| Complete Archive of Newsletters |
This question has been investigated recently by eMerge Interactive, a new order buying firm. Using a database of over 2.5 million cattle from the last five years, feeder cattle were divided into a high-cost group ($1-5 above average market price) and low-cost ($1-5 below average). High-cost cattle averaged .04 higher ADG, .09 better feed conversion, $0.95 less medicine, .03% less death loss, and $0.66 less cost/cwt gain. High-cost feeders cost $5.77/cwt more but sold for only $0.06/cwt more, so low-cost averaged about $34 a head more profit. Does this mean there is no reason to pay premiums for feeder cattle? No, it means feeder premiums may be paid for the wrong reasons. Texas A&M Ranch to Rail and other data clearly show large differences in feeder cattle value. But you have to know something about genetics and background management to take advantage of these differences. Eye-ball appraisal of feeders simply is not very accurate.
A few breed associations now calculate EPD for "stayability", defined as the probability that a cow will remain in a herd for a certain number of calvings or to a certain age. Since reproduction is a primary culling factor in most herds, it has been theorized that stayability is, at least somewhat, a measure of sustained fertility, though many other elements no doubt are involved. The US Meat Animal Research Center recently reported results investigating the genetics of stayability, along with age at puberty, using 7 two-breed-cross cow types. Heritability of age at puberty was high (0.60), as has been found in most studies. However, heritability for stayability was essentially zero. Even though stayability may be important in herd efficiency, this study does not indicate improvement in this trait could be accomplished by genetic selection.
New Mexico researchers reported results of medicating weaned calves. Along with a control group, some calves were treated with MicotilTM either before shipping or upon arrival at a feedyard or stocker operation. Also, some Micotil calves were fed chlortetracycline for 5 days. There were no treatment effects for gain, feed consumption, or feed efficiency. But incidence of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) was only 1/4 to ½½ as high with Micotil treatment. There was no difference between pre-shipment or arrival administration of Micotil. Feeding chlortetracycline did not reduce BRD incidence beyond the reduction from Micotil treatment. So, Micotil effectively reduced BRD, but treatment at arrival worked just as well as pre-shipping treatment.
I recently saw a formula for a successful genetics program as follows: 1) select cows to fit the environment; 2) select sires to create a calf that fits the market; 3) select a breeding system that fits the management. But what if you save replacement females, and the sire's calves that best fit the market don't fit the environment? Then you should: 1) determine what type of cow fits the environment; 2) decide on a breeding system (save replacements or bring them in from outside the herd?); 3) choose sires, considering both the environment and the market. If you're going to save replacements, you may have to compromise on market acceptability. But you won't be penalized with poorly adapted cows, so overall efficiency and profitability will be higher.