BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Dan Faulkner Department of Animal...
-
Upload
hilda-watts -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Dan Faulkner Department of Animal...
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?