Video: Relative Feed Intake

[creativecattle]

Dr. John Paterson of Montana State University presented his findings on residual feed intake to cattle producers at the 2009 Midland Bull Test Sale. Midland recently installed the GrowSafe System, which allows for the evaluation of individual-animal feed efficiency testing.

The presentation is divided into three videos. The first one can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMPcMSOrWPk the next here www.youtube.com/apicreativemedia

Seems like last summer RFI was the buzz word, is that still the case?

 

[Badlands]

It is, but it shouldn't be.

Net Profit would be a better trait.


Badlands

 

[RSL]

RFI is still a big deal and lots of DNA work going on with the trait too.
Just be careful. RFI is good as long as intake is held constant. A cow may be efficient, and not able to take in enough feed to survive.
Also a lot of work is showing the correlation between rfi on forage is only about .40 with rfi on grain diets.

 

[Badlands]

RFI is good as long as intake is held constant.

You will have to flesh this line out for me. The correlation between RFI and Intake is very high. How can you reduce RFI and hold intake constant?

Badlands

 

[SMN Herf]

It is, but it shouldn't be.

Net Profit would be a better trait.


Badlands

Oh what a wonderful world it would be if we just had 1 number for net profit. Life would be soo easy then wouldn't it. Chasing higher and higher epds and higher and higher profit indexes under a maximum feeding regime is ignoring the other end of the net profit equation. INPUTS

I believe that feed efficiency is more related to Net Profit than any other single trait out there. It is a trait that has been overlooked for way too long by the beef industry. RFI is certainly a huge tool that we are going to hear a lot more of in the near future.

 

[RSL]

RFI is good as long as intake is held constant.

You will have to flesh this line out for me. The correlation between RFI and Intake is very high. How can you reduce RFI and hold intake constant?

Badlands

The concern and what pigs did was...
If you select for RFI - (an animal eats less than expected for a given level of performance) you will either increase performance at a specific intake, or maintain performance on a reduced intake. This all sounds great right? Wrong?
Selecting for RFI on its' own (without intake) could reduce appetite. This was bad in pigs and in my opinion is worse in beef cattle. A very efficient (eats less than expected) animal that can't intake enough to grow at a rapid rate or a cow that can't intake enough feed to sustain herself through a vast temperature swing is not a great thing.
The classic (and exagerated example) is the dead calf that eats nothing and gains nothing and has an RFI of 0 (or average). I think RFI is pretty useful, but it has to be balanced with maintaining total feed intake, or perhaps peeling off the really inefficient ones.

 

[SMN Herf]

RFI is good as long as intake is held constant.

You will have to flesh this line out for me. The correlation between RFI and Intake is very high. How can you reduce RFI and hold intake constant?

Badlands

The concern and what pigs did was...
If you select for RFI - (an animal eats less than expected for a given level of performance) you will either increase performance at a specific intake, or maintain performance on a reduced intake. This all sounds great right? Wrong?
Selecting for RFI on its' own (without intake) could reduce appetite. This was bad in pigs and in my opinion is worse in beef cattle. A very efficient (eats less than expected) animal that can't intake enough to grow at a rapid rate or a cow that can't intake enough feed to sustain herself through a vast temperature swing is not a great thing.
The classic (and exagerated example) is the dead calf that eats nothing and gains nothing and has an RFI of 0 (or average). I think RFI is pretty useful, but it has to be balanced with maintaining total feed intake, or perhaps peeling off the really inefficient ones.

I have had a couple years worth of RFI testing on my bull crop and I would have to agree with RSL. Selecting for RFI isn't any different than single trait selecting for any trait.

This past year, a group of us put together about 100 Hereford and Angus bulls and fed a high roughage ration desinged to gain about 2.75lbs per day. Mostly was haylage, corn, straw and supplement pellets.

The 2nd high gaining bull of mine gained 3.91 lbs per day but he ate 36.65 lbs of feed per day to do it and ranked near the bottom on RFI. Another bull of mine ate 21.96 lbs per day but still gained 3.27 lbs per day to rank right at the top for RFI. Another bull ate 35 lbs per day but only gained 2.77 lbs per day. Some of the poorest gaining bulls ranked fairly high for RFI, but many of the top gaining bulls ranked toward the bottom half.

Its appearing to me that picking these super high gaining bulls out of the bull tests may actually be picking just a bunch of big pigs that eat a lot.It sure looks like with proper selection reducing feed costs by 24% with no change in performance is possible.

Brian

 

[Horseless]

Maybe I am reading your responses wrong, but why would you consider this research with RFI to be a negative thing? I can only think of positive things to come from this research. I have found John Patterson's thinking as very practical. Just a common sense type of guy.

 

[RSL]

Maybe I am reading your responses wrong, but why would you consider this research with RFI to be a negative thing? I can only think of positive things to come from this research. I have found John Patterson's thinking as very practical. Just a common sense type of guy.

I think RFI research is spectacular, particularly the piece on gene marker technology. I think the risk we need to be aware of is that it is not 100% independent. Like SMN's bulls show, there need to be a balance between keeping intakes at a certain level while maintaining or boosting performance. Cattle that are efficient but can't eat very much are not very useful, just as cattle that eat a lot and are not efficient are not the best thing either.

 

[Horseless]

Maybe I am reading your responses wrong, but why would you consider this research with RFI to be a negative thing? I can only think of positive things to come from this research. I have found John Patterson's thinking as very practical. Just a common sense type of guy.

I think RFI research is spectacular, particularly the piece on gene marker technology. I think the risk we need to be aware of is that it is not 100% independent. Like SMN's bulls show, there need to be a balance between keeping intakes at a certain level while maintaining or boosting performance. Cattle that are efficient but can't eat very much are not very useful, just as cattle that eat a lot and are not efficient are not the best thing either.

Yes, extremes usually should be avoided. But what does, "can't eat very much" mean? Of the three animals that SMN Herf gave, does one of them fall into this catagory?

You should look at the intake/gain, to find the lbs. to convert feed to gain, then apply it to what you are looking for in your situation. Without this research you really don't know.

 

[Badlands]

I haven't seen research to demonstrate that selection for RFI will hold intake constant while increasing performance. Can you supply a reference, please?

You are suggesting that we should hold intake constant and increase gain. I think that is better approach than RFI, and so did the guys who originally wrote the paper on RFI in '63. I call it Net Daily Gain. It makes more sense for the industry. We just got fixated on decreasing intake since costs are high.

You can tell how off-base the researchers are when they are only looking at one equation. All they have to do is flop the equation and they could get more traction out of the research. They don't because it isn't flashy enough right now. What is flashy and garners funds is decreasing intake.

SMN,
You are way off base on your comments about net profit as it pertains to my statement. Net Profit = Value of Output - Cost of Input. That isn't just about higher EPD, and I know fully well that the Cost of Input will be a limiting factor to Net Profit under range conditions. There will be some cattle that are highly profitable on paper, and on the nationwide average that will fail under specific regional environments.

Be a little careful on the 24% reduction, too. These guys like to blow it out of proportion by comparing the extreme opposites, rather than comparing the best to the middle. It isn't really fair to assume that all the current cattle are "bad". Realistically, we are looking at a 12% reduction.

Also, take note that the guys running most of the equations right now don't understand genetics, so they generally screw up the equations. I have yet to see a nutritionist or physiologist who can correctly describe how selection passes from a bull to his progeny in regards to RFI.

For instance, I have seen it published that buying this bull will save you $75 of feed costs in the feed lot or $6,000 over his lifetime. It is a comparison of the best to the worst in the pen, so it is really a difference of $37.50 from the average. Now we have to realize that we are only selecting bulls, and not females, so we cut it in half again since we only get 1/2 of the available selection pressure. That brings it to $18.75. Now we need to multiply times the heritability of RFI which is generally accepted at 0.40. That brings us to $7.50/calf or $600 over his lifetime is you retain ownership on 80 of his calves. They certainly overstate the real deal, don't they? :wink:

The negative to come out of this is that selection for RFI decreased rate of reproduction in nearly every study that looks at RFI and reproduction. I would say that is an important trait to look at in conjuction with RFI, wouldn't you?

If you want efficient cows, crossbreed them. There is no selection tool for profit or efficiency that will be more important than the crossbred cow.

Badlands

 

[RSL]

RFI research doesn't show that intake can be held constant. One of the problems with rfi. Basically low (or good) RFI means an animal eats less than expected. A couple of ways to tackle it is to lock down ADG at say 3 pounds a day, and then work on reducing the feed to do this. Another approach is to lock down feed DMI at 21 pounds per day (7:1) and work on increasing gain.
The solution is probably some combination of these with all the other important traits, but there are some issues.
1. Is RFI on grain the same trait as RFI on forage? They are similar but not the same. This is important as more efficient cows may not make more efficient feeders and vice versa.
2. Is RFI a proxy for appetite? For example, I can think of specific breeds of cattle that are very efficient (feed:gain) but can't/won't/don't eat much and thus take a long time to finish.
3. Particularly in the case of a cowherd that may undergo environmental stress, might a drop in appetite or intake affect the ability of the cow to consume enough nutrients for maintenance in the event of an environmental challenge (eg: cold, or drought). (we probably are a long way off of this, but it could conceivably happen)
4. Does RFI inadvertently select for some rumen bugs over others, or does it select for actual rumen bypass, or change rumen function in the long run (we know the abomasum and intestine is more efficient at getting nutrients out of high quality feeds than the rumen is)?

I think RFI is exciting and worthwhile, and we will probably look at it in our cowherd going forward as I could either run more cows or get more performance out of the same resource, but there are still a lot of questions. FWIW.

 

[Badlands]

RFI research doesn't show that intake can be held constant. One of the problems with rfi. Basically low (or good) RFI means an animal eats less than expected.

RFI does what it is supposed to do. It decreases intake for the observed gain and weight of the animal. It isn't a problem, it does what it does.

A couple of ways to tackle it is to lock down ADG at say 3 pounds a day, and then work on reducing the feed to do this.

You just defined RFI, with a slight modification on a specified gain. It will have the same long term effect as RFI. Gain can vary from year to year based on environment and feed quality, so it will be hard to manage.

Another approach is to lock down feed DMI at 21 pounds per day (7:1) and work on increasing gain.

This is will result in poorer carcass quality over a period of time because of restricted intake. Of course, the limitation as you specified earlier is that you can only use RFI to the point at which gain or carcass quality is compromised. As such, it is not a tool with which to make sustainable improvement.

The solution is probably some combination of these with all the other important traits, but there are some issues.
1. Is RFI on grain the same trait as RFI on forage? They are similar but not the same. This is important as more efficient cows may not make more efficient feeders and vice versa.

The correlation between RFI on forage and RFI on grain (0.65) is actually similar to the correlation between RFI and FC/FE. While the experts are content using RFI synonymously with "efficiency" since the genetic correlation is around 0.65, they forget to mention that the correlation with Intake is around 0.75. So, they are spending money to investigate the correlation between RFI Forage and RFI Grain, they call it "efficiency" and they ignore the fact that what they are really doing is decreasing gain?

2. Is RFI a proxy for appetite? For example, I can think of specific breeds of cattle that are very efficient (feed:gain) but can't/won't/don't eat much and thus take a long time to finish.

By definition, it changes intake. For the reason you mentioned above, the pig industry quit using RFI and decreased intake as a selection tool over 20 years ago. This was before the Aussies decided to select for RFI.

3. Particularly in the case of a cowherd that may undergo environmental stress, might a drop in appetite or intake affect the ability of the cow to consume enough nutrients for maintenance in the event of an environmental challenge (eg: cold, or drought). (we probably are a long way off of this, but it could conceivably happen)

You say we are probably a long way off. I would say, along with reproduction decreases that need to be investigated, and which may in fact be caused by changes in intake, and with changes in carcass quality, that this may be the thing that is most important to investigate and get to the bottom of. I would say this is an immediate need, not one that is probably a long way off. Less confuse the issue more. In arid environments, the question becomes, "Is appetite decreased to the point that cattle will forage less, and fail to remain productive?" In hot, humid environments the question becomes, "Will the cattle have trouble ridding their bodies of the excess heat of digestion that accompanies RFI, resulting in fetal losses?" How's that for confusion? While we are selecting for RFI, why don't we incorporate a geneotype x environment interaction to contend with?

4. Does RFI inadvertently select for some rumen bugs over others, or does it select for actual rumen bypass, or change rumen function in the long run (we know the abomasum and intestine is more efficient at getting nutrients out of high quality feeds than the rumen is)?

It looks like it does. Don't know if this is a concern yet. Rumen bugs change frequently as new feeds are introduced.

I think RFI is exciting and worthwhile, and we will probably look at it in our cowherd going forward as I could either run more cows or get more performance out of the same resource, but there are still a lot of questions.

You could run more cows, but getting more out of hte same resource would happen by selection for just RFI.

RFI is an indicator of efficiency, efficiency is an indicator or profit. When we select for RFI, we select for an indicator of an indicator of profit. When measuring RFI, we have the gain and the intake. Why don't we just put a dollar value on each and select for Net Profit when it is right in front of us? Net Profit is a sustainable selection strategy, RFI is not.

Badlands

 

[RSL]

I agree with some of what you are saying badlands, but not all.
When I stated that RFI in the cowherd is a long way off, I mean that cowboys take a long time to jump on the bandwagon, which prevents as many screwups as it creates progress.
I have seen the corr of RFI Grain vs. RFI forage published around 0.40. That is pretty low and slightly scary.
Net profit is a very dodgy one, as each operations profits are determined in different ways. I prefer using my own economics and applying the traits that fit what I do at home to the equation. There are outfits with new tractors and lots of infrastructure that are profitable, and there are operations with little to no overhead that are profitable, and those two types of cattle are often VERY different.
Again, I don't have a problem with RFI, we just need to be careful that we don't select cattle without an appetite.

 

[Badlands]

When I stated that RFI in the cowherd is a long way off, I mean that cowboys take a long time to jump on the bandwagon, which prevents as many screwups as it creates progress.

Thanks for clarifying. I agree, but it is being adopted here since we have a number of large bull test centers using the technology.

I have seen the corr of RFI Grain vs. RFI forage published around 0.40. That is pretty low and slightly scary.

This is lower than I have seen, but I haven't done much looking in the last year or so. I say, "GREAT"! I don't want RFI selection in my cowherd, but I have little objection in a terminal situation. The higher the correlation, the less I am willing to use RFI as a selection tool. I bet our views differ, don't they?

Net profit is a very dodgy one, as each operations profits are determined in different ways. I prefer using my own economics and applying the traits that fit what I do at home to the equation. There are outfits with new tractors and lots of infrastructure that are profitable, and there are operations with little to no overhead that are profitable, and those two types of cattle are often VERY different.

Agreed, reread my comments. I qualified them by saying there were differences in environment that need to be accounted for. We need to know the level of input we can support and then work from there.

Again, I don't have a problem with RFI, we just need to be careful that we don't select cattle without an appetite

. Who are you trying to convince? You said you didn't have a problem, then you stated a problem. Think about it. Do you, or don't you? :wink:

Thanks for the fodder, RSL. Good talk.

Badlands