docCurrent Data and Information About Lowline Cattle
download 
Report Transcription
Current Data and Information About Lowline Cattle
What Is Right For The Beef Business? Kris A. Ringwall, Ph. D. Extension Beef Specialist North Dakota State University Presented to American Lowline Registry, January 20, 2012, Denver, CO How Big? How Small? How Much Muscle? A Story Of Opportunity 3 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation What kind of system works? Where do certain cattle types fit? Establish usage! Establish use! 4 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Our research has shown the male calves can work. Data has verified that Lowline influenced steers can produce carcasses suitable for the industry. 5 Carcass Data Summary (Compiled in 2008) Harvest Weight 2004 945 4.4 1186 2005 994 4.7 1297 2006 830 4.8 1179 2007 786 5.2 1309 Harvest Value (in dollars) 1093 1223 1074 1176 Number of Steers 22 85 2.85 26 95 2.73 38 110 3.03 24 138 3.81 77% 100% 68% 88% 86% 76% 97% 75% Arrival Weight Frame Score Days on Feed Average Daily Gain % Choice or Higher Percentage YG3 or Lower 6 7 So What? Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation The Center returned to traditional calving ease bulls. End of story? 8 Opportunity Grows F1 Lowline heifers grew up! 9 We are back! Lowline influence on males (Calves born in 2010) Average of bulls born in 2010 from Red Angus sires out of Lowline influence females currently on feed or recently harvested. Weight IMF REA RMPFT REA/cwt 695 2.82 8.9 0.12 1.28 10 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation So, where do the females fit? 11 Initial Heifer Look Angus Red Angus Lowline Influence (From 2007 data) No. Hip Height 36 48.6 11 49.4 38 42.5 Avg. Wt 752.6 758.7 515.9 12 2010 Replacement Heifers WW Hip HT (in) Frame Score Winter REA/cwt Weight REA Fat Depth Spring Weight Conventional Herd (63 head) 574 43.3 5.26 626 0.82 5.94 0.25 664 Lowline Influence Herd (58 head) 487 41.1 3.75 577 0.92 5.31 0.08 552 13 Hip Height & Frame Score Heifers Age (months) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 33.1 34.1 35.1 36.0 36.8 37.6 38.3 39.0 39.6 40.1 40.6 41.0 41.4 41.7 41.9 42.1 42.3 35.1 36.2 37.1 38.0 38.9 39.6 40.3 41.0 41.6 42.1 42.6 43.0 43.3 43.6 43.9 44.1 44.2 37.2 38.2 39.2 40.1 40.9 41.6 42.3 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.5 44.9 45.3 45.6 45.8 46.0 56.1 39.3 40.3 41.2 42.1 42.9 43.7 44.3 45.0 45.5 46.1 46.5 46.9 47.2 47.5 47.7 47.9 48.0 41.3 42.3 43.3 44.1 44.9 45.7 46.4 47.0 47.5 48.0 48.5 48.9 49.2 49.5 49.7 49.8 50.0 43.4 44.4 45.3 46.2 47.0 47.7 48.4 49.0 49.5 50.0 50.5 50.8 51.1 51.4 51.6 51.8 51.9 45.5 46.5 47.4 48.2 49.0 49.7 50.4 51.0 51.5 52.0 52.4 52.8 53.1 53.4 53.6 53.7 53.8 47.5 48.5 49.4 50.2 51.0 51.7 52.4 53.0 53.5 54.0 54.4 54.8 55.1 55.3 55.5 55.6 55.7 49.6 50.6 51.5 52.3 53.0 53.8 54.4 55.0 55.5 56.0 56.4 56.7 57.0 57.3 57.4 57.6 57.7 BIF Guidelines 14 2010 Replacement Heifers WW Hip HT (in) Frame Score Winter REA/cwt Weight REA Fat Depth Spring Weight Conventional Herd (63 head) 574 43.3 5.26 626 0.82 5.94 0.25 664 Lowline Influence Herd (58 head) 487 41.1 3.75 577 0.92 5.31 0.08 552 15 2010 Lowline Influence Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) Hip HT (in) Frame Score 487 41.1 3.75 WW Avg Winter Weight REA/ cwt 577 0.92 REA Fat Depth Spring Weight 5.31 0.08 552 Lowline Influence Herd -- 3 Smallest Frame Score X0293 288 40.5 X0262 364 41.5 X0269 360 42.0 1.50 1.80 2.10 418 474 496 1.30 0.93 1.09 5.43 4.40 5.38 0.05 0.09 0.07 450 480 506 16 2010 Lowline Influence Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) Avg WW Hip HT (in) Frame Score Winter Weight 487 41.1 3.75 577 REA/ cwt REA Fat Depth 0.92 5.31 0.08 Spring Weight 552 Lowline Influence Herd – 3 Middle Frame Score X0036 X0202 X0054 532 562 440 41 40 41 3.80 3.80 3.90 630 610 486 0.91 5.74 0.08 0.77 4.71 0.11 1.13 5.48 0.06 620 548 496 17 2010 Lowline Influence Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) Avg WW Hip HT (in) Frame Score Winter Weight REA/cwt REA Fat Depth Spring Weight 487 41.1 3.75 577 0.92 5.31 0.08 552 Lowline Influence Herd -- 3 Largest Frame Score X0081 654 X0125 554 X0070 586 43.5 43.5 44.5 5.20 5.30 5.60 728 644 612 0.74 0.90 0.87 5.38 5.82 5.34 0.09 0.09 0.07 728 592 616 18 2010 Conventional Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) WW Avg Hip HT (in) Frame Score 574 43.3 5.26 Winter Weight 626 REA/ cwt REA Fat Depth 0.82 5.94 0.25 Spring Weight 664 Conventional Herd -- 3 Smallest Frame Score X0175 490 X0168 554 X0051 582 39 40 41 3.30 3.70 3.90 662 644 692 0.88 5.85 0.09 1.08 6.96 0.06 0.77 5.32 0.11 620 648 656 19 2010 Conventional Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) WW Avg Hip HT (in) Frame Score 574 43.3 5.26 Winter Weight REA/ cwt REA Fat Depth 626 0.82 5.94 0.25 Spring Weight 664 Conventional Herd -- 3 Middle Frame Score X0208 580 X0205 570 X0218 620 43 43 43 5.30 5.30 5.40 590 662 676 0.91 5.37 0.07 0.91 6.04 0.07 0.88 5.93 0.07 582 634 666 20 2010 Conventional Herd Replacements (Sample of growth variances) Hip HT (in) Frame Score 574 43.3 5.26 WW Avg Winter Weight REA/ cwt 626 0.82 REA Fat Depth Spring Weight 5.94 0.25 664 Conventional Herd -- 3 Largest Frame Score X0139 632 X0181 634 X0203 650 46 46 47 6.60 6.70 7.30 734 0.94 678 0.71 736 0.8 8.37 4.82 5.91 0.09 0.05 0.1 930 676 786 21 Can they get the job done? When the first set of Lowline bulls were delivered, I wondered if they were big enough to breed the cows! Following is what happened. 22 Calving Ease Success in the beef business is predicated upon the principal that one needs a live calf to market. Reaching this goal is the result of careful planning, sire evaluation and good husbandry. Caesarean section births are not desired in the beef business. Such births place stress on the cow and the calf and can create many other complications. 23 Calving Ease Data collected since 2004 The Dickinson Research Extension Center has been collecting data on low birthweight, Lowline bulls. Following is the chart compiled from data collected at the Center. Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 No 9 25 48 44 BW 68.6 64.9 63.8 74.7 Unassisted Assisted 9 0 24 1 48 0 42 2 24 Let’s continue the story . . . Cow size and calf birth size 2011 calves Cow group Conventional cows Lowline F1 cows No. Calving Date Calf BW Cow Wt 68 1-Apr 91 1358 53 17-Mar 68 999 25 Cow and Calf Weights 1400 1287 1035 1200 1000 585 800 537 600 400 200 Cows Calves Cows Calves 0 Conventional Herd Lowline F1 Herd 26 Acres/Pair 12.5 13 12 10.1 11 10 9 8 7 Conventional Herd Lowline F1 Herd 27 % Cow Wt Weaned 51.9% 52% 51% 50% 49% 48% 46.2% 47% 46% 45% 44% Conventional Herd Lowline F1 Herd 28 Gain/Acre 32.4 34 32 30 28 26 23.6 24 22 20 Conventional Herd Lowline F1 Herd 29 Here’s The Beef! 30 Conventional Herd Production 31 Beef Production Benchmarks Calving Distribution Matrix Production Performance Time Frame 1st 21 days 1st 42 days 1st 63 days After 63 days Calf CHAPS Your Herd Production Benchmark Score Age at Weaning (days) 190 Actual WW Steers 572 Actual WW Heifers 545 Actual WW Bulls 604 Average WW 564 WW/female exposed 503 Weight per day of age 3.0 WW expressed in pounds Frame Score (BIF scale) 5.7 CHAPS Your Herd Benchmark % Score 63.4% 88.8% 95.5% 4.5% Reproduction Performance Cow CHAPS Your Herd Reproduction Benchmark Score Pregnancy % 93.6 Pregnancy Loss % 0.7 Calving % 92.9 Calf Death Loss % 3.1 Weaning % 91.1 Replacement Rate % 15.2 Culling % 13.7 To participate, contact the NDBCIA: Mail: NDBCIA 1041 State Avenue Dickinson, ND 58602 Phone: 701-483-2348 ext. 105 Email: [email protected] 32 Conventional Herd Production 33 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation We know we can put cattle through the feedyard. So, where do the females fit? Lowline F1 cow and Lowline influence calves 34 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Lowline Influence • Reduce cow size • Reduce calving issues • Produce more ribeye/cwt • Produce more gain/acre • Create management options 35 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Reduce cow size Conventional heifers -- Breed Lowline -- Males finished through traditional channels -- Heifers are ½ Lowline x ½ conventional and become replacement heifers in terminal Lowline herd Net result Shave 300 pounds off cows while maintaining muscle and producing mainstream industry beef carcasses 36 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Reduce calving issues Conventional heifers Data has shown that conventional heifers bred Lowline experienced much reduced calving issues. Net result A calf with an eye on the future; looking for milk and green grass under the care of a good mother! 37 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation More ribeye/cwt Conventional herd -- Lowline crossbred steers tend to produce more ribeye/cwt Net result Lowline crossbred cattle maintain more muscle per pound of body weight. The net result is the ability to downsize cows and maintain muscle. 38 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation More gain/acre -- Lowline influence cows show the ability to increase total gain per acre Net result Additional managerial options matching the number of cows and stocking rate for land use. 39 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Management options -- Terminal crossbreeding system mainstreams Lowline genetics with conventional beef genetics. -- Marketing opportunities Net result -- Establish F1 Lowline females for base cow herd -- Breed more heifers Lowline -- Create marketing opportunity for Lowline steers 40 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation 41 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation How we continue! F1 Lowline Bred Heifers Conventional Bred Heifers F1 heifer herd about one-half size of conventional heifer herd! 42 What did we do? – Established 2 Herds Conventional females Lowline F1 females 43 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation How we continue! Conventional Cows F1 Lowline Cows Conventional Bulls 44 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation 45 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Foundation breed improvement & stability ¾ Lowline Open Heifers F1 Lowline Open Heifers ¾ heifer herd about one-half size of F1 heifer herd! Outcome Transition to PB herd Outcome ¾ Lowline Breed Lowline Breed Lowline 46 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Thoughts Conventional females Lowline females Lowline females F1 & High % 47 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Thoughts Conventional bulls Lowline bulls F1 & High % Work on cows Work on heifers 48 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Thoughts There are opportunities in the beef business. You, as the producer, set the course for the future! 49 Beef Cattle Systems Evaluation Lowline Influence • Reduce cow size • Reduce calving issues • Produce more ribeye/cwt • Produce more gain/acre • Create management options 50 Thank you for your interest and your dedication to growing the beef cattle industry! 51
