Maternal Versus Terminal Crossbreeding Systems: A Six-Year Study at University of Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Maternal Versus Terminal Crossbreeding Systems: A Six-Year Study at University of Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch"

Transcription

1 Versus Crossbreeding Systems: A Six-Year Study at University of Nevada Gund Research and Demonstration Ranch Ron Torell, NE Area Extension Livestock Specialist Dr. Ben Bruce, State Extension Livestock Specialist Ken Conley, Gund Ranch Manager Jon Wilker, Gund Ranch Manager Vern France, Owner/Manager Triangle Feedlot, Gooding, Idaho INTRODUCTION The Webster dictionary defines terminal as the end. crossbreeding for purposes of this paper, means that all heifers and steers from a group of maternal cows, sired by a heavily-muscled, non-maternal bull are destined for the feedlot. No replacement heifers are held back. In a terminal crossbreeding program, producers select herd sires based entirely on terminal traits such as average daily gain, feed conversion, muscling, external fat, marbling, tenderness, carcass weight, quality and yield grade. When selection criteria, such as maternal traits are eliminated, cattlemen can purchase bulls, perhaps even full brothers. These bulls can produce a uniform, consistent, predictable and hopefully profitable feedlot and rail calf. These traits are preferred by the feedlot industry and demanded by the consumer. THE MATERNAL STEER Selecting for maternal traits when purchasing herd sires can pay big dividends in the production of replacement heifers. traits are counterproductive on the steers, and for heifers that are not replacements. Unfortunately terminal traits are often antagonistic to many of the maternal traits desired in a cow. For years cattlemen have tried to balance the maternal and terminal traits when selecting herd sires. The result has been the production of a light to moderate muscled, medium framed, average performing feedlot steer and a slightly over fat, light to moderate muscled, higher percentage of choice carcass. The obvious questions of how to maintain and manage the maternal cow herd on a terminal crossbreeding program and how to be properly compensated for the superior terminal cross calf is discussed in two separate papers included in this proceedings: Sources for Replacement Heifers When Using a Crossbreeding Program, and Three-tiered Marketing. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR MATERNAL AND TERMINAL SIRES There is a saying that goes, there is more genetic variation within a breed than between breeds! Bulls exist within all breeds that have good maternal or terminal traits. Identifying those bulls that sire calves that produce females who match your ranch resources and simultaneously sire male calves that work in the feedlot and on the rail, is a challenge. EPD s are an excellent tool to help identify those sires, however, many breed associations and many bulls within those association registries do not have enough feedlot and carcass data to truly identify the best sires to use. Additionally, balancing maternal and terminal EPD s within all breeds usually compromises performance at the ranch, in the feedlot or on the rail. An alternative to balancing maternal and terminal traits within one breed is to select breeds that excel in a particular area. For example, Table 1 lists the latest information on 19 breeds compared for milk production, growth rate, mature size, percent retail product and age at puberty. This is a germ plasma study initiated in 1969 that is continuing at the U.S.D.A. Meat Animal Research Center (M.A.R.C.). The study indicates that out of 19 breeds researched, Charolais, Simmental, Limousin and Chianina ranked the highest in growth rate and mature size, percent retail product and have the Section 1Page 1

2 longest age at puberty. These breeds were in last place for milk production. Table 1. Breeds Grouped by Biological Type a Breed Milk Growth Rate & Mature Size % Retail Age at Puberty Production Product Red Poll *** * * ** Jersey ***** * * * Devon * * ** *** Hereford ** ** * *** Angus *** ** * ** Santa Gertrudis *** **** * ** Brangus ** ** * **** Brahman *** *** *** ***** Tarentaise **** *** **** ** Pinzgauer **** *** *** * Brown Swiss **** *** *** * Simmental **** ***** ***** ** Gelbvieh **** **** **** * Holstein ***** **** **** ** Maine Anjou ** ***** **** ** South Devon ** **** ** ** Limousin * *** ***** **** Charolais ** ***** ***** **** Chianina ** ***** ***** **** Increasing number of * indicate greater values for the traits. For example, ***** = greatest milk production or oldest age at puberty and ** = below average percent retail product and relatively early age at puberty. Based in part on a cluster analysis of breed group means presented by Dr. L.V. Cundiff at the Third World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Hereford and Angus on the other hand, had moderate milk, growth and mature size. This would indicate that cows from these breeds would have a lower nutrient requirement, thus matching our rangelands resources better. Hereford and Angus had the lowest percentage retail product yet the earliest age at puberty. By selecting the bulls within the Hereford and Angus breeds for the maternal cow herd and selecting bulls within the Limousin, Simmental, Charolais, or Chianina breeds for terminal sires, one can more easily match a bull with your production goals and resources. CASE STUDY: MATERNAL TO TERMINAL In September 1993, a research project was initiated at the UNR Gund Ranch, which converted the 300-head, English-bred rangeland operation to a terminal crossbreeding system. The project objectives were five fold. 1.) To determine if converting a range livestock operation of this size to a terminal crossbreeding system was feasible and economical. 2.) To explore ways to retain replacement heifers of sufficient maternal quality that matched the cow to the environment when implementing a terminal crossbreeding program. 3.) To collect baseline performance data for the ranch relative to ranch, feedlot and carcass performance. 4.) To explore a three-tiered marketing system as a means to optimize profits through marketing alternatives. 5.) To explore risk-management futures and options as a method of reducing risk when marketing cattle. Performance and profitability of the terminal cross Limousin calves produced in 1996 to 1998 are compared to the maternal bred Angus steers produced in 1993 through Section 1Page 2

3 1995. were pre-weaned and vaccinated prior to shipment to Triangle Feedlot in Gooding, Idaho each year. Only the heaviest calves were retained each year. Data across years for each treatment group was pooled for analysis. RANCH PERFORMANCE MATERNAL VS. TERMINAL CALVES A weaning weight advantage for terminal cross calves due to heterosis and the added growth potential and frame was expected. However, no significant difference in weaning weights between the maternal and terminal cross calves was observed (Table 2, 430 maternal vs. 428 terminal). This can be partially explained by comparing the available feed resources to the cow s nutritional requirements during lactation, and the calf's growth requirements during the first seven months of life. The UNR Gund Ranch rangeland is primarily a high desert shrub zone. Mid and late summer forage quality does not meet the cow s lactational requirements or the calf s genetic growth requirements. The end result is added frame, however, weaning weights are equal to the maternal bred calves. Other researchers have reported weaning weight advantages for terminal cross calves, however, feed resources in those trials were significantly better and the milking ability of the cows significantly higher. Based on UNR Gund Ranch results, producers should not expect an increase in weaning weights when implementing a terminal cross system under limited feed conditions. The distribution of weaning weights was changed with the terminal cross program. Slightly more calves, 2.98 percent weaned over 500 pounds and 11.7 percent more weaned less than 400 pounds. Fewer terminal calves (14.7 percent) weaned between pounds compared to the maternal bred calves. This would indicate a less uniform set of calves with a terminal crossbreeding program. This is contrary to results of other researchers. No significant difference was observed for cow conception rates or birth date. Upon semen evaluation of bulls, fewer terminal Limousin bulls passed fertility tests each year in comparison to maternal selected Angus bulls. Table 2. Ranch Performance (Angus) Versus (Limousin) Cross Cattle Mat Heifers Term. Comb. Diff. Mat. vs. Term. Wean Wt 430# 447# 409# 428# 2.0# # 67% 50.6% 54% 52.3% 14.7% >500# 15% 25.3% 10.6% 17.9% 2.98% <400# 18% 24% 35.3% 29.7% 11.7% Concept. 94% 93% 93% 93% 1% B. Date Weights recorded approximately October 1 of each year. FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE MATERNAL VS. TERMINAL CATTLE Yearly feedlot performance for maternal bred Angus steers and terminal cross Limousin steers and heifers are presented in Table 2. Data between years for each group was pooled for comparison purposes. Performance data between years was mathematically adjusted to simulate cattle being fed during the same year using identical feed costs and market conditions. In values were determined using a $90/cwt base weight for 500 pound steer calves, a $8/cwt slide with heifers priced $10 back of the steer base price, using the same $8/cwt slide. Angus steers weighing 517 pounds entered the feedlot on approximately October 3 of each of the three years, 1993 to These placements were two days earlier and 54 pounds lighter than the terminal cross Limousin steers. The terminal cross steers were fed during the years of 1996 to Compensating for heavier in weights, the in value of the terminal cross placed steers was $ per pound less than the maternal steers. cross heifers were fed during the years of 1996 and heifers entered the feeding phase on October 3, the same date as the maternal steers. The terminal heifers posted an in weight of 515 pounds, two pounds lighter than the maternal steers. The terminal heifers in value was Section 1Page 3

4 $ per pound, $ less than the maternal steers. The lower in price is adjusted for sex and weight difference. Table 3. Feedlot Performance - (Angus) Versus (Limousin) Cross Cattle Steer Average Steer Average Heifer Average Heifers # Calves Breed Angus ½ Limousin ½ Limousin ½ Limousin ½ Limousin In Date days 0 days In Weight lbs. 2 lbs. In Value/lb. $ $ $ $ $ Death Loss 1.56% 0.81% 0% 0.75% 1.56% Realizer 1.56% 0% 0% 1.56% 1.56% Vet Med $7.94 $7.89 $6.85 $0.05 $1.09 Out Date June 8 June 6 June 14 2 days 6 days Days on Feed day 12 days Days on Grower days 52 days DM Conversion 6.86:1 6.32:1 6.71:1 0.54:1 0.15:1 A.D.G Feedlot Gain lbs. 13 lbs. Cost of Gain $58.75 $52.97 $54.92 $5.78/cwt $3.83/cwt Feed Cost/cwt. $47.13 $43.75 $46.48 $4.48/cwt $0.65/cwt Gain Finish Weight lbs. 11 lbs. A death loss of 1.56 percent for the maternal bred cattle was 0.75 percent greater than the 0.81 percent death loss for the terminal steers and 1.56 percent more than the terminal heifer groups. Realizers, (those cattle that did not perform in the feedlot and were sold at auction to realize salvage value), followed the same pattern as death loss. The maternal bred groups had realizers of 1.56 percent while the terminal groups had zero. For any retained ownership program a sound and thorough weaning program enhances the probability of success. The average processing out date for the maternal bred steers was June 8, two days later than the June 6 date for the terminal cross steers and six days earlier than the June 14 date for the terminal cross heifers. The maternal bred steers were on feed one day longer (243 vs. 242) and remained on the grower ration 59 days longer (138 vs. 79) than their terminal cross counter part steers. The maternal steers were on feed 12 days less and remained on the grower ration 52 days longer than the terminal heifers. Due to the genetic makeup and smaller frame of the maternal bred cattle, more days on a grower ration were required. This added time on a grower ration adds frame prior to being placed on the finish ration. Research shows that English bred calf fed s that do not remain on a grower ration for an adequate time period will finish at lighter weights, result in smaller carcasses and higher yield grades. Price penalties on the rail are severe for these types of carcasses. cross cattle entering the feedlot at approximately 500 pounds and 210 days of age require minimal time on the grower ration. It is important that terminal bred cattle (steers and heifers) be placed on a finish ration as soon as possible after arrival at the feedlot. Due to Section 1Page 4

5 a management error, the 1998 terminal cross steers and heifers remained on the grower ration for 123 days, approximately 60 days longer than necessary. Dry matter feed conversion was 6.86 pounds of dry matter to one pound of gain for the maternal steers. The terminal steers converted at 6.32:1 or 0.54:1 better than the maternal steers. The terminal heifers converted at 6.71:1, 0.15:1 better than the maternal steers. Average daily gains were 0.23 pounds per day better for the terminal steers (2.72 vs. 2.95) and 0.05 pounds per day less for the terminal heifers (2.72 vs. 2.67) when compared to maternal steers. Total feedlot gain was 667 pounds for the maternal steers versus 709 pounds for the terminal steers and 680 pounds for the terminal heifers. The added feedlot gain is explained by the higher average daily gain of the terminal steers during the feeding period and longer days on feed for the terminal heifers. Total cost of gain was $5.78/cwt lower and feed cost of gain was $3.38/cwt lower for the terminal steers versus the maternal steers. Total cost of gain was $3.83/cwt less and feed cost-of-gain $0.65/cwt lower for the terminal heifers than the maternal steers. The 1,281-pound live finish weights for the terminal steers was 97 pounds heavier than the 1,184 pounds posted by their maternal bred counter parts. This can be attributed to heavier in weights, increased feedlot gain, larger frame size, and heavier muscling for the terminal cross steers. cross heifers finish weight of 1,195 pounds was 11 pounds heavier than the maternal steers. This can be attributed to more days on feed for the heifers. Research shows that when heifer mates of the same genetic background are fed along side their male counterparts, you can expect a 10 percent reduction in feedlot performance of the heifers. This data suggests that feedlot performance of terminal cross heifers will equal the performance of maternal bred steers. CARCASS PERFORMANCE MATERNAL VS. TERMINAL CROSS Yearly carcass performance for the maternalbred Angus steers and the terminal cross Limousin steers and heifers are presented in Table 4. Yearly data for each group was pooled for comparison purposes. Research shows that continental breeds (terminal) of cattle usually have less intramuscular fat (marbling) resulting in a lower percent choice grading, less back fat, larger rib eyes, heavier carcass weights, lower yield grades, and a higher dressing percentage. This scenario was repeated in this study. Choice grading on the maternal steers was 5.3 percent higher than the terminal cross steers (57.5 percent vs percent). The maternal steers had 0.03 less back fat at the twelfth and thirteenth ribs (0.51 vs. 0.54), 1.51 square inch smaller rib eye (14.08 vs ), and 78 pounds lighter carcasses (818 vs. 740). The maternal steers posted 0.42 higher yield grades (2.59 vs ), and 1.50 percent lower dressing percent (62.50 vs. 64.0). The terminal cross steers produced percent more carcasses that fell into the more desirable yield grade 1 and 2 categories. Relative to the terminal cross heifers in comparison to the maternal bred steers, the heifers out graded the Angus steers by 2.5 percent (60 vs. 57.5). Research shows that heifers will usually out grade steers due to the earlier maturity of the females. Back fat was 0.06 more on the heifer carcasses (0.51 vs. 0.57). Rib eyes were 1.27 inches larger on the terminal heifers than the English-bred steers (13.84 vs ). Research shows rib eye areas and muscling is usually smaller on heifers than steers. Carcass weights were 35 pounds heavier for the terminal heifers versus the maternal-bred steers (775 vs. 740). Yield grades were very similar yet 0.06 better for the heifers versus the maternal-bred steers (2.96 vs. 3.02). Research shows that yield grades are usually superior for steers. Dressing percentage was 2.29 percent better for the heifers than for the Angus-bred steers Section 1Page 5

6 (64.81 vs ). More heifers (8.7 percent) fell into the more desirable yield grade one and two categories than the English-bred steers (56.2 vs. 47.5). The terminal cross heifers out performed maternal-bred steers on the rail. Other researchers have found similar results. Table 4. Carcass Performance (Angus) Versus (Limousin) Cross Cattle Heifers minus # Breed Angus ½ Limousin, ½ Limousin, ½ Limousin, % Choice 57.5% 52.2% 60.0% 5.3% 2.5% Back Fat Rib Eye K.P.H Carcass Wt lbs. 35 lbs. Yield Grade % Y.G. 1 & % 68.18% 56.2% 20.68% 8.7% Dress % 62.50% 64.0% 64.81% 1.50% 2.29% Minus terminal Heifers ½ Limoousin, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS MATERNAL BRED STEERS VERSUS TERMINAL CROSS STEERS AND HEIFERS 1993 TO 1998 Table 5 presents the economic analysis of maternal versus terminal cross relative to breakeven and profit loss during the feedlot phase. The terminal cross heifers posted the lowest actual breakeven price of $60.43/cwt. The terminal cross steers breakeven ($61.88/cwt) was $3.66/cwt less than the $65.54 posted by the maternal bred steers. This can largely be attributed to the better feed conversion, average daily gain and dressing percent of the terminal cattle. Feed conversion, average daily gain and in values are the most economically important traits relative to the feedlot phase. These traits influence breakeven price significantly in this study. The breakeven figures suggest that the terminal heifers were under valued entering the feedlot phase. The historical $10/cwt discount behind steer counter parts is too much of a discount for terminal heifers. Relative to sale price, all cattle were sold on the same market based on a rail grid presented in Table 6, adjusted back to a live price. The grid used represents the typical mid June price spread between choice select carcasses and various yield grades. Finish price received of $66.42 was greatest for the terminal heifers. This can largely be attributed to the high percentage choice carcasses, heavier carcass weights, the wide price spread between choice and select carcasses, the high percentage yield grade one and two carcasses and the added dressing percentage of the terminal cross females. The same held true with the terminal cross steers ($64.34) relative to the English-bred steers ($62.38). cross heifers resulted in an average of $71.58 per head profit, $ more per head than the English-bred steers. The terminal cross steers made a profit of $31.51 per head, $68.92 more per head than the ($37.41) per head loss posted by the maternal bred cattle. The advantage for the Section 1Page 6

7 terminal cross cattle can largely be attributed higher percentage yield grade one and two to the better feedlot performance, heavier carcasses, and adequate percentage choice carcass weights, higher dressing percentage, carcasses. Table 5. Profit (Loss) Bred versus Cross and Heifers Heifers - Heifers *Break Even $65.54 $61.88 $3.66/cwt $60.43 $5.11 **Finish Price $62.38 $64.34 $1.96/cwt $66.42 $4.04 ***Profit/Head ($37.41) $31.51 $68.92 $71.58 $ *Includes all costs, feed, interest, death loss, veterinary, trucking, etc. **Rail price adjusted back to live price Table 6. Mid June Rail Pricing Grid for Various weights, Quality Grades and Yield Grades of Carcasses Prime $ Prime $ Choice 1 & $ Choice $ Choice $81.20 Select 1 and $98.70 Select $97.70 Select $75.70 Underweight, overweight, dark cutters and bullocks discounted $20/cwt SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Converting a maternal group of range cattle to a terminal crossbreeding program when limited summer grazing feed quality exists, did not increase ranch weaning weights or net profits. Producing and retaining quality replacement heifers with the terminal cross breeding program was costly and difficult. Value was added to the terminal cross calf through feedlot retained ownership. cross steers gained 0.23 lbs./day better, converted 0.54 pounds of feed/lb. of gain better, required 59 days less on the grower ration, and posted a finish on the hoof sale weight of 97 pounds heavier than Englishbred maternal steers. cross heifers performed equally to English-bred steers in feed conversion, average daily gain, and finish weight. Relative to carcass performance, maternal steers graded 5.3 percent better than the terminal steers. The terminal steers posted a 1.51 square inch larger rib eye, 0.42 better yield grade, a 1.5 percent higher dressing percent, a 78 pound heavier carcass and percent more carcasses fell into the more desirable yield grade 1 and 2 categories. heifers graded 2.5 percent more choice carcasses than the maternal steers, a 1.27 square inch larger rib eye, 0.06 better yield grade, a 2.29 percent better dressing percent, a 35 pound heavier carcass and 8.7 percent more carcasses fell into the more desirable yield grade 1 and 2 carcass categories. cross heifers made an average of $71.58 per head profit, $ more per head than the English-bred steers. The terminal cross steers made a profit of $31.51 per head, $68.92 more per head than the ($37.41) per head loss posted by the maternal bred cattle. The advantage for the terminal cross cattle can largely be attributed to the better feedlot Section 1Page 7

8 performance, heavier carcass weights, higher dressing percentage, higher percentage yield References: grade one and two carcasses, and an adequate percentage choice carcasses. Cundiff, L.V., Keith E. Gregory, R.M. Koch, M.E. Dikeman, and J.D. Crouse. Breed Comparisons in the Germplasm Evaluation Program at MARC. USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Kruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska. DeRouen, S.M., D.E. Franke, T.D. Bidner, and D.C. Blouin Two-, Three-, and Four-Breed Rotational Crossbreeding of Beef Cattle: Carcass Traits. Journal of Animal Science, 70: Effertz, Nita From Bulls to Bunk and Back Again. Beef Today, November/December. Effertz, Nita The Economics of Weight: In a battle with traits such as muscling and leanness, quality grade loses. Beef Today, September. Gregory, K.E., and L.V. Cundiff Crossbreeding in Beef Cattle: Evaluation of Systems. Journal of Animal Science, Vol. 51, No. 5. Gregory, K.E., L.V. Cundiff and R.M. Koch. August Composite Breeds to Use Heterosis and Breed s to Improve Efficiency of Beef Production. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. Gregory, K.E., L.V. Cundiff, and R.M. Koch Effects of Breed and Retained Heterosis on Milk Yield and 200- Day Weight in Advanced Generations of Composite Populations of Beef Cattle. Roman Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, Clay Center, Nebraska. Journal of Animal Science, 70: Harris, Dewey L. and Scott Newman Breeding for Profit: Synergism Between Genetic Improvement and Livestock Production (A Review). Journal of Animal Science, 72: Kress, D.D., D.E. Doornbos, D.C. Anderson, and K.C. Davis Breed of Dam and Breed of Sire Effects for Hereford and Tarentaise Cattle and Estimates of Individual Heterosis for Traits of Calves. Proceedings, Western Section, American Society of Animal Science. Vol. 44. Lamb, M.A., M.W. Tess, and O.W. Robinson Evaluation of Mating Systems Involving Five Breeds for Integrated Beef Production Systems: II. Feedlot Segment. Journal of Animal Science, 70: Lamb, M.A., M.W. Tess, and O.W. Robison Evaluation of Mating Systems Involving Five Breeds for Integrated Beef Production Systems: I. Cow-Calf Segment. Journal of Animal Science, 70: Lamb, M.A., M.W. Tess, and O.W. Robison Evaluation of Mating Systems Involving Five Breeds for Integrated Beef Production Systems: III. Integrated System. Journal of Animal Science, 70: Laster, D.B. 1/17/76. Management to Minimize Calving Difficulty. U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, 10th A.I. Conference, NAAB, Denver, Co.. Notter, D.R., B. Tier, and K. Meyer Sire X Herd Interactions for Weaning Weight in Beef Cattle. Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, Armidale, NSW, Australia. Journal Animal Science, 70: Reynolds, W.L., J.J. Urick and B.W. Knapp. Birth and Weaning Traits of Calves from Charolais and Tarentaise Sires Mated to Red Angus Dams. Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory. Section 1Page 8