency has improved (“sell at weaning” context)
¡ From a commercial cow/calf perspective, the industry is on an unsustainable path relative to some traits
¡ Cows are NOT getting taller ¡ Cows ARE getting bigger ¡ We can’t seem to get enough milk, muscle and growth ¡ The result: feed inputs/costs per cow/calf unit are
increasing while limited data suggests that production is not
¡ Old and new tools are available. However, these must become a priority in selection decisions and not considered secondary traits
