Can We Allow a Calf to Have a Bad Day? Dr. Matt Hersom UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences

Transcription

1 Can We Allow a Calf to Have a Bad Day? Dr. Matt Hersom UF/IFAS Department of Animal Sciences

2 What is A Bad Day?

3 What Constitutes a Bad Day Sickness / Health Prevention is key Veterinarian Stress Environmental Transport Nutrition Total Feed Intake Energy/Protein Vitamin/Mineral

4 The Essence of Avoiding A Bad Day In order to produce an acceptable calf that will enter the feedlot, perform adequately, and marble well calves should never be restricted/limited for nutrients. Otherwise you run the risk of poor calf and carcass performance.

5 Where Did the Concept of No Bad Day Originate? TAMU Ranch to Rail Data Health issue OSU data of Gardner & Owens Premium Product Brands Misinterpretation or bias interpretation of data Sick Healthy Diff. Head Death Loss, % ADG, lb/d Total COG $73.34 $56.20 $17.14 Med. Cost $44.55 $0.00 $44.55 Net Return $23.43 $ $ Quality Grade, % Choice Select Standard McNeill, 2001

6 Define Scenario Growing calf Birth to Carcass Factors Affecting Quality Production Characteristics Sex, Weight, Age Pre-feedlot Nutrition Feedlot Nutrition Endpoint Selection Health

7 Normal Growth Curves Maturity Total Mass Muscle Fat Birth Bone Time

8 Calf Performance Considerations Nutritional Management Calf vs Yearling fed Early weaning Creep feeding Concentrate vs Roughage Hay Pasture Low vs High Quality Feedlot grain processing DRC, High-moisture, SFC Co-production inclusion Management Decisions Implant Regime Beta agonists Endpoint determination Breed Marketing Options Choice-Select Spread

9 Misconceptions Regarding Marbling Calves have to see a high energy diet (starch) early to marble adequately Compared to what? Generally improvement over normal which was good Does the calf have the genetic capacity to marble Is high marbling endpoint the best endpoint for the calf Changing production programs What would it cost Marbling only occurs early in life not later Intramuscular fat is last on and first off??? Some studies indicate marbling occurs faster when young Marbling occurs throughout growth

10 Misconceptions Regarding Marbling Nutritional restriction is always bad Yearling programs Frame/size development Compensatory growth? What was degree of restriction Cost savings? Wrong Endpoint Evaluation Similar age Similar finished BW Have to evaluate at same physiological point

11 Early Starch Exposure Item Early Wean Normal - Creep Normal - Wean Comparison # of Steers Post-wean ADG EW>Normals Days on feed EW>Normals Conc. Fed, lb/hd 4,478 4,081 3,806 EW>Normals Carcass Wt, lb REA, sq in KPH, % All different Avg. Yield Grade EW>Normals Marbling Score Modest 98 Modest 44 Modest 20 EW>Normals % > Choice % > Avg. Choice EW>Normals % > Prime Myers et al., 1999

12 Item Early Starch Exposure Early Wean Pasture Early Wean 90% Conc. Early Wean 25% Conc. Comparison Feedlot entry age, d Pasture>Conc. Days on feed Feedlot ADG, lb/d Pasture>Conc. Carcass Wt, lb Pasture>Conc. REA, sq in Pasture>Conc. REA, sq in/cwt All different KPH, % Pasture>Conc. Avg. Yield Grade All different Marbling Score Modest 12 Modest 37 Modest 99 Quality Grade =Low Choice, 11=Avg Choice, 12=High Choice Wertz et al., 2001

13 Generalizations - Early Starch Exposure One of first production practices advocated Early weaning process implicit Normal production very adequate in comparisons Early application of starch diets can increase carcass quality, but not always Quality grade not significantly improved More days in feedlot and more concentrate feed required None of the research examines $$$$

14 Marbling Only Occurs Early? Backfat, in Marbling Ribfat, in Marbling Bruns et. al.,1999 HCW, lb 250

15 120 Marbling Only Occurs Early? Growth of four body fat depots Weight, kg Intermuscular Subcutaneous Visceral Intramuscular Age, d Oltjen, 2008

16 Marbling Only Occurs Early? Important gene for fat cell development undetectable early in life in SubQ and IM fat depots regardless of production system, but turns on when fed high energy diet. Fat cell gene activation declines in calffed cattle fat depots but maintains activity in older cattle fat depots. Smith et al. 2007

17 Marbling Only Occurs Early? At a similar age, yearling calves have smaller fat cell volume. At similar BW fat cell volume is similar between calffed and yearlings. Less time on finishing diet results in smaller fat cells. Adequate time on high energy allows cattle to fill their fat cells. Smith et al. 2007

18 Generalizations Early Marbling Fat cells are present, but not filled early in life Fat cell filling occurs when excess energy is available Preferential energy substrate for fat cells depots Other influencing factors Endogenous hormones, other growth factors Backfat generally increases faster

19 Nutritional Restriction Affects Carcass Quality?

20 Nutritional Restriction and Growth on IM Fat Deposition Normal Delayed IM Fat % IM Fat % Normal Delayed Hot Carcass Weight Hot Carcass Weight Pethick et al., 2004

21 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? BW, lbs BW of Steers From Different Background Systems Conc Ad Lib Conc Limited Forage Ad Lib Switched to Finishing Diet Days on Feed Sainz et al. 1999

22 Sainz et al Nutritional Restriction is Bad? Initial Carcass Characteristics of Steers Prior to Feedlot BW lbs Conc. Ad Lib Conc. Limited Forage Ad Lib SEM Live weight, lb 775 a 683 b 700 b th Rib fat, in 0.24 a 0.13 b 0.08 c 0.63 KPH fat, % 1.7 a 1.1 b 0.7 c 0.3 Marbling score Trace20 a PD100 b PD50 c 20.5 Ribeye area, in a,b,c Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).

23 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? Final Carcass Characteristics of Steers BW 720-1,059 lbs Conc. Ad Lib Conc. Limited Forage Ad Lib SEM Hot carcass wt, lb 678 a 667 a 652 b 5.1 Ribeye area, in a a 9.3 b 0.20 Yield grade Carcass fat, % th Rib fat, in 0.50 a 0.46 a 0.39 b 0.03 KPH, % 1.6 a 1.9 b 2.1 b 0.14 Marbling score c Quality grade Select Select+ Select+ a,b, Means in a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). C 900 = Slight, 1000 = Small. Sainz et al. 1995

24 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 BW of Steers From Different Backgound Systems a b ab a b c HGW LGW NR Hersom et al Days in feedlot

25 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? Initial Carcass at Start of Feedlot Phase HGW LGW NR Hersom et al. 2004

26 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? Initial Carcass Characteristics of Steers Prior to Feedlot HGW LGW NR SEM Live weight, lb 880 a 709 b 564 c 5.3 Carcass weight, lb 509 a 385 b 297 c th Rib fat, in 0.37 a 0.06 b 0.00 b 0.04 KPH fat, % 2.44 a 0.90 b 0.51 b 0.22 Marbling score d 916 a 766 b 678 c 20.5 Ribeye area, in a,b,c Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05). d 700 = Practically devoid, 800 = Trace, 900 = Slight, 1000 = Small. Hersom et al. 2004

27 Nutritional Restriction is Bad? Final Carcass Characteristics of Steers HGW LGW NR SEM Dressing % Hot carcass wt, lb th Rib fat, in Ribeye area, in Yield grade KPH, % 2.19 a 1.72 b 1.69 b 0.14 Marbling score c % Choice 58 a 25 b 63 a 14.0 a,b, Means in a row without a common superscript differ (P < 0.05). C 900 = Slight, 1000 = Small. Hersom et al. 2004

28 Generalizations Nutritional Restriction One of first issues blamed for poor quality Degree and type of restriction is key! Variable results and outcomes A lot of confounding effects on outcomes There is no free trade-off for gain Slower growth necessitates faster growth or more days elsewhere When it comes to quality grade, if the cattle have potential for compensatory growth you re screwed! Robbi Pritchard, SDSU But not as bad as it s made out to be

29 Choosing the Correct Endpoint for Comparison

30 Endpoint Consideration Constant Age Endpoint Item Calf-fed Yrlg-fed Wean Wt On feed Wt * Finished Wt * DOF ADG Carcass Wt * Backfat * Marbling * Small 53 Slight 40 Quality Grade * Choice 18 Select 40 Yield Grade * Constant BW / Backfat Endpoint Item Calf-fed Yrlg-fed Wean Wt On feed Wt Finished Wt DOF ADG * Carcass Wt Backfat Marbling Slight 90 Slight 62 Quality Grade Choice 30 Choice 19 Yield Grade * Harris et al * Means are different P<0.05

31 Endpoint Consideration Item Calf-fed Yearling Initial wt, lb Final wt, lb 1,104 1,198 (1,304) Days of feed (139) Feed intake, lb ADG, lb/d Feed:Gain Fat depth, in (0.48) Choice, % (95.3) (Adjustment to 0.48 in backfat) Klopfenstein et al., 2000

32 Endpoint Consideration Winter Gain on Carcass Quality Item Low High Winter ADG Summer ADG Feedlot ADG Feed:Gain Backfat 0.39 (0.46) 0.46 Marbling score* 490 (534) 532 Choice, % 50.3 (68.3) 66.9 * 450=Avg Slight, 500=Small, 550=Avg Small Summer Gain on Carcass Quality Item Low High Winter ADG Summer ADG Feedlot ADG Feed:Gain Backfat 0.43 (0.48) 0.48 Marbling score* 529 (567) 517 Choice, % 70(85.2) 68 * 450=Avg Slight, 500=Small, 550=Avg Small Klopfenstein et al. 2000

33 Generalizations Endpoint Considerations Largest fallacy for the no bad day comparison Similar endpoint puts cattle at same physiological point Common fat end-point consistent with industry Valid comparison of production system outcomes Allows production process to remove any potential adverse affects.

34 Generalizations Considerations History of beef cattle production Utilized restriction Produced quality product % of calves enter feedlot as calf-fed Direct weaned Pre-conditioned Backgrounded 70% of calves enter as yearlings

35 Generalizations Considerations Easy to pick out bad/poor performers Can correctly describe the production system? Calf or Yearling Background or limited concentrate Feedlot program Positively id the cause? Energy restriction Drought Sub-clinical chronic sickness Poor Conception Decision

36 Generalizations Considerations Easy to pick out bad/poor performers Can correctly describe the production system? Positively id the cause? Variables: Cattle Type Genetics Final Endpoint Marketing System/Rewards Production Management System Options Lifetime Nutritional Management

37 Generalizations Considerations Easy to pick out bad/poor performers Can correctly describe the production system? Positively id the cause? Variables: Cattle Type Genetics Final Endpoint Marketing System/Rewards Production Management System Options Lifetime Nutritional Management Published opinions tend to ignore work that doesn t support the premise Consider the source of the comments

38 Questions?