![Page 1: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions
David Lalman, Megan Rolf, Robert Kropp, Mike Brown, Dillon Sparks, Sara Linneen, Alyssa Rippe
![Page 2: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
40’s and 50’s“Era of Insanity”
![Page 3: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
1953
Champion Angus Female
Chicago International Exposition
![Page 4: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1969
Grand Champion Steer
Chicago International Exposition
![Page 5: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
70’s and 80’s“Return to Insanity”
![Page 6: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
90’s and 2000’s“Back Again”
![Page 8: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
2012
Grand Champion Steer
Tulsa State fair
Click icon to add picture
![Page 9: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Matching Forage Resources: Are we getting closer?
![Page 10: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
How are we doing?
Kansas: Kansas Farm Management Association Kevin Herbel
North Dakota: Cow Herd Appraisal Performance Software (CHAPS) Summary Dr. Kris Ringwall
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas: Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) Summary Dr. Stan Bevers
![Page 11: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Weaning Weight in Commercial Cow/Calf Operations
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
450.0
470.0
490.0
510.0
530.0
550.0
570.0
590.0
610.0
630.0
650.0
SouthwestKansasNorth Dakota
Wea
ning
Wei
ght,
lb
![Page 12: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Weaning Rate in Commercial Cow/Calf Operations
707274767880828486889092949698
100
SouthwestKansasNorth Dakota
Wea
ning
, %
![Page 13: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Caution: Cattle are Changing!
![Page 14: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Milk
![Page 15: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Genetic Trend for Milk
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
AngusRed AngusHerefordCharolaisSimmentalLimousinBrangus
Kuehn and Thallman, 2013
![Page 16: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Milk vs Maintenance
More milk = higher year-long maintenance requirements (NEm)Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984Montano-Bermudez et al., 1990
Related to greater visceral organ mass relative to empty body weight Rumen, small and large intestine, liver,
heart, kidneysFerrell and Jenkins, 1988
![Page 17: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Relationship of milk production to calf WW
11.8
15.2
52.6
Lewis et al. (1990)
![Page 18: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Consider:Is there a limit of milk production that YOUR forage can support?
![Page 19: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Brown et al., 2005
![Page 20: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Increasing risk/frequencyof cases where:
a) forage resources limit the expression of genetic potentialfor milk
b) production costs have increasedbecause the “environment” has been artificially modified to fit the cows
![Page 21: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Cow Size Muscle
Growth
![Page 22: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Genetic Trend for Yearling Weight
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
AngusRed AngusHerefordCharolaisLimousinBrangus
Kuehn and Thallman, 2013
![Page 23: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Genetic Trend for Ribeye Area
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
AngusRed AngusHerefordCharolaisLimousin
Kuehn and Thallman, 2013
![Page 24: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
How will continued aggressive selection for muscle impact commercial cows’ “matching” ability? The answer is not clear Minor increase in NEm
Ferrell, 1988 Increased mature weight
MacNeil, 1984 More muscle = less fat at same live weight “Undesirable associations between maternal traits and
retail product appear to be mediated through fat thickness” Tess, 2002
Lower adipose composition is associated with: Older age at puberty Lower conception rate Lower calving rateSplan et al., 1998
![Page 25: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
f(x) = 3.77 xR² = 1
f(x) = − 0.668 x + 20.09R² = 1
Condition Score or Live Weight
Perc
ent o
f Em
pty
Body
Wei
ght
Body Composition by BCS and Live Weight
![Page 26: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Genetic Trend For Mature WeightAngus
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
Mat
ure
Wei
ght
EPDGenetic trend for mature height has been flat since 1987
![Page 27: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Do bigger cows wean bigger calves
in a restricted environment (commercial herds)?
![Page 28: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Calf WW vs Cow BW
700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 2100200300400500600700800900
Cow BW (lb)
Wea
ning
Wei
ght
(lb)
Mourer et al., 2010 = 0.06
Urick et al., 1971 = 0.04
Dobbs, 2011 = 0.06
y = 0.06 x + 459Gadberry, 2006 = 0.15
![Page 29: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Sensitivity Analysis
Recent value of added gain ranges from about $.80 to $1.30
Apparent maximum value = $1.30 x 15 = $19.50
Apparent minimum value = $.80 x 6 = $4.80Annual cost / 100 lb of additional cow BW =
$42(Doye and Lalman, 2011)
![Page 30: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Growth and Feed Intake
![Page 31: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Genetic Trend for Yearling Weight
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
AngusRed AngusHerefordCharolaisLimousinBrangus
Kuehn and Thallman, 2013
![Page 32: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Beyond cow size, how does continued aggressive selection for growth impact commercial cows’ “matching” ability?
A nutritionist’s view of selection for growth and associated feed efficiency High growth cattle
Eat more feed: more calories left over for growth (NEg) after NEm has been met
NEm is lower Efficiency of feed used for growth (NEg) is
“better” There is a positive genetic correlation
between growth and feed intake Arthur et al., 2001
![Page 33: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Growth and Feed Intake Increased feed intake and gut capacity results
in increased visceral organ mass relative to live body weight (yes, just like milk)
The GI and liver make up less than 10% of the cow’s body mass
The GI and liver combine to use 40 to 50% of total energy expenditure in a beef cowFerrell, 1988
Could continued selection for growth and “capacity” be a contributing factor to the high cost of maintaining beef cows?
![Page 34: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
What we have been doing:
Teaching guidelines based on conditions that reflect a nutrient status that maximizes reproductive performance
A major limitation is focus on short term effects with little consideration of long term implications
![Page 36: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
“Feeding to maximize reproductive rate does not result in differential retention between females with high and low feed requirements. In contrast, managing cows under reduced feed inputs would more likely result in culling of cows with high feed requirement due to reproductive failure.
Furthermore, increasing the proportion of cows with reduced feed requirements may provide producers a margin of safety at times when feed resources are scarce or costly.”
Dr. Andy Roberts USDA ARS Miles City Montana
![Page 37: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Improving “Match” (without increasing inputs)
Requires long term commitment Moderate size, milk and muscle Cull open cows▪ Be willing to challenge them▪ Resist the temptation to gradually modify the environment
Keep only early-born heifers Keep only early-bred heifers Buy (or keep) bulls out of cows that always calve early
Tools available RADG, RFI, Feed Intake, ME, Longevity, Stayability Selection indexes for maintenance and profit Optimal Milk Module
![Page 38: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Improving Reproductive Efficiency
Find source of seedstock that: Puts PRIORITY on ERT’s related to fertility and
forage use efficiency Culls open cows Keeps only early-born heifers Keeps only early-bred heifers Puts environmental pressure on their cattle – weed
out those that do not “match” Purchase bulls out of cows that are
managed like yours are or worse, have never missed a calf, and calve early
![Page 39: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
“To breed for optimum means to have a target in sight beyond which you don’t want to go. If your goal is to maintain an optimum level for any trait, the evidence of your accomplishment is not visible change, but lack of it.”
Dr. Rick Bourdon
![Page 40: Matching Production Levels to Environmental Conditions](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020920/568164d2550346895dd7011d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Summary
No strong evidence that commercial cow efficiency has improved (“sell at weaning” context) From a commercial cow/calf perspective, the industry is on an unsustainable path relative to some traits Cows are big, and we can’t get enough milk or muscle The result: feed inputs/costs per cow/calf unit are increasing while limited data suggests that production is not Relatively new tools are available that will help, however these must become a priority in selection decisions and not considered secondary traits