Advancements in Cow Herd Efficiency and Selection Decisions

Genetic Improvement of Feed Intake and Utilization

by Troy Smith for Angus Productions Inc.

 

HOUSTON, Texas (April 19, 2012) — One thing cow-calf operators and animal science researchers know is that feed represents a major expense to every cattle operation — representing two-thirds or more of non-fixed production costs. In comments made during the 2012 Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Research Symposium and Annual Meeting in Houston, Colorado State University geneticist Denny Crews said feed intake is clearly a cost-side economically relevant trait (ERT) that justifies national cattle evaluation for feed efficiency.

 

Speaking to a joint session of the Cow Herd Efficiency and Selection Decisions committees, Crews said there are complex interactions with other ERTs, such as growth rate, average daily gain and body composition. As such, feed intake must be considered within a multi-trait selection process. He allowed that national cattle evaluation for feed utilization has progressed slowly, for much data is required and the cost of collection is high.

 

Crews acknowledged the potential antagonisms when measuring intake in a “bull test” setting and making selection applicable to cattle in a production system based on grazed forage. However, he said he believes attempts to measure forage intake by cows to be a “dead-end road.”

 

Crews did cite studies where observations were made about mothers (kept in drylot) of calves for which residual feed intake (RFI) had been measured. Dams of low-RFI (more feed efficient) calves had a higher 10-year average for body conditions score, lost less backfat between calving and breeding, and had lower forage intake. These cows calved, on average, five days later in the season, but maintained a similar calving interval. Dams of high-RFI (less feed efficient) calves posted higher calf death loss and an almost 5% higher twinning rate. No differences were noted for other cow productivity traits. Pregnancy rates, calving rates and weaning rates were similar, as were calf weaning weights.

 

In moving toward national cattle evaluation for feed intake and efficiency, Crews said the effort will benefit from development of both phenotypic and genomic approaches. The availability of standard guidelines for intake recording will improve consistency of data collection. Crews said reporting of intake and its components will likely be determined by breed groups. And the primary limitation to national evaluation of intake and related inputs will continue to be data density.

 

“Selection and improvement of efficiency must be considered within the multiple trait context,” emphasized Crews. “We can’t get hung up on one trait. While intake is novel now, it still must be part of multi-trait selection.”

 

Return to the Newsroom for links to the PowerPoint presentation that accompanied this presentation.

Editor’s Note: This summary was written under contract or by staff of Angus Productions Inc. (API). Through an agreement with the Beef Improvement Federation, we are encouraging reprinting of the articles to those who will adhere to the reprint guidelines available on this site. Please review those guidelines or contact Shauna Rose Hermel, editor, at 816-383-5270. PowerPoints are posted with permission of the presenter and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the express permission of the presenter.

API's coverage of the event is made possible through collaboration with BIF and sponsorship of LiveAuctions.tv. For questions about this site, or to notify us of broken links, click here.

Headquartered in Saint Joseph, Mo., API publishes the Angus Journal, the Angus Beef Bulletin, the Angus Beef Bulletin EXTRA, and the Angus e-List, as well as providing online coverage of events and topics pertinent to cattlemen through the API Virtual Library.