Need Bulls that are Efficient on Forage?

[WVGenetics]

Take a look at this bull test program in West Virginia. http://www.wvbeef.org/wbt/wbt.html Its a pretty no-nonsense, no frills bull test. Bulls are limit fed a ration that is contains ground first cut grass hay and a balanced supplement pellet, which keeps them hard, sound and ready to work. They only averaged 0.30 inches back fat at yearling. No huge, unreasonable 205d weights either. And this was the first bull test in the nation to measure individual feed intake and RFI. They've been doing it longer than anyone. If you have an interest in sound, forage efficient bulls, check out the Wardensville Bull Test's 44th annual sale will be held on March 24th, 2011. They'll sell around 90 Angus and a few Hereford, Charolais, and SimAngus bulls. Performance reports, sale information and a sale catalog can be found online at http://www.wvbeef.org/wbt/wbt.html. At least take a look at the catalog. I bet you won't find a more comprehensive one anywhere!

 

[Northern Rancher]

I've been following a bull that did very well in an RFI test as a yearling. Everything else about the bull appears right as he matures-feet, daughters udders etc. This past year some of his progeny did very well in a steer feedout-in his case it has shown some merit. It's an interesting tool just not sure where it fits in the tool chest.

 

[lazy ace]

That is some great information you have posted in the catalog.

What percent of repeat buyers do you have? Have there been any feedback on the RFI from them and has it changed any marketing decisions by those repeat buyers?

Sorry for the questions but you guys have the longest track record for doing this and very curious if your buyers are getting rewarded.

thanks for posting and (have a cold one)

lazy ace

 

[Northern Rancher]

That is a very comprehensive catalogue for sure!

 

[WVGenetics]

This program prides itself in providing the most comprehensive data anywhere on yearling bulls. We believe you would be hard pressed to find another bull sale that will provide you with as much accurate information as this program. Although this program is designed to provide West Virginia cow/calf producers with a source of quality genetics, we are looking to expand our marketing area. We feel the genetics in this program are as good as any in the country and come with more reliable data than you can find on most yearling bulls--and more of it!
We also believe that RFI is an excellent selection tool to lower maintenance requirements, specifically of breeding females, but it is just another tool in the toolbox. Over emphasis on this trait before researchers determine the potential long term selection effects could be costly. It is always a wise decision to use high accuracy bulls or sons of those bulls. It is important to remember that although feed accounts for around 70% of the total cost of production, fertility remains the most economically important trait in cow/calf production. We would recommend that you find a group of cattle that will fit your environment and production system and then try select for efficiency (RFI) within that group keeping in mind that, if you are selecting for truly maternal cattle, they will more than likely be less efficient because they mature earlier, and relative to terminal cattle, have less gain performance. But you can still select the more efficient animals within that group.
Our program is made up of at least 80% repeat buyers and that number continues to grow. Feedback from those buyers about RFI has been relatively low because it has been a slow process convincing individuals to use RFI as an additional selection tool(it is a large component of the index), but we have had a few individuals who feel that the efficient bulls they have purchased stay in better condition year round, although they are yet to see the true value of that bulls more efficient daughters over time. It is hard to say if they can reep any rewards through marketing. In most cases our producers are marketing feeder cattle post weaning and it doesn't allow them to see much of premium for RFI. There is more a premium for using the performance tested bulls because it allows producers to participate in our feeder calf pools. Hope this helps and thanks for the replies.

 

[lazy ace]

WVGentics do you have some more pictures of bulls that are on test? This is sure an interesting thread as everyone on here is concerned with lower our costs.

Is it possible to post pictures of some bulls that have good RFI and some that do not? (just to see if we can pick out any differences between animals)

When was that picture taken in your other post?

What about your hereford bulls, do you have some pictures of them?

Sorry for all the questions but your research facility is just interesting.

lazy ace

 

[WVGenetics]

WVGentics do you have some more pictures of bulls that are on test? This is sure an interesting thread as everyone on here is concerned with lower our costs.

Is it possible to post pictures of some bulls that have good RFI and some that do not? (just to see if we can pick out any differences between animals)

When was that picture taken in your other post?

What about your hereford bulls, do you have some pictures of them?

Sorry for all the questions but your research facility is just interesting.

lazy ace

I'd be interested to see if anyone can tell the difference in efficient vs. not efficient just by looking at the bulls because I can't.

 

[WVGenetics]

We always have a hard time selling our Hereford bulls out here and for the most part, they're pretty decent cattle. I think its because they just don't perform quite as well as the Angus bulls they are compared to but they are almost always more efficient. WVU consigns several Hereford bulls, and I know they've had heifer mates to the bulls out marble Angus heifers that were out of some +1 marbling Angus bulls with less back fat. These cattle have to be useful somewhere. Anybody else see anything like this?

 

[nortexsook]

Stereotypes are hard to break.

And you are dealing with two here:

Angus are always better

Herefords just suck

 

[WVGenetics]

WVGentics do you have some more pictures of bulls that are on test? This is sure an interesting thread as everyone on here is concerned with lower our costs.

Is it possible to post pictures of some bulls that have good RFI and some that do not? (just to see if we can pick out any differences between animals)

When was that picture taken in your other post?

What about your hereford bulls, do you have some pictures of them?

Sorry for all the questions but your research facility is just interesting.

lazy ace

 

[WVGenetics]

Picture of one of the pens in the bull development facility. Usually 15-18 bulls per pen. The GrowSafe feed bunks are at the upper end of the lots under roof.

 

[PureCountry]

Bulls are limit fed a ration that is around 85% ground first cut grass hay, which keeps them hard, sound and ready to work.

According to the catalog, this is not the ration. It's listed like this:

Bulls were fed a total mixed ration ad lib that
consisted of wheat midds (24%), soy hull pellets (23%),
distillers grains (8%), cottonseed hulls (4%), corn meal (4%),
hominy feed (10%), molasses (2%), soybean meal (1%) and
mixed grass hay (20% 1-2 inch particle length). The balance of
the ration was a proprietary intake limiting package and
vitamin and mineral supplement which included selenium.
Rumensin and Tylan were added at the legal labeled dose rate.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, although in my opinion, any claim that these are forage efficient bulls is as speculative as anyone else's claims of forage efficiency. I would call them feed efficient, not forage efficient. JMO

 

[WVGenetics]

According to the catalog, this is not the ration. It's listed like this:

Bulls were fed a total mixed ration ad lib that
consisted of wheat midds (24%), soy hull pellets (23%),
distillers grains (8%), cottonseed hulls (4%), corn meal (4%),
hominy feed (10%), molasses (2%), soybean meal (1%) and
mixed grass hay (20% 1-2 inch particle length). The balance of
the ration was a proprietary intake limiting package and
vitamin and mineral supplement which included selenium.
Rumensin and Tylan were added at the legal labeled dose rate.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, although in my opinion, any claim that these are forage efficient bulls is as speculative as anyone else's claims of forage efficiency. I would call them feed efficient, not forage efficient. JMO

Understood, got my wires crossed on that one. Everything in the ration that is not hay is fed as a pellet that is mixed in with the ground hay. When you look at the ration, it sure seems like there is a lot more hay than pellet but thats not the case. Still its formulated for 3.5 lbs gain and the bulls averaged 3.73 or something like that. It stands to reason that if they're efficient on this ration, they'll be efficient on grass because were evaluated differences in maintenance requirements. If maintenance requirements are lowered, then they're less no matter what they're eating

 

[PureCountry]

Bulls are limit fed a ration that is around 85% ground first cut grass hay, which keeps them hard, sound and ready to work.

According to the catalog, this is not the ration. It's listed like this:

Bulls were fed a total mixed ration ad lib that
consisted of wheat midds (24%), soy hull pellets (23%),
distillers grains (8%), cottonseed hulls (4%), corn meal (4%),
hominy feed (10%), molasses (2%), soybean meal (1%) and
mixed grass hay (20% 1-2 inch particle length). The balance of
the ration was a proprietary intake limiting package and
vitamin and mineral supplement which included selenium.
Rumensin and Tylan were added at the legal labeled dose rate.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, although in my opinion, any claim that these are forage efficient bulls is as speculative as anyone else's claims of forage efficiency. I would call them feed efficient, not forage efficient. JMO

Understood, got my wires crossed on that one. Everything in the ration that is not hay is fed as a pellet that is mixed in with the ground hay. When you look at the ration, it sure seems like there is a lot more hay than pellet but thats not the case. Still its formulated for 3.5 lbs gain and the bulls averaged 3.73 or something like that. It stands to reason that if they're efficient on this ration, they'll be efficient on grass because were evaluated differences in maintenance requirements. If maintenance requirements are lowered, then they're less no matter what they're eating

No offense, but when you look at the ration - ON PAPER - it looks nothing like what I would expect in a thread that starts with "Bulls that are Efficient on Forage".

As for your theory on 3.5lbs/day gain, that is a ration similar to what feedlot cattle get. Most fats I inspect out of Alberta feedlots average about 3.5lbs from the time they come in to the time they go out - that's a pen average.

All I am getting at or trying to point out, is that you should not incinuate that these are forage-fed bulls, forage efficient bulls, or have forage efficiency in the conversation. They are bull test bulls. Albeit from a test station with a great plan and program, the best I have seen to date, for gathering data. The fact that you are doing RFI is wonderful, as I am curious to see this type of data, even though I grass finish everything and these bulls are in small pens as opposed to pasture. Facts are, we have no way to test for RFI on pasture as of yet, so we have no conclusive method of MEASURING FORAGE FEED efficiency in a research-based scenario.

I hear your reasoning that bulls fed to gain 3.5 then do better at 3.73 ought to be more feed efficient. However, in the manner you are doing it, it is not conclusive in any way, that this means FORAGE efficient. I would not buy a bull from your test simply because they have been fed to gain like a fat animal. If they had been fed like you stated in your opening post - 85% ground first cut grass hay, to gain 2lbs/day, and the group average 2.25lbs, I would be far more impressed from a forage efficiency standpoint. Just my opinion.

 

[WVGenetics]

Thank you for the positive comments about our program.

Again, I understand your points, and I was incorrect in my statement about the forage content of the diet. It was not my intention to mislead anyone, but to potentially show new people the value of our program in identifying efficient cattle. This program is built on integrity and my error should not reflect the program in any way.

My primary argument is that we are identifying those animals that have lower maintenance requirements and potentially an increased efficiency for gain. I am not stating that just because they gained more than the diet was formulated for that they, as a group, are more efficient. All that means is that they have an appetite that exceeds are predictions.

You are correct in stating that we cannot yet measure RFI on grass, most practically because we cannot with reasonable accuracy measure intake on pasture. Believe me, I've done some of this research and it sure isn't easy, but there should be no reason why an animal that has lower maintenance requirements (which accounts for around 30% of the know variation in RFI) on this ration will not have lower maintenance requirements on forage. Its a physiological/genetic function of the animal. Therefore, if we are truly identifying differences in maintenance requirements, which I believe we are, there is no reason not to believe that these bulls will be more efficient on forage, maybe not as a whole, but based on their RFI rank. By the definition of RFI, half will be negative and half positive.

In truth, none of these bulls may fit your environment or your production system, and from what you've said, it is likely that only a few in our program may, but I think you would find that if you were to use one of these negative RFI bulls that could fit into your system, the efficiency on forage would certainly be realized.

 

[krenwick24]

WVG,

Can you comment on the Daybreak and Gameday calves? Looks like the Daybreaks really performed.

Thanks,

KNR

 

[WVGenetics]

WVG,

Can you comment on the Daybreak and Gameday calves? Looks like the Daybreaks really performed.

Thanks,

KNR

They Daybreak calves did well. They would be consigned by, what I think most people involved with the test and repeat buyers, would call our most reputable consignor, who has a strong customer base and is also our largest consignor, so the contemporary group comparisons should mean more in his herd. I don't want to say a great deal about them because I believe you can get a pretty good picture from the data in the catalog and also because the consignor should know his cattle better than anyone. His contact info is also in the catalog. I will say that they are mostly over 6 frame cattle with plenty of growth and muscle. They are also big volumed as are most of this consignors cattle.

The GameDay calves were consigned by this consignor as well as WVU. They are more moderate framed than the Daybreaks. Personally, the GameDay females we have are looking great, with really nice udders on their first calves. The 3 flush brothers, Lots 123, 124, and 125 are all out of a great old cow that we began flushing at 14. In fact, the lot 132 bull's dam is a decendent of this cow. The GameDay cattle are really big volumed, sound made cattle and are really thick. I believe they mature fairly early and for us they have been really fertile.