BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCY:

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

Dan FaulknerDepartment of Animal Sciences

WHAT ABOUT INPUTS?WHAT ABOUT INPUTS?

We have done a good job of selecting for outputs.

Feedlot Profit Model (Quality Grid)

Other25%

MS31%

G:F14%

HCW18%

YG12%

Variables Partial R2

MS 0.2456

HCW2 0.1703

G:F 0.1287

YG2 0.0639

MS2 0.0625

YG 0.0562

G:F2 0.0153

HCW 0.0097

Why Efficiency is Becoming Why Efficiency is Becoming More ImportantMore 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)

Feed Cost Represent 65-70% Feed Cost Represent 65-70% of Beef Production Costsof Beef Production Costs

A 1% improvement in feed efficiency A 1% improvement in feed efficiency has the same economic impact as a has the same economic impact as a

3% improvement in rate of gain3% improvement in rate of gain

On a feed:gain basis, beef On a feed:gain basis, beef cattle are least efficient cattle are least efficient

compared to other livestockcompared to other livestock

< 2:1 < 3.5:1 > 6:1

Poultry ImprovementPoultry Improvement

250% improvement in efficiency since 1957

Why are beef cattle less efficient?Why are beef cattle less efficient?

• Feed higher fiber diets

Why are beef cattle less efficient?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

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

endpointsendpoints

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

Risks of selecting for Risks of selecting for Feed:gainFeed:gain

• Selecting for F:G– Increase cow size– Increase leaness– Increase feed intake

resulting in decreased digestibility, increased organ weights, and increased heat increment

Net Feed EfficiencyNet Feed Efficiency(Residual Feed Intake)(Residual Feed Intake)

Is the difference between an animal’s 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

Selection for RFI will:Selection for RFI will:

• Not effect rate of gain

• Not effect animal size

• Reduce feed intake by 10-12%

• Improve F:G by 9-15%

Processes for Variation in Feed Processes for Variation in Feed EfficiencyEfficiency

• Feed consumption

• Feed digestion and associated energy costs

• Metabolism

• Activity

• Thermoregulation

Genetic of RFIGenetic 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

Why are the opportunities to Why are the opportunities to improve feed efficiency greater improve feed efficiency greater

now than ever before?now than ever before?• GrowSafe system

• Ultrasound

• Net Feed Efficiency

Angus ProjectAngus 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

Data CollectedData 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

2007 Study2007 Study

• Three diets varying in starch level

• Early weaned calves (85 days)

• Base price $83.35

• Five year average grid

Feedlot PerformanceFeedlot PerformanceSire Sire RFIRFI F/GF/G DMIDMI ADGADG No.No.

AA -.58-.58 4.534.53 17.917.9 3.953.95 2323

BB -.42-.42 4.654.65 18.218.2 3.913.91 1919

CC -.10-.10 4.424.42 17.817.8 3.853.85 1717

DD .10.10 4.784.78 18.118.1 3.783.78 2727

EE .12.12 4.744.74 17.717.7 3.733.73 2323

FF .95.95 4.964.96 17.917.9 3.613.61 1818

Carcass DataCarcass DataSire Sire HCWHCW Value $Value $ REAREA BFBF MarbMarb

AA 835835 11441144 14.514.5 .61.61 547547

BB 866866 12261226 13.913.9 .61.61 586586

CC 821821 11741174 14.014.0 .59.59 608608

DD 833833 12311231 14.814.8 .68.68 622622

EE 789789 11221122 13.613.6 .73.73 612612

FF 772772 10781078 13.613.6 .59.59 579579

Comparing RFIComparing RFISire Sire Grain RFIGrain RFI Forage RFIForage RFI

AA -.58-.58 -.18-.18

BB -.42-.42 -.03-.03

CC -.10-.10 -.46-.46

DD .10.10 .44.44

EE .12.12 .29.29

FF .95.95 .00.00

Angus Bulls Angus Bulls (2008 data)(2008 data)

Feedlot PerformanceFeedlot PerformanceSire Sire RFIRFI F/GF/G DMIDMI ADGADG No.No.

AA -1.18 4.86 20.9 4.30 5

BB -0.98 5.45 21.0 3.85 4

CC -0.90 5.20 22.3 4.31 8

DD -0.69 5.26 21.7 4.15 7

EE -0.55 5.20 22.0 4.24 9

FF -0.27 5.28 22.7 4.30 15

GG -0.18 5.20 24.5 4.73 8

HH -0.16 5.48 23.0 4.23 7

Feedlot PerformanceFeedlot PerformanceSire Sire RFIRFI F/GF/G DMIDMI ADGADG No.No.

II -0.10 5.32 23.0 4.36 8

JJ 0.02 5.36 23.4 4.38 11

KK 0.13 5.31 22.8 4.30 20

LL 0.13 5.29 22.1 4.18 10

MM 0.38 5.33 23.7 4.44 11

NN 0.63 5.59 23.3 4.20 3

00 0.74 5.50 23.7 4.32 8

PP 0.85 5.61 23.6 4.24 12

Carcass DataCarcass DataSire Sire HCWHCW Value $Value $ REAREA BFBF MarbMarb

AA 786 996 12.2 0.66 540

BB 797 968 12.9 0.64 480

CC 850 1039 12.5 0.75 583

DD 808 1003 12.4 0.66 589

EE 814 1031 12.1 0.73 671

FF 836 1054 12.4 0.66 632

GG 915 1109 13.5 0.72 621

HH 848 979 11.4 0.74 552

Carcass DataCarcass DataSire Sire HCWHCW Value $Value $ REAREA BFBF MarbMarb

II 838 969 11.6 0.76 595

JJ 857 1031 12.1 0.79 658

KK 817 960 11.7 0.77 523

LL 785 992 12.3 0.63 595

MM 847 1090 13.2 0.69 613

NN 823 1000 12.3 0.66 515

OO 834 1021 12.3 0.82 649

PP 823 993 12.2 0.71 568

Comparing RFIComparing RFISire Sire No. on No. on

GrainGrainGrain Grain RFIRFI

Forage Forage RFIRFI

No. on No. on ForageForage

AA 5 -1.18 -.12-.12 44

BB 4 -0.98 -.33-.33 1212

CC 8 -0.90 .88.88 22

DD 7 -0.69 -.28-.28 77

EE 9 -0.55 -.35-.35 88

FF 15 -0.27 .78.78 88

GG 8 -0.18 -.38-.38 88

HH 7 -0.16 -.52-.52 44

Comparing RFIComparing RFISire Sire No. on No. on

graingrainGrain Grain RFIRFI

Forage Forage RFIRFI

No. on No. on ForageForage

II 8 -0.10 .38.38 1010

JJ 11 0.02 .93.93 1212

KK 20 0.13 -1.06-1.06 1212

LL 10 0.13 .18.18 44

MM 11 0.38 .21.21 55

NN 3 0.63 .03.03 55

OO 8 0.74 -.47-.47 55

PP 12 0.85 .61.61 44

Forage IntakeForage 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

Variation in Heifer IntakeVariation 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)

Assessment of US Cap and Assessment of US Cap and Trade ProposalsTrade Proposals

MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Paltsev et al., 2007 (Report No. 146)

ProposalsProposals

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.

Pricing of COPricing of CO22 Equivalents Equivalents

(metric ton)(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

Three Ways to Reduce Methane Three Ways to Reduce Methane Emissions From Beef CattleEmissions From Beef Cattle

• Manipulate the diet

• Use genetic selection to improve efficiency

• Reduce the life cycle of the animal

Dietary FactorsDietary 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

Level of IntakeLevel of Intake

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

Type of DietType of Diet

• High grain diets produce less methane

• High forage diets produce more methane

Feed Additives to Reduce Feed Additives to Reduce MethaneMethane

• 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)

Genetic selection to Improve Genetic selection to Improve EfficiencyEfficiency

RFI on Methane ProductionRFI 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

RFI on Methane ProductionRFI 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

Bull Selection for RFIBull 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

Reduce the Life Cycle of the Reduce the Life Cycle of the AnimalAnimal

• This has the largest potential reduction in methane production

Beef Life Cycle (Alberta Beef Life Cycle (Alberta Protocol)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

ChallengesChallenges

• Size of cow/calf operations

• Documenting ration changes

• Documenting baseline data

Days on feed (Alberta Days on feed (Alberta Protocol)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)

Methods to Reduce the life Methods to Reduce the life CycleCycle

• 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

VerificationVerification

• 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

Other Related Carbon Credit Other Related Carbon Credit SourcesSources

• Anaerobic digesters

• Rangeland management

• Manure reduction

• No-till

Value of CreditsValue 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

ConclusionsConclusions

• 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

Questions?Questions?