NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT R
Transcript of NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT R
NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT REPORT
Photo: Sernick presentation www.ngunicattle.info
Report by:
Dr. H.E. Theron
Dr. J. van der Westhuizen
SA Stud Book
Yolanda Venter
Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society
May 2017
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
2
CONTENTS
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Nguni Feedlot Project ............................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Animals ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Status & Sex ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
Origin .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Sires .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Horn status ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
3. Rations ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
4. Description of trial ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5. Data Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 11
6. Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Traits ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Statistical Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 15
The effect of Ration, Test Length and Province ................................................................................................ 15
Feeding animals for a constant period ............................................................................................................. 17
The effect of Arrival weight .............................................................................................................................. 18
RTU ................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Health traits ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 23
8. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 23
9. References .................................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 1: Average values for traits according to ration ................................................................................... 25
Appendix 2: Average values for traits according to test length............................................................................ 26
Appendix 3: Graphs .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
3
SUMMARY The purpose of the project is mainly to assist the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society to determine the most
suitable ration for Nguni calves under feedlot conditions. Two hundred Nguni male calves, sourced from
different herds, were randomly allocated and tested on four different rations, viz Nguni Starter (High
roughage), Nguni Grower (Medium roughage), Nguni Finisher (Low roughage) and Feedlot Grower Commercial
(Low roughage) and slaughtered when they reached acceptable carcass subcutaneous fat classification, either
after 105, 120 or 135 days on test.
The heaviest animals were slaughtered first (105 days), and despite having been on the test for two or four
weeks longer, the 120 and 135 day groups never reached the weights of the first slaughter group (105 day
group) animals. The 105 day group were significantly heavier (229kg, 195kg and 162kg for 105, 120 and 135
day groups respectively), but not significantly older than the other groups at the start of the test. The 105 day
group gained on average 159kg in 105 days, while the other two groups gained 147kg and 149 kg in 15 and 30
extra days respectively. The ADG (Average Daily Gain) for the groups slaughtered after 105, 120 or 135 days
was 1.49, 1.24 and 1.15kg/day respectively, irrespective of the ration that the groups received.
The effect of ration on the growth of the calves is not as clear cut as the effect of test length (days fed). The
calves on the commercial ration did significantly better than the calves on the other rations for ADG (1.34 vs
1.24-1.27), total gain (159.1 vs 147-150), end weight (7 to 11 kg heavier) and had a carcass weight of 204kg vs
196-198kg for the other rations. Dressing percentage was 56.5%, which was not significantly better than the
dressing percentage of the high roughage ration animals. However, the commercial ration animals started out
slightly (about 9-10 kg) although significantly heavier at 201kg than the other groups and needed on average 3
to 5 days longer to reach marketability than the calves on the other rations. In conclusion, the calves on the
commercial ration probably did best. If cost of ration is also considered, the two low roughage rations are best.
Some significant differences in starting weight and age were evident in calves originating from different
provinces, but these differences were not significant at the end of the test and with the carcass traits. Arrival
weight had a marked influence on test length and margin over feed costs, favouring the heavier calves.
Carcase weights of calves with higher arrival weights were also heavier and closer to market requirements.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
4
NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT
1. INTRODUCTION The common practice for beef production in South Africa consists of a production chain where cattle are
grown out and finished in feedlots at a relatively early age after weaning. It is argued that feeding cattle in a
feedlot is more profitable than feeding cattle on pasture, mainly due to faster and more efficient growth
(Esterhuizen, et al., 2001). Feedlot cattle have significantly higher final weights, warm and cold carcass
weights, warm and cold dressing percentage, ADG, intramuscular fat content and back fat thickness
measurements than organic and conventional pasture cattle (Esterhuizen, et al., 2001). Feedlots ideally prefer
weaner calves around 220kg (www.ngunicattle.info) to 225kg (www.fortresscattle.co.za) that grow at a rate of
2kg with a good feed efficiency and temperament (Sernick, 2016). Feedlots require positive feed margins,
which can be obtained with high growth rate and low feed costs per kilogram gain.
As a calf grows, the order of tissue growth and development is firstly bone, followed by muscle and lastly fat
(Berg, et.al., 1968). When an animal reaches sexual maturity, bone development is generally complete and
muscle development almost complete. To increase growth after puberty, the increase in weight is caused by
addition of muscle and mostly fat. In normal slaughter ranges, as weight increases, fat percentage increases
while muscle and bone percentage decreases. The stage of development at slaughter thus has an influence on
carcass composition (Berg et al., 1968). An early maturing type of animal will be mature at a younger
chronological age, and therefore have more fat at an earlier age than later maturing types, which makes it
more difficult to feed early maturing types profitably in a feedlot. The Nguni breed is an early maturing, small
framed indigenous Sanga breed (Schoeman et al., 1989, Strydom et al., 2001; 2008). As feedlots prefer
medium- to late maturing breeds, major feedlots are either not accepting Nguni weaners or pay significantly
less for them (Strydom et al., 2008; http://www.ngunicattle.info/Publications-Articles). Bone, muscle and fat
are measured on live animals by using real-time-ultrasound (RTU) technology, and are used to indicate carcass
traits on possible breeding bulls. Measurements with RTU technology includes Eye Muscle Area (EMA), two
measurements of subcutaneous fat (easily mobilized) as well as marbling (intramuscular fat, not easily
mobilized). Correlations between these traits and various other production traits may also be of importance
(Pabiou et al, 2012).
Esterhuizen et al. (2001) noted that the extension of the growth phase of lighter Bonsmara animals is
successful in producing uniform carcass weights and conditions as no significant differences (P >0.05) were
observed in live weight or carcass weight and other production traits between groups fed 85 and 120 days.
When determining price and feed margins, the authors did however not determine the difference in profit
between different test lengths. Strydom et al. (2008) reported differences up to 70 days on feed had no
significant effect (P >0.05) on tenderness of aged meat, even when large differences in carcass weight and
fatness occurred.
As level of nutrition also affects growth and therefore carcass composition (Berg et al., 1968, Esterhuizen et al.,
2001) the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society has therefore commenced on an extensive trial to test Nguni calves
on different feedlot rations to determine an optimum and cost effective nutritional level specifically for Nguni
cattle.
To address the lower prices paid for Nguni weaners by feedlot buyers, a feedlot at Douglas, with assistance
from GWK (an agricultural coop), embarked on a service where Ngunis were fed on a lower energy but higher
protein diet. The expected growth rate was in the order of 1300 gram per day. Preferable intake weight was
between 200Kg to 220Kg (with an absolute minimum allowed of 160Kg) and days on feed of between 90 to
120 days resulting in slaughter weights of between 360Kg to 400Kg (Dugmore 2014). Apparently this option, to
make use of the feedlot at Douglas, is no longer available.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
5
2. ANIMALS
A diverse group of 200 Nguni calves from 5 provinces were obtained by the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society and placed in a feedlot trial at Sernick feedlot. Calves were on average 10 months old, ranged between 6 and 14 months of age and weighed between 94 and 242kg at arrival. The average weight of all the calves on arrival was 165 ±30kg. Table 1: General statistics of Nguni calves in the trial.
Trait Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N
Starting age (days) 309.49 45.17 193 450 196
End age (days) 429.84 44.36 312 569 196
Arrival Weight (Kg) 164.56 30.10 94 242 200
Starting weight (kg) 189.46 34.45 106 288 200
End weight (Kg) 342.98 36.76 236 444 196
Total gain (Kg) 153.23 18.93 66 196 196
ADG (Kg) 1.28 0.21 0.49 1.85 196
RTU Rump fat (72 days on test) (mm) 5.04 1.25 1.8 8.8 200
RTU Rib fat (72 days on test) (mm) 3.15 0.81 1.5 5.5 200
RTU Marbling (72 days on test) (%) 2.68 0.48 1.6 3.8 200
RTU EMA (72 days on test) (cm2) 49.22 6.29 31 66 200
Slaughter weight (Kg) 346.89 33.78 244 444 200
Hot carcass weight (Kg) 198.60 21.31 132.6 258.8 200
Cold carcass weight (Kg) 194.63 20.88 129.9 253.6 200
Dressing percentage 56.08 1.72 49.73 62.59 200
EBV wean direct (Kg) 1.91 4.81 -8.15 15.33 185
EBV wean maternal (Kg) 0.31 2.50 -6.25 8.54 184
Cow Value (EBV Index units) 104 11 77 137 143
Growth Value (EBV Index units) 104 13 72 141 167
STATUS & SEX
All animals were male, of which 7 were oxen. Most animals were stud animals, although some Appendix and
grade animals were also included in the trials.
Figure 1: Origin of animals Figure 2: Status
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
6
ORIGIN
Animals originated from 24 herds, with between 3 and 26 animals per herd. Almost 50% of the animals
originated from the Eastern Cape, followed by the Free State and Northern Cape with 16% each, North West
with 13% and the Western Cape with 13%. Animals were randomly placed on one of 4 different rations, and
with an intended attempt that each herd was equally represented under each ration.
Table 2: Number of calves contributed by herds and provinces, as well as distribution of animals on the different rations.
Herd Number of animals per
herd
Number of animals allocated per ration
1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Comm
SHABALALA NGUNI'S 26 6 7 6 7
SUNRISE NGUNI'S 15 4 3 4 4
MR C. STOCH 13 3 3 4 3
LEOPARD RIDGE CONSERVANCY CC 12 3 3 3 3
MNR. F.J. BESSELAAR 12 3 3 3 3
RHUS LANCEA NGUNI BOERDERY BK 12 3 3 3 3
ADEK TRUST 11 3 3 2 3
GANNA NGUNI STOETERY 8 2 2 2 2
MNR A.J. ERASMUS 8 2 2 2 2
MNR. D.P. VAN ZYL 8 1 2 2 3
MNR. W.A. DU PLESSIS 8 2 2 2 2
MR P.M. HOBBS 8 2 2 2 2
QHINA NGUNIS 8 2 2 2 2
KRAGGA KAMMA TRUST 6 2 1 1 2
MR R.P. SPARKS & SON 6 2 2 1 1
SLAGBOOM NGUNI'S 6 1 2 2 1
ELIZABETH KNOTT TRUST 5 1 1 2 1
XHACHA NGUNI STUD 5 2 1 1 1
CAVALO STABLES 4 2 1 1
KUHNARDT BROTHERS TRUST 4 1 1 1 1
MEV. J.W.E. WILLEMSE 4 1 1 1 1
MNR P.J. STRYDOM 4 1 1 1 1
MRS M.A.M. SCHMITT 4 1 1 1 1
INKONJANE NGUNI STUD 3 1 1 1
Province Number of Herds
Number of Animals
1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Comm.
Eastern Cape (EC) 14 97 27 23 24 23
Free State (FS) 5 32 8 8 8 8
Northern Cape (NC) 3 32 7 8 8 9
North West (NW) 1 26 6 7 6 7
Western Cape (WC) 1 13 3 3 4 3
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
7
SIRES
No sire dominated and there was a good representation of sires. 20% of the animals had unknown sires, and 7
were the sons of FF09187.
Table 3: Sires represented in the data.
Sire Number % of total
Unknown (includes multiple sires) 40 20.0
FF 090187 7 3.5
ISF 060022 6 3.0
PH 080087 6 3.0
IM 090446 5 2.5
JLS 090016 5 2.5
CS 080122 4 2.0
CS 110056 4 2.0
DH 100041 4 2.0
DPN 070116 4 2.0
FB 120116 4 2.0
FHU 060024 4 2.0
GA 110152 4 2.0
GL 050030 4 2.0
GL 090039 4 2.0
MVN 100029 4 2.0
O 080007 4 2.0
WT 100100 4 2.0
CS 030038 3 1.5
ED 080023 3 1.5
FB 070123 3 1.5
FF 100051 3 1.5
GL 020142 3 1.5
GL 050108 3 1.5
JF 110041 3 1.5
LP 030094 3 1.5
MVN 060017 3 1.5
MVN 100090 3 1.5
Q 120039 3 1.5
STR 100017 3 1.5
Sires with <3 calves 47 23.5
HORN STATUS
The horn status of all animals were also recorded, but not standardized. For example, it is not clear whether ‘Klein’ meant small horns or Scurs, and ‘Geen’ could indicate either polled or dehorned. Table 4: Horn shapes Figure 3: Number of animals with different horn shapes
Horn shape Classes
Normal ‘Normaal’
Thick ‘Dik’, ‘kort dik’ and ‘lang dik’
Polled ‘Poena’
Scurs Scurs, ‘klein’
Dehorned ‘Onthoring’
None Could be polled or dehorned
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
8
3. RATIONS Nguni weaner calves were tested for growth and general performance under 4 different rations containing
different roughage contents. These treatment groups were named White, Orange, Yellow and Green, as
below. There were on average 50 animals per treatment group, where the Green group acted as control, as
these animals received the commercial feedlot ration. For easier interpretation of results, the colours will be
replaced with ‘1 High’ for White, ‘2 Medium’ for Orange, ‘3 Low’ for Yellow and ‘4 Comm’ for Green.
Table 5: Rations tested in this project
Table 6: Chemical composition of rations on dry matter intake (DMI) basis
Commercial low roughage diet (Control)
Low roughage diet
Medium roughage diet
High roughage diet
Green Group Yellow group Orange Group White Group
Dry material (%) 87 86 86 86
Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg) 11.6 11.5 10.9 10.4
Crude protein (CP) 14.3 14.2 14.7 14.4
Neutral resistant fibre (%) 22.5 23.3 28.5 33.6
Fat (%) 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0
Calcium (%) 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.74
Phosphorus (%) 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.35
Calves were back grounded on pastures after they arrived in July 2016. Initially they started off on starter
ration as they had to adapt to feedlot conditions. Intake during back grounding was 3.11kg/day/animal. As the
trial started on 16 August 2016, they were only fed their trial ration for two weeks in August. During August
calves received a mixture of Starter and Ration. The standard feedlot practise was followed. The kraals are
level and 26m x 40m in size, while the feeding troughs are 13m in length. The feeding regimes met the
standards and protected both human and animal health. A nutritionist of Sernick feedlots was used to
formulate the different rations. Calves were slaughtered in three batches, namely on 29 November, 14
December and 29 December 2016. In December, the full number of calves was therefore not fed.
Table 7: Feeding programme
aTotal days = Nr animals x days in month
bIntake / animal / day = (Ton feed/nr animals) x days in month x 1000
dSlaughtering took place at beginning, during and end of December.
Ration Colour Ration Number of animals
1 High White Nguni Starter High roughage 51
2 Medium Orange Nguni Grower Medium roughage 49
3 Low Yellow Nguni Finisher Low roughage 50
4 Comm Green Feedlot Grower Commercial Low roughage, Normal 50
Ration
August September October November December d
Starter
(ton) Ration
(ton) Total Days
Intake Feed (ton)
Total days
a
Intake (kg)
b
Feed (ton)
Total days
Intake (kg)
Feed (ton)
Total days
Intake (kg)
Feed (ton)
Total days
Intake (kg)
1 High 5.74 867 6.62 12.88 1530 8.42 14.64 1581 9.26 17.75 1494 11.88 7.4 714 10.36
2 Med 0.34 5.08 833 6.51 12.16 1470 8.27 14.4 1519 9.48 17.2 1446 11.89 7.4 736 10.05
3 Low 1.74 4.12 850 6.89 12.68 1500 8.45 13.44 1550 8.67 15.9 1466 10.85 5.85 639 9.15
4Comm 1.78 4.40 850 7.27 11.72 1500 7.81 13.2 1550 8.52 16.5 1474 11.19 8.35 781 10.69
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
9
Figure 4: Average intake per animal/day Figure 5: Average total intake on different feeds
Figure 6: Average intake per month
The Low group had the lowest average intake per animal per day, while the high and medium groups had the
highest average intake per day. Although the low roughage and commercial rations were more expensive per
ton, the animals fed on them were the most profitable.
Figure 7: Ration cost Figure 8: Nett income per animal
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Comm
Ran
d
Nett income per animal
R 3 400
R 3 450
R 3 500
R 3 550
R 3 600
R 3 650
R 3 700
R 3 750
R 3 800
1 2 3 4
Ration cost (R/ton )
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
10
4. DESCRIPTION OF TRIAL Figure 9: Number of animals tested per ration
The trial was run at the Sernick feedlot in Kroonstad in the Free-state. The Sernick company was founded in 1982, and is a diversified organization with its focus on agriculture and agricultural processing activities, which includes a Bonsmara stud, animal feed production, feedlot, red meat production (abattoir, de-boning and processing) as well as retail outlets (www.sernick.co.za). Animals arrived at Sernick during July 2016 and were
back grounded for a period of 32 days, after which they
were randomly divided into four treatment groups. Each
group received a different ration. The official trial started on 16 August 2016. Animals were measured and
weighed for several traits on various occasions during the trial. RTU scanning were also done, and Rib Fat and
Rump Fat measurements were taken on all 4 RTU occasions. Eye Muscle Area (EMA) and Marbling were
measured as well on two of the occasions. Dates on which weights were taken and scanning was done, are
listed in the table below.
Table 8: Time schedule and measurements taken
*Not on all animals
Figure 10: Carcass classification per ration and test length
Animals were slaughtered when they
reached a marketable carcass weight and
uniform condition (A2 carcass
classification). Animals were slaughtered
at three possible dates – after 105, 120 or
135 days on test. The animals that were
deemed to be ready for slaughter were
selected for slaughtering on the first and
second occasions – after 105 days and
120 days on test. All remaining animals
were slaughtered after 135 days on test.
Animals were identified according to their
weight, body condition and visual appearance for slaughtering, mostly at a carcass classification of A2 (No
teeth, Lean), although 3 animals in the 105 day group had already reached A3 (No teeth, Medium fatness) and
Day on test Date days since
previous Measurements on date
-32 (Back grounding) 2016/07/15 Weight
0 (Start of test) 2016/08/16 32 Weight
9 2016/08/25 9 Weight
44 2016/09/29 35 Weight RTU (Fat & Marb*)
72 2016/10/27 28 Weight RTU (Fat, Marb, EMA)
91 2016/11/15 19 RTU (Fat & EMA)
99 2016/11/23 8 Weight
105 (Slaughter) 2016/11/29 6 Weight Carcass, Health
120 (Slaughter) 2016/12/13 14 Weight RTU (Fat) Carcass, Health
135 (Slaughter) 2016/12/29 16 Weight Carcass Traits
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
11
1 animal in the 135 day group had only reached A1 carcass classification (No teeth, very lean).
(www.samic.co.za). Animals were slaughtered according to normal abattoir protocol.
Table 9: Number of animals in the different weight classes at slaughtering
120-130kg @R35
140-150kg @R36
150-160kg @R36
160-170kg @R37
170-180kg @R37
180-190kg @R38
190-200kg @R38
200+ kg
@R38
1 High roughage 1 3 3 10 16 3 15
2 Medium roughage 5 6 11 13 14
3 Low roughage 1 1 2 5 12 9 20
4 Commercial 1 2 7 4 9 27
This practice of selecting the heaviest animals to be slaughtered added another dimension to the project. The
rations were in fact now once again subdivided into test length, with the heaviest animals under each ration
being 105 days on test, the more or less average animals in the trial being 120 days on test and the animals
needing the most time to grow, being 135 days on test. The calves tested were very diverse – from calves
ready to be slaughtered at 105 days to calves only ready 30 days later.
Several additional post mortem measurements related with health during the feed lot period were also
recorded on some animals post slaughter of the 105 and 120 day groups, for example the condition of the
lungs and rumen.
5. DATA QUALITY In general information and data were accurately and meticulously recorded, indicating a data set that will be
of great use to Nguni breeders, the Breeders’ Society and students planning to further analyse the data. As
most of the calves were registered stud animals, the data was linked to the Logix data base and additional
information could be obtained, notably date of birth, which made it possible to calculate the exact ages at
measurement. Genetic information, like sires and breeding values are also available. This was not possible for
the few grade animals.
6. RESULTS All animals that started the trial, completed the test – no animals were lost during the trial, although two were
lost during adaptation. Ration/Test Length groups ranged between 8 and 20 animals per group. Only the
slaughter groups were weighed at 105 and 135 days, while all remaining animals were weighted at 120 days.
There were calves on all four rations slaughtered at all three test lengths.
Figure 11: Number of animals per ration
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
12
Figure 12: Number of animals per test length
The heavier and older calves at start of test were the ones that were ready to be marketed at 105 days, and it
seems that the effect of weight of the animal were more important than the effect of ration.
Figure 13: The calves that were on average older at start of the growth test, tended to have the shortest test
lengths.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
13
Figure 14: The heaviest calves at start of test had the shortest test lengths. A clear difference between average
weight and test length is visible.
In some traits, province of origin also showed significance, therefore growth per province were also plotted.
However, Figure 16 clearly shows that all provinces had better (blues), average (reds) and poor (greens)
performing calves.
Figure 15: Calves originating from different provinces showed some differences in growth.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
14
Figure 16: Growth of calves per test length and province show that calves from all provinces were present in all
3 test lengths.
TRAITS
Traits investigated were:
Test Length: Time needed to reach market weight might have a significant influence on profitability for the
feedlot, depending on the feed margin. Excessively long standing time will result in lower profitability.
Age and Weight at start of test: The age and weight that calves should enter the feedlot were investigated.
ADG: Average daily gain is an indicator of growth of the animal, and also affects profitability. The more
effective an animal puts on weight, the more profitable it will be. Higher weight gain in a shorter time is more
desirable. This was calculated for the duration of the animal on the test (ADG = (Weight at end of test – Weight
at start of test) / Test length)
Total gain: The total weight gained over the test, irrespective of time needed to attain the gain, indicates the
increase in muscle weight, and therefore edible meat, during the test.
ADG99 & Gain99: Comparisons between groups were also done should the tests have ended on 99 days., i.e.
Test Length = 99 days for all animals.
Age and Weight at end of test: In this case, the test was ended at the same market ready conditions for all
animals: when an A2 carcass classification was reached.
Carcass weight: Hot carcass weight is the weight of the unchilled carcass after the head, hide and internal
organs have been removed. Cold carcass weight was calculated as 2% less than hot carcass weight. This is a
direct measure of profitability for the feedlot.
Dressing percentage: This is the cold carcass weight divided by the slaughter weight and should be as high as
possible.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
15
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Data needs to be statistically analysed to be able to interpret results correctly. By simply comparing the means,
one could reach the wrong conclusion as other factors might also be at play. For this data set, the ‘Least
Squares Means’ was calculated for the traits, using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS. In short, a model is fitted
for each trait, which tests all known effects in the data for significance. For example, from the table below:
Test length and ration had no significant effect on the trait starting age, which can be interpreted as that
calves on the different test lengths and rations were not significantly older or younger than calves on other
test lengths or rations. However, province of origin did test significant for starting age, which can be
interpreted as calves from FS and NC being significantly younger than calves from the other provinces. Their
ages are however not significantly different from each other (both are marked with an b, so 308 days and 294
days are not significantly different at the 5% probability level, or are basically the same), while calves from the
FS where significantly younger at 308 days than calves of the EC at 331 days for example, and this is indicated
with an a and a
b).
Another advantage of this method is that the effect of a trait can be determined irrespective of other
confounding aspects. Take for example the trait starting weight: Test Length, Ration and Province all tested as
having significant effects on the starting weights of calves. However, we could determine the average starting
weight of calves tested for 105 days, irrespective of the ration they were on or the province they came from.
The average starting weights for test lengths are corrected for the effects of ration and province, giving a much
clearer picture of the effect of test length on a trait like starting weight.
Although not all significant effects are shown here, the class effects that were significant for some or all traits
were Test Length, Ration and Herd / Province of origin.
THE EFFECT OF RATION, TEST LENGTH AND PROVINCE
Test length had a significantly larger effect on important traits, than ration had. Interestingly enough, province
of origin also showed up significant in some traits.
Table 10: Statistical results of the effect of ration, test length and province
Averages with different superscripts differ significantly at the 5% level. Non significance are indicated as n.s.
Test
Length Start Age
Start Wt
ADG Slaughter
Gain Slaughter
End Age
End wt Carcass
wt Dress. %
Test length 105 d. 120 d. 135 d.
n.s.
229
a
195b
162c
1.51
a
1.23b
1.10c
159
a
147b
149b
n.s.
352
a
344a
334b
212
a
197b
189c
56.51
a
55.86b
55.89b
Ration 1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Com
117
c
120b
119c
123a
n.s.
191
a
198ab
192
a
201b
1.24
b
1.27b
1.27b
1.34a
147
b
150b
150b
159a
n.s.
342
b
343b
339b
350a
196
b
199b
198b
204a
56.2
ab
55.8b
55.9b
56.5a
Prov. NW EC FS NC WC
122
a
122a
119b
118b
118b
347
a
331a
308b
294b
348a
175
c
193b
206a
205a
198ab
1.39
a
1.33b
1.22c
1.20c
1.26c
165
a
158a
144b
142b
149b
454
a
439a
412b
400b
450a
n.s. n.s. n.s.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
16
The calves from the group that that reached slaughter condition after 105 days was significantly better than
the calves from the other groups for all traits: Starting weight, ADG and Total Gain, End weight, Carcass weight
as well as Dressing Percentage. They were not significantly older or younger than the other groups (age did
not matter), but they were significantly heavier at the start of the test at a corrected average of 229 kg,
meeting the requirement of the feedlots of a weaner weighing around 220+ kg (Sernick, 2016). They had a
total average weight gain of 159kg, with an ADG of 1.51kg per day. Weight at end of test was 352 kg, with a
hot carcass weight of 212kg and a dressing percentage of 56.5%. The calves from the 120 day slaughter group
had an average corrected starting weight of 195kg, while the starting weight of the 135day group were only
162kg. Neither of these groups reached the performance of the 105 day group, despite having been on test for
a longer period than the 105 day group. In the study of Esterhuizen, et al., 2008, animals did reach comparable
weights, but they compared 85 day weights to 120 day weights. In the present study, the 120 day group nearly
reached 200kg carcass weight and the 135day group had the same total gain up to slaughter and dressing%
than the 120 day group. However, the best performers by far were the 105 day group with a starting weight of
more than 220kg, ADG >1.5kg/day and a total gain of more than 150kg in 100 days. Carcass weight was also
above 200kg with a dressing % of 56%.
However, the effect of ration on the growth of the calves is not as clear cut as the effect of test length. The
calves on the commercial ration did significantly better than the calves on the other rations for ADG at
slaughter (1.34 vs 1.24-1.27), total gain at slaughter (159.1 vs 147-150), end weight (7 to 11 kg heavier) and
carcass weight of 204kg vs 196-198kg for the other rations. Dressing percentage was 56.5%, which was not
significantly better than the dressing percentage of the high ration animals. However, the commercial ration
animals started out slightly (about 9-10 kg) although significantly heavier at 201kg than the high and low
groups and needed on average 3 to 5 days longer to reach marketability than the calves on the other rations.
In conclusion, the calves on the commercial ration probably did best, due to the higher ADG, total gain and
carcass weights, in spite of starting out heavier and needing more days on test.
Calves from the FS, NC and WC had the shortest test length (118 - 119 days). They however had the heaviest
starting weights (205, 206kg and 198kg on average). FS and NC calves were the youngest at start and end of
test as well. These calves gained 142 to 144 kg in total, with an ADG of 1.2-1.22 kg per day. The WC calves
were a bit older at start and end of test, but gained 149kg in 118 days, with an ADG of 1.26kg per day. The
class ‘Province’ did not have a significant effect on end weight, carcass weight or dressing percentage. After
being on the same test and the same environmental conditions, only test length and ration had a significant
effect – all effects of origin had disappeared.
The NW and EC calves started out older and lighter, but had a longer test length of 122 days than calves of the
other provinces. They gained between 158 and 165kg and grew better than the calves of the other regions at
1.33 to 1.39kg per day. Although being on average longer on test, they had better ADG and total gain than
calves from other provinces. This is probably caused by numbers: Most calves from the Eastern Cape were
slaughtered in the last group. However, some calves were slaughtered at 105 days, which grew well.
Figure 17: The number of calves tested per province per test length.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
17
Figure 18: The ADG (average daily gain) of calves tested per province and test length
SUMMARY
The heavier calves at the beginning of the test had the shortest test time on test. They weighed 229kg at the
beginning of the test, while the group slaughtered at 120 days weighed 34kg less at 195kg and the 135 day
group started out weighing only 162kg. Feedlots require calves of 220kg (Sernick, 2016), and those were the
calves that performed best, as they only needed 105 days to reach marketability. Note that there were no
significant differences in the ages at the start of the test between the different test lengths, only significant
weight differences.
The animals on the commercial ration were on average 3 days longer on test than the medium group. The high
and low groups had the shortest average time on test. Calves from the North West and Eastern Cape provinces
were significantly longer on test on average than calves from the other provinces. However, one needs to
consider that average is 120 days, and these averages are 2-3 days above or below average. No group had an
extreme high or low time on test.
The calves tested for 105 days did significantly better on both Total Gain and Average Daily Gain than the
calves tested for longer periods. However total gain did not differ significantly between the 120 and 135day
groups. As was possibly expected, none of the groups, including the 105 day group, performed similar to
Bonsmara calves in a feedlot (Esterhuizen et al, 2008) in terms of starting weight, final weight, carcass weight
and dressing percentage. The ADG of the 105 day group in the present trial were, however 1.51, which were
comparable to the 1.52 of the Bonsmara calves in the trial by Esterhuizen et al (2008).
The calves on the commercial ration had significantly better total gain and ADG than calves on any of the other
rations, which did not differ significantly from each other.
Calves from the NW had the most total gain and the best ADG. It could be that they grew compensatory
because they started out the youngest (175 days). The EC calves also did comparatively well with 158kg total
gain and ADG of 1.33kg/day.
FEEDING ANIMALS FOR A CONSTANT PERIOD
Comparisons have up to now been made with animals that did not have equal opportunities – some were on
test for only 105 days, while others were tested for 120 days. Would the same results be obtained if
comparisons are made for animals fed for the same period? All animals in all groups were weighed at 99 days,
which is within the standard 90 to 120 day feedlot feeding period (KZN Production Guidelines, 2016).
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
18
Table 11: Significance levels for traits if the test was ended at 99 days.
Averages with different superscripts differ significantly at the 5% level. Non significance are indicated as n.s.
The ADG for 99 days on test were better for all test lengths and rations (except the commercial ration) than for
the ADG for the whole of the period that the animals were tested. This indicates that growth have slowed
down after around 99 days on test, which can be seen in the graph as well, (and could maybe indicate that the
test could have stopped earlier). However, the ADG up to 99 days on the commercial ration was significantly
LESS than the ADG up to 99days for the other rations, while this turned around and ADG for the test period for
each animal was significantly BETTER than the other rations. The reason for this is unknown at present and
should be investigated. The difference in total gain between 99days and total test is also interesting – the
commercial ration animals still gained around 27kg between 99 days and end of test (animals were still
growing) in comparison to the 5 to 11kg gain of the other three ration groups, which indicates that animals
have slowed in growth, while animals on the commercial ration were still growing. From Figure 14 it can also
be seen that although growth has started to slow down towards the end, the calves on the commercial ration
on average grew best towards the end.
THE EFFECT OF ARRIVAL WEIGHT
The effect of arrival weight on Test length, ADG and Carcass weight was also calculated, to see whether
accepting calves within certain weight ranges could predict a better outcome for the feedlot. Arrival weight is
the weight even before back grounding started. From the table it is clear that the heavier the animal at arrival,
the shorter the test, the better the ADG and the heavier were the carcass weight. It could therefore be
recommended that animals should weigh 200kg or more at arrival, for the best results. Nearly half of the
calves for this study weighed less than 160kg at arrival.
Start Age Start Wt 99d Wt ADG 99d Total Gain 99d
Test length grp 105 d. 120 d. 135 d.
n.s.
229
a
195b
162c
379
a
327b
283c
1.56
a
1.37b
1.26c
155
a
135b
124c
Ration grp 1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Com
n.s.
191
a
198ab
192
a
201b
n.s.
1.43
a
1.41a
1.40a
1.33b
142
a
140a
139a
132b
Prov. grp NW EC FS NC WC
347
a
331a
308b
294b
348a
175
c
193b
206a
205a
198ab
n.s.
1.48
a
1.43a
1.33b
1.33b
1.40a
147
a
141a
132b
132b
139ab
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
19
Table 12: General statistics regarding Arrival weight
Arrival Weight Group
1 (<160) 2 (161-180) 3 (181-200) 4 (>200)
Number of animals 97 43 34 26
Arrival wt Avg ± SD Min – Max
139 ± 14 94 -160kg
172 ± 6 162 - 180kg
191 ± 6 182 - 200kg
214 ± 11 220 - 242kg
Test length Avg ± SD Min – Max
129 ± 9 105 - 135
118 ± 9 105 - 135
110 ± 7 105 - 120
107 ± 7 105 - 135
ADG ± SD Min – Max
1.21 ± 0.16 0.84 - 1.66
1.28 ± 0.19 0.92 - 1.66
1.35 ± 0.21 0.88 - 1.85
1.46 ± 0.26 0.49 - 1.79
ADG 99 days ± SD Min – Max
1.35 ± 0.17 0.75 - 1.68
1.39 ± 0.16 1.03 - 1.76
1.44 ± 0.19 1.05 - 1.84
1.51 ± 0.23 0.75 - 1.96
Carcass wt ± SD Min – Max
185 ± 15 133 - 215
200 ± 11 178 - 222
211 ± 14 181.6 - 241
231 ± 18 176.2 - 259
RTU
Not all animals and all RTU traits were measured at all occasions. Data was therefore statistically analysed on
day 72, when all RTU traits were measured and animals were weighed as well. Weight is significantly
correlated with subcutaneous Fat and Eye Muscle Area, but not with intramuscular fat (Marbling). Age is
significantly correlated with marbling, indicating that older animals had more marbling, but the correlation is
still low (18%), indicating that at this stage (72 days on test), animals has probably not really started to lay
down intramuscular fat. For Marbling, only Age and Rib fat tested significant, and neither ration nor test length
had any significant effect.
Table 13: Significant (P<0.05) Pearson correlation coefficients between RTU traits and Weight and age at 72
days on test.
Age and rib fat has a significant effect on Rump Fat. The animals on test length 105 had significantly more
rump fat, and animals on the commercial ration had significantly less than high and low rations. Weight and
rump fat tested significant for Rib fat; but because of weight in the model, test length was only significant at
10% level. Ration did not have a significant effect on Rib fat.
Rib fat Marbling EMA Weight Age ADG
Rump fat 0.59 - 0.41 0.29 - 0.21
Rib fat 0.52 0.60 0.21 0.39
Marbling - - 0.18 -
EMA 0.78 - 0.49
Weight 0.25 0.62
Age 0.14
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
20
Figure 19: Marbling versus ration and test length
Figure 20: Average RTU fat measurements (rump fat and rib fat) for each test length
Figure 21: Average RTU fat measurements (rump fat and rib fat) for each ration
For Eye Muscle Area (EMA), Weight tested highly significant. As weight and EMA is 78% correlated and weight
is highly correlated with test length (heaviest animals in the short test length, etc), test length does not show
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
21
up as significant in EMA, (unless weight is left out of the model). Province is significant, with EC and NW calves
significantly lower for EMA than calves of other provinces.
Figure 22: Average Eye Muscle Area (EMA) as measured by RTU, for the different rations and test lengths.
HEALTH TRAITS
Animals in the 105 and 120 day slaughter groups were screened for health traits, particularly effects of the
ration to the rumen. However, it is not clear which animals were tested for lung, heart, and liver traits. Fifteen
animals had rumen lesions, 27 had Pericarditis and 7 had fungi. No liver and heart abnormalities were
recorded. Out of 31 animals, 8 (26%) had lung scars.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
22
Table 14: Summary of Rumen Area information
TL Healthy Acute Ac/Chr Chronic
1 High 105d 12 6 0 0
120d 7 0 2 5
2 Med 105d 3 7 2 0
120d 7 5 5 3
3 Low 105d 6 11 0 0
120d 7 6 2 4
4 Comm 105d 6 6 1 0
120d 4 1 4 8
52 42 16 20
Ration TL Healthy <10 cm
10-20 cm
20-30 cm
>30 cm
Total
High
105 12 0 3 2 1 18
120 6 2 2 2 2 14
Med
105 3 0 1 3 5 12
120 7 4 4 3 2 20
Low
105 6 1 1 6 3 17
120 6 4 5 3 1 19
Comm
105 6 1 1 3 2 13
120 4 2 5 3 3 17
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
23
8. RECOMMENDATIONS Further studies should investigate possible interactions between origin and ration and the differences
between animals in for example the different test lengths – why do some animals grow faster and
others not?
The effect of ration might become clearer if animals below acceptable production levels (for example
below 160kg arrival weight) are omitted.
Genetic differences were not considered during the current study, and should be investigated further.
Genomic studies are also recommended.
The data lends it particularly well to the study of the relationship between RTU measurements on the
live animal and carcass traits and for the development of selection indices. A MSc student at UP, Jani
de Vos, has already been identified.
The conclusions regarding the health traits should be made by an expert – it was not addressed in this
study.
7. CONCLUSIONS Given adherence to some basic conditions, Nguni cattle can be fed profitable in feedlots.
Results indicate that the precondition for minimum weights to be considered at arrival to be close
to 200Kg with an absolute minimum of 180Kg. Nearly half the animals in this study weighed less
than 160kg at arrival.
Although ration had a significant effect on ADG, it was negated by other factors contributing to
differences in feedlot profitability. Although the low roughage and commercial rations were more
expensive per ton, the animals fed on them were the most profitable. Nguni cattle did also
perform profitably on the (normal) commercial diet.
Significant differences in feedlot performance could be attributed to the source of animals.
Individual herds were obviously confounded in region or province. Although not necessarily
proven by this trial, these differences can be due to genetic merit, but also environmental
conditions prior to being fed in a feedlot.
Nguni Feedlot Project Report
24
9. REFERENCES
Berg R. T. 2 & Butterfield R. M., 1968. Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. J.Anim.Sci. 27 (3): 611-
619
Dugmore H., 2014. The Nguni crisis, what is really going on? Farmer’s Weekly, 48-50.
Esterhuizen J., Groenewald I.B., Strydom P.E. and Hugo A., 2008. The performance and meat quality of
Bonsmara steers raised in a feedlot, on conventional pastures or on organic pastures. South African Journal of
Animal Science, 38 (4): 303-314.
KZN Production Guidelines, 2016. Feedlotting cattle. www.kzndard.gov.za
Pabiou, T., 2012. Genetics of carcass composition in Irish cattle exploiting carcass video analysis. Doctoral
Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.
Sernick Group, 2016. Presentation at Nguni Beestelersgenootskap, 16 November 2016. Available at
www.ngunicattle.info.
Strydom P.E., Naudé R.T., Smith M.F., Kotzé A., Scholtz M.M. and van Wyk J.B., 2001. Relationships between
production and product traits in subpopulations of Bonsmara and Nguni cattle. South African Journal of Animal
Science 2001, 31(3): 181 – 194.
Strydom, P.E., Frylinck, L., Van der Westhuizen, J. & Burrow, H.M., 2008. Growth performance, feed efficiency
and carcass and meat quality of tropically adapted breed types from different farming systems in South Africa.
Aus. J. Exp. Agr. 48, 599-607.
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
25
APPENDIX 1: AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRAITS ACCORDING TO RATION
1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Commerial
Variable Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N
ADG 1.26 0.2 0.84 1.66 51 1.26 0.22 0.88 1.79 47 1.29 0.2 0.96 1.75 49 1.32 0.22 0.49 1.85 49
Age begin 309a
42 193 442 51 315a
45 235 411 47 311 a
51 229 450 49 303 a
43 238 436 49
Age End 429 40 312 547 51 435 45 354 546 47 430 49 348 569 49 425 44 343 541 49
Start Weight 186 35 112 264 51 190 34 128 288 47 191 35 106 268 49 192 35 122 256 49
End Weight 336 38 262 432 51 342 37 288 442 47 343 37 236 444 49 352 34 276 412 49
Total Gain 150 16 114 182 51 151 18 106 188 47 152 18 116 194 49 160 23 66 196 49
Arrival Weight (-32d)
164 31 100 234 51 164 28 116 242 49 163 32 94 230 50 167 30 114 216 50
Weight day 0 186 35 112 264 51 190 33 128 288 49 190 35 106 268 50 192 35 122 256 50
Weight day 9 200 37 124 280 51 204 35 140 308 49 208 38 114 278 50 207 37 136 278 50
Weight day 44 250 42 166 346 51 258 39 190 372 49 256 42 154 340 50 254 41 164 332 50
Weight day 72 298 44 210 396 51 301 41 226 416 49 304 43 196 408 50 299 44 212 394 50
Weight day 99 329 46 252 440 51 329 41 264 434 49 330 44 212 436 50 322 45 226 412 50
Weight day 105 376 26 330 432 18 386 34 340 442 12 379 28 342 444 17 389 21 356 412 13
Weight day 120 306 27 254 358 33 320 27 266 382 37 316 28 224 360 33 329 33 258 382 37
Weight day 135 302 18 262 330 19 312 18 288 340 17 311 29 236 350 14 322 25 276 366 20
RTU Rump fat44 3.31 0.82 1.8 5.5 51 3.36 0.53 2.1 4.2 49 3.49 0.76 1.5 4.8 50 3.2 0.75 1.5 4.8 49
RTU Rib fat 44 2.39 0.56 1.5 3.8 51 2.41 0.47 1.5 3.2 49 2.55 0.6 1.3 3.8 50 2.36 0.55 1.3 3.8 50
RTU Marbl 44 2.49 0.66 1.5 3.5 7 3.07 0.46 2.6 3.8 6 2.64 0.4 2.2 3.2 5 2.24 0.48 1.6 2.9 8
RTU Rumpfat72 5.01 1.38 2.5 8.8 51 5.11 1.07 2.8 7.7 49 5.37 1.35 2.8 8.8 50 4.68 1.13 1.8 2.1 50
RTURibfat 72 2.89 0.91 1.8 4.8 51 3.32 0.65 2.1 4.8 49 3.35 0.8 1.8 5.5 50 3.06 0.8 1.5 5.5 50
RTU marb 72 2.77 0.55 1.8 3.8 51 2.71 0.43 1.8 3.6 49 2.68 0.45 1.8 3.5 50 2.57 0.46 1.6 3.6 50
RTU EMA72 47.71 5.88 37 63 51 49.51 5.4 40 66 49 49.98 7.29 35 64 50 49.72 6.35 31 60 50
RTU Rumpfat 91 5.27 1.54 2.8 9.9 51 5.67 1.2 3.2 8.8 49 5.73 1.25 3.5 8.8 50 5.03 1.19 2.5 8.2 50
RTU rib fat 91 3.2 1.04 1.8 5.8 51 3.55 0.71 2.5 4.8 49 3.68 0.87 2.1 5.5 50 3.58 0.91 1.8 6.6 50
RTU ema91 51.55 5.94 40 65 51 52.18 5.07 44 69 49 53.08 6.56 37 66 50 53.6 5.8 41 66 50
RTUrumpfat120 5.42 1.37 3.2 9.9 33 5.82 1.04 3.8 8.8 37 6.49 1.3 4.2 8.8 33 6.24 1.78 2.8 9.9 37
RTU ribfat 120 3.3 0.68 2.1 4.8 33 3.97 0.72 2.8 5.8 37 3.98 0.62 2.5 4.8 33 4.03 0.72 2.5 5.5 37
Slghter wght 340 34.7 271 426 51 348 32.9 294 444 49 347 34.1 244 432 50 353 32.9 285 415 50
Carcass wght 194 22.3 152 250 51 198 20.2 166 253 49 199 23.1 133 259 50 203 18.9 157 238 50
Cold carcass 190 21.9 149 245 51 194 19.8 163 248 49 195 22.6 130 254 50 199 18.6 154 233 50
Dressing% 55.96 1.56 51.02 58.97 51 55.78 1.5 50.91 59.09 49 56.24 2.07 49.73 61.04 50 56.35 1.65 52.8 62.59 50
EBVwean dir 2.07 5.32 -7.07 15.22 47 2.13 4.15 -6.08 11.9 45 1.37 4.92 -8.15 15.33 47 2.09 4.87 -4.07 14.73 46
Cow Value 103 11 77 128 38 105 13 78 137 34 104 13 77 132 37 103 10 80 119 34
Grwth Value 103 13 76 136 42 106 12 80 141 41 104 14 72 123 40 104 12 81 135 44
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
26
APPENDIX 2: AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRAITS ACCORDING TO TEST LENGTH
Test length 105 days Test Lenth 120 days Test Length 135 days
Variable Mean S.Dev Min Max N Mean S.Dev Min Max N Mean S.Dev Min Max N
ADG 1.49 0.15 1.18 1.85 60 1.24 0.14 0.88 1.52 67 1.15 0.17 0.49 1.45 69
Age begin 325.23 51.03 238 446 60 303.24 43.74 193 450 67 301.9 37.69 236 411 69
Age End 430.23 51.03 343 551 60 422.24 43.74 312 569 67 436.9 37.69 371 546 69
Wt begin 225.27 22.12 184 288 60 191.85 18.61 152 248 67 156.8 21.71 106 236 69
Wt end 381.9 27.38 330 444 60 340.27 18.91 300 382 67 311.8 23.33 236 366 69
Total Gain 156.63 15.73 124 194 60 148.42 16.51 106 182 67 155 22.64 66 196 69
Arrival Wt 195.67 20.28 152 242 60 164.4 18.71 126 208 70 138.1 18.9 94 204 70
Weight day 0 225.27 22.12 184 288 60 191.37 18.51 152 248 70 156.9 21.55 106 236 70
Weight day 9 243.4 22.88 204 308 60 206.31 19.39 168 276 70 169.7 21.47 114 242 70
Weight day 44 300.7 25.19 254 372 60 255.06 18.14 220 328 70 214.6 22.03 154 280 70
Weight day 72 348.9 26.9 310 416 60 300.77 17.66 260 370 70 258.5 22.21 196 308 70
Weight day 99 378.9 26.09 340 440 60 327.43 15.11 298 390 70 283.6 21.78 212 312 70
Weight day 105 381.9 27.38 330 444 60 0 0
Weight day 120 0 339.69 18.75 300 382 70 296.3 22.45 224 340 70
Weight day 135 0 0 312.1 23.34 236 366 70
RTU Rump fat44 3.88 0.66 2.5 5.5 60 3.34 0.55 2.1 4.5 69 2.87 0.61 1.5 4.2 70
RTU Rib fat 44 2.87 0.48 1.8 3.8 60 2.42 0.46 1.5 3.5 70 2.05 0.39 1.3 2.8 70
RTU Marbl 44 2.6 0.59 1.5 3.8 21 2.4 0.28 2.2 2.6 2 2.53 0.84 2 3.5 3
RTU Rumpfat 72 5.87 1.17 3.5 8.8 60 4.98 1.19 2.8 8.8 70 4.36 0.97 1.8 6.60 70
RTURibfat 72 3.79 0.68 2.1 5.5 60 3.12 0.68 1.8 4.8 70 2.64 0.65 1.5 4.2 70
RTU marb 72 2.73 0.53 1.8 3.8 60 2.7 0.47 1.8 3.6 70 2.62 0.45 1.6 3.60 70
RTU EMA 72 55.2 4.98 44 66 60 49.14 3.97 41 58 70 44.17 4.5 31 55 70
RTU Rumpfat 91 6.21 1.23 4.2 8.8 60 5.37 1.36 3.2 9.9 70 4.8 1.01 2.5 7.7 70
RTU rib fat 91 4.18 0.74 2.5 6.6 60 3.45 0.79 1.8 4.8 70 2.97 0.75 1.8 4.8 70
RTU EMA 91 58.15 4.57 50 69 60 52.51 4.11 44 66 70 47.93 4.01 37 58 70
RTU Rumpfat 120 0 6.35 1.49 3.8 9.9 70 5.64 1.32 2.8 8.8 70
RTU Ribfat 120 0 4.07 0.73 2.8 5.8 70 3.59 0.69 2.1 5.5 70
Slghter wt 380.27 26.92 329 444 60 345.66 19.76 305.5 395.5 70 319.5 23.43 244 373 70
Carcass wt 220.45 17.1 190 259 60 196.97 10.99 176.2 227.8 70 181.5 14.96 132.6 215 70
Cold carc. 216.04 16.75 186 254 60 193.04 10.77 172.7 223.2 70 177.9 14.66 129.9 211 70
Dressing% 56.82 1.59 53.2 61 60 55.88 1.58 49.73 58.82 70 55.66 1.77 50.91 62.6 70
EBVwn dir 2.35 4.92 -8.15 15.2 60 1.71 4.42 -7.58 13.26 62 1.69 5.12 -5.91 15.3 63
Cow Value 100.88 13.73 77 137 51 105.44 8.54 90 126 45 104.7 10.94 81 132 47
GrwthValue 103.65 15.68 76 141 57 105.48 11.33 80 133 56 103.8 9.98 72 119 54
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
27
APPENDIX 3: GRAPHS
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
28
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
29
Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results
30