where do we go from here? · 2019-08-22 · david lalman, oklahoma state university aug. 21, 2019...
TRANSCRIPT
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 1
David Lalman, Claire Andresen, Amanda Holder, Megan Gross, Alexi Moehlenpah
Where do we go from here?Considerations in developing a more efficient cow herd
Weaning Weight and Cow Size
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming
Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas¡ Considerable evidence that ranch resources
(forage) may limit weaning weight potential¡ Increasing aggressively in the Southern U.S.¡ Weaning weight phenotype can be manipulated
by modifying the environment§ creep feed§ wheat pasture§ lower stocking rate
¡ Know the trend over time in YOUR operation¡ If long-term trend is flat, shift focus to cost
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 2
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Her
efor
d M
W E
PD
Her eford
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 200 2 200 7 2012 2017
EPD
, pou
nds
Yearling Weight
Mature Cow Weight0.00
0.50
1.0 0
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1970 1980 1990 200 0 2010
MW
T EP
D
Birth Year
¡ Indicator of cost§ Feed intake§ Stocking rate§ Annual cost
¡ Influences cull cow income
Reviewed literature for experiments conducted within the last 10 years
Found 24 treatment means from 9 manuscripts
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 3
Item Mean Min Max
Shrunkweight, lbs 1,280 965 1,608
BCS 5.3 4.4 6.0
TDN, % DM 58 50 65
DMI, lbs/d 24.7 18.3 35.2
y = 0.021x - 2.31R² = 0.74
0.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0
900 1100 1300 1500 1700
1100 vs 1400 mature weight equivalent to:• 6.3 lbs more forage per day• 2,300 lbs more forage per year
100 lbs cow weight = 2.1 lbs more forage
Fall-born calves closed out 2/22/2019Weaned in AprilGrazed April through July
¡ Calf : cow weight ratio§ “…not the contemporary phenotype of choice on
which to base a selection program” McNeil 2005§ Use as a culling tool rather than a selection tool
¡ Preferred – Overall ranch relationship of weaning weight : cow weight§ An indicator of how YOUR operation responds to
cow size in terms of calf weaning weight
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
700 1200 1700 2200
Wea
ning
Wei
ght (
lb)
Cow BW (lb)
Each 100 lb cow weight = 6 to 31 lb added calf WW in 8 studiesEach 100 lb cow weight increases cow costs by $40 to $50 annually
Need more than 50 cowsOnly use cows age 4 to 9Adjust weights to BCS = 5
¡ Calf : cow weight ratioMcNeil 2005 “…not the contemporary phenotype of choice on which to base a selection program” McNeil 2005§ Use as a culling tool rather than a selection tool
¡ Preferred – weaning weight response to cow weight to determine “match”
¡ Select for mature cow size through herd sires
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 4
R² = 0.5277
020406080
100120140160180
-50 0 50 100 150
Year
ling
Wei
ght E
PD, l
bs
Mature Cow Weight EPD, lbs
Breed Average ¡ 70% of feed energy to produce beef is consumed by the cows
¡ Less than 10% of seedstock producers turn in cow weight records to breed association
¡ Record weight and BCS within 45 days of weaning
¡ Gather at or before dawn prior to grazing
¡ Commercial Angus herd¡ Spring calving¡ Sire milk EPDs: about
breed avg¡ Peak yield (May)
§ 2015 = 31 lb§ 2016 = 29 lb§ 2017 = 31 lb§ 2018 = 33 lb
Author Year Gain:Milk Milk:Gain Breed ForageEdwards 2017 NS NS Angus cross FescueSpencer 2017 .018 55 Angus TMRWiseman 2017 .015 66 A and H X A TMRAndresen 2018 .034 29 A and H X A TMRBrown 2005 0.084 12 Brangus OK NativeMarston 1992 0.014 71 Angus KS NativeMarston 1992 0.032 31 Simmental KS NativeMallinckrodt 1993 0.034 29 Hereford KS NativeMallinckrodt 1993 0.023 44 Simmental KS Native
Eight-study mean = 42 lbs milk per lb calf gainRequires about 50 lbs cow feed
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 5
Photo Courtesy of Oklahoma State University
400.0
500 .0
600.0
700 .0
800.0
900.0
1000.0
1100 .0
1200 .0
150 200 250 300 350
Milk
Yie
ld, 1
00 d
ays
Avg Daily Energy Intake, kilocalories per unit of body weight
1990 Hereford
Jenkins and Ferrell, 1992 and Spencer, 2017
1990 Angus1990 Gelbvieh 2017 AngusRequires 3% BWof 70% TDN diet
Milk Energyy = 0.28x - 19.3
y = 0.35x - 81.1Maternal Tissue Energy
-20 .00-10.00
0.00
10.0020.00
30.00
40.0050.00
60 .00
70.0080.00
200 225 250 275 300 325
Kca
l RE
/ kg
BW
.75
Kcal MEI / kg BW.75
22 lbs Feed DM
30 lbs Feed DM
G x E InteractionHigh Quality Forage
Item 72.5% TDNMod Milk High Milk High Milk
Mod Maint Mod Maint High MaintDMI, lb/d 30.6 32.4 31.3Maint, kcal ME / BW.75 142 142 166.5Feed for maintenance, lb 12.6 12.9 15.1
Milk yield, lb / d 22 31 26Feed for milk, lb 9.3 13.3 11.1
Feed for maternal gain, lb 8.6 0.0 0.0Gain, lb / d 2.3 0.0 0.0
G x E InteractionModerate Quality Forage
62.5% TDNMod Milk High Milk High Milk
Mod Maint Mod Maint High MaintDMI, lb/d 28.4 29.3 27.8Maint, kcal ME / BW0.75 142.0 142.0 166.5Feed for maintenance, lb 15.0 15.0 17.6
Milk yield, lb / d 22.0 26.9 19.2Feed for milk, lb 11.4 14.3 10.1
Feed for maternal gain, lb 2.0 0.0 0.0Gain, lb / d 0.4 0.0 0.0
G x E InteractionLow Quality Forage
52.5% TDNMod Milk High Milk High Milk
Mod Maint Mod Maint High MaintDMI, lb/d 24.4 24.4 23.1ME intake, Mcal / d 20.6 20.6 19.6Maint, kcal ME / kg BW0.75 142.0 142.0 166.5Feed for maintenance, lb 17.8 17.8 20.7
Milk yield, lb / d 9.7 9.7 3.5Feed for milk, lb 6.7 6.7 2.4
Feed for maternal gain, lb 0.0 0.0 0.0Gain, lb / d 0 0 0
David Lalman, Oklahoma State University Aug. 21, 2019
2019 ARSBC, Knoxville, Tenn. 6
CONTROLLING APPETITETO KEEP
COSTS DOWN
¡ Growing cattle consuming high-quality concentrate or high-quality mixed diets
¡ Positive relationship between DMI for concentrate and forage diets§ Foote et al., 2017: .51§ Cassaday et al., 2016: .58
¡ Progress on growing/finishing feed intake and efficiency appears to be a step in the right direction for cow forage intake. Still much to learn
¡ Monitor your operation’s trends: § Weaning weight§ Calf wt per 100 lbs cow wt§ BCS at weaning§ Pounds weaned / cow exposed
¡ In many cases, negative pressure on mature cow weight will improve ranch profitability
¡ In MANY cases, modest negative pressure on milk production would improve the match to forage resources
¡ Milk and mature cow weight EPD’s can help you control cost and better match genetics to forage resources