Impact of 50 Years of Beef Technologies. Dr. Matt Hersom Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida

Transcription

1 Impact of 50 Years of Beef Technologies Dr. Matt Hersom Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida

2 Why Do We Use Technology Webster Dictionary Technology n., 1. The application of scientific knowledge, esp. in industry or business. 2. The methods and material of applied science. Hersom Corollary Proven to result in an improvement in animal performance, comfort, health, or enterprise profitability.

3 50-Year Impact of Technology Beef production per head increased by 80% Doubled total beef production Increase in lbs per head harvested Increase in head harvested per unit inventory Increase in grain-fed beef production Fewer total cows Less land area

4 Relationships of Technologies to Beef Diet Beef Product Capital Grade Labor Consistency Safety Disease Antibiotics Implants Ionophores Technologies Parasiticides Phy. Modifiers Nutrition Genetics Vaccines

5 Technologies Reviewed 1. Antibiotics 2. Implants 3. Ionophores 4. Parasiticides 5. Physiological Modifiers 6. Vaccines 7. Genetics 8. Nutrition

6 Antibiotics-Antimicrobials Substances that have bacteriostatic or bactericidal properties. Therapeutic Used in response to disease or health issue Metaphlaxis or Pull-Treat Penicillin, LA200, Micotil, Draxxon, Nuflor Sub-therapeutic Feed to reduce subclinical incidence of infection May improve ADG and/or feed efficiency CTC, Tylosin

7 Antibiotic Antimicrobials metaphlaxis Item Mineral - Control Mineral-Aureomycin Difference Initial Cow BW, lb Initial Cow BCS Mineral intake, oz/d (910 mg/d) 152-d Cow Wt Gain, lb d Cow BCS Chg Calf Wt Change, lb yes Calf Weaning Wt, lb yes Pregnancy Rate, % Foot Rot, % Yes Repull for Foot Rot, % Yes Pink eye, % Breiner et al., 2005

8 Antibiotics-Antimicrobials metaphlaxis Galyean et al., 1995 Control Calves Treated Calves ADG, lb/d Experiment Experiment D a b D a b Intake, lb/d D D a b Feed:Gain D D x y Calves Treated BRD, % 46.4 x 32.8 x 43.6 x 0 y 12.1 y 11.9 y a,b Means within experiment with different superscripts differ P<0.10. x,y Means within experiment with different superscripts differ P<0.05.

9 Antibiotics-Antimicrobials Num. of Trt for Respiratory Disease Respiratory Lesions None Inactive Active ADG, lb/d A,C HCW, lb A,C Back Fat, in B Ribeye Area, sq in Yield Grade A Quality Grade Marbling Score C Choice, % Select, % Standard, % Shear Force 7-d, lb C A Trt number 0 vs 1 and 2, P<0.05. B Trt number 0 vs 1 and 2, P<0.10. C None vs Lesions, P<0.05. Gardner et al., 1995

10 Antibiotics Impact Effect Cow Herd Weaning Weight, % Breakeven Selling Price, % Impact on Cost of Production, $ Stocker Average Daily Gain, % 6.87 Breakeven Selling Price, % 1.22 Impact on Cost of Production, $ 9.57 Feedlot Average Daily Gain, % 3.37 Feed:Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 0.56 Impact on Cost of Production, $ 5.86 Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

11 Implants Growth promoting implants are pellets that are implanted under the skin of the ear of growing calves Pellets release extremely low concentrations of various hormones Improve growth rate, feed conversion, and protein deposition

12 Implants-Mechanism Estrogenic implants increase somatotropin (ST) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Both are produced by the animal and affect how nutrients are used to produce muscle, bone, and fat. Androgenic implants (trenbolone acetate, TBA), significantly increase the circulating levels of IGF-1 and decreases the normal loss of muscle tissue. The implant response is associated with nutrients available and the level of implant growth promotant circulating in the animal.

13 Implants Implant Compudose, Ralgro, Encore, Implus-C, Synovex- C, Component E-C Implus-S, Synovex-S, Component E-S, Ralgro Magnum, Duralease Component T-S, Finaplix-H, Component T-H Implus-H, Synovex H, Component E-H, Revalor- S, Revalor-H, Revelor-G, Revalor-IH, Revelor-IS, Component TE-S, Component TE-G Category Estrogen Estrogen Androgen Combination Relative Potency Mild Strong Mild Synovex Plus, Revalor-200 Combination Strong Montgomery, et al., 2001.

14 Implants Adj. Final BW, lbs Final BW % Choice Percent Choice 1080 Control Implant 2 Implant 3 Implant 4 Implant 5 Implant Regime Potency Adapted from Guiroy et al

15 Implants Adapted from Paisely et al., 1999 Winter Stocker Implant Treatment Item Control Synovex-C Synovex-S Revalor-G Con vs. Imp Winter ADG, Different Increment over Control, % Summer ADG Similar Feedlot ADG Similar Final BW 1,205 1,222 1,247 1,236 Different Carcass Weight Different Carcass Maturity A69 A92 A94 A80 Different Gross Return to Implant Winter Feedlot - Live Feedlot - Carcass 0 (18.96) (10.04) (12.33)

16 Implants Impact Effect Cow Herd Weaning Weight, % 3.07 Breakeven Selling Price, % 5.80 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Stocker Average Daily Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 2.31 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Feedlot Average Daily Gain, % Feed:Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 6.52 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

17 Ionophores Sub-class of antimicrobial products Affect bacteria in the rumen Alter total rumen metabolism to: shift in ruminal microbial populations increase efficiency of appropriate bacteria increase production of organic acids Increase total microbial protein Decrease waste: ruminal methane and ammonia Decrease coccidiosis, bloat, acidosis

18 Ionophores Monensin Rumensin Lasalocid Bovatec Laidlomycin proprionate Cattlyst Applications: Backgrounding Stocker Replacement heifer development Feedlot

19 Ionophores 24 trials with 1,057 steers lb/d (16.3% increase over control) 11 trials with 853 steers & heifers lb/d (15.5% increase over control) 24 trials with 914 steers & heifer lb/d (13.5% increase over control)

20 Ionophores Stocker Gain, lb/d 7/20 to 10/13 7/25 to 9/26 Bermudagrass Stocker Gain, lb/d Pasture 0.99 a Pasture 1.02 a Past + Supp 0.93 a 1.04 a Past+Corn 1.24 b Monensin-200 mg 1.15 b 1.50 b P+C 25 mg 1.55 c abcdef Means with different superscripts differ P<0.05 P+C 50 mg 1.61 d P+C 100 mg 1.72 e P+C 200 mg 1.56 f Rouquette et al., 1980 Oliver, 1975

21 Ionophores Feedlot Application of Ionophore Monensin Lasalocid Level, mg/d ADG, lb/d DMI, lb ADG, lb/d DMI, lb Improvement, % of Control Improvement, % of Control Potter and Wagner 1986

22 Ionophores Cow Heifer Effects Decrease intake in a dose dependent manner Increase in prepartum ADG Decrease PPI related to BW/ADG change Decrease age at puberty related to ADG Increase % reaching puberty by breeding season Increase 1 st service conception rate

23 Ionophores Impact Effect Cow Herd Weaning Weight, % -- Breakeven Selling Price, % -- Impact on Cost of Production, $ -- Stocker Average Daily Gain, % 7.74 Breakeven Selling Price, % 1.46 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Feedlot Average Daily Gain, % 2.90 Feed:Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 1.18 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

24 Paracitides Standard procedure to treat cows 1-2 times/yr Stocker systems utilize as routine process Feedlots often utilize as a means to ensure performance Parasitism in young cattle can have a direct negative effect on performance and also negatively affect ancillary benefits of management procedures (Yawinski et al., 2009)

25 Paracitides Replacement heifers Item Control Dewormed Difference Initial BW, lb Winter BW gain, lb Yes Winter ADG, lb/d Yes Summer BW gain, lb Summer ADG, lb/d Total BW gain, lb Yes Total ADG, lb/d Yes Pubertal prior to breeding, % Age at puberty, d st Service Concept, % Overall Preg, % Purvis et al., 1994

26 Paracitides Replacement heifers Item Control Deworm Ionophore Combination Gain, lb/d Age at Puberty, d 433 a 424 b 425 c 425 c BW at Puberty 797 a 775 b 780 b 782 b A,b Means with different superscript differ P<0.05 Purvis and Whittier, 1996

27 Paracitides Cow-calf Item Control De-wormed S.E. P>F ADG, lb/d b <0.001 Total calf BW gain b, lb < Calf BW gain, Pd1 c, lb Calf BW gain Pd2 c, lb Cow BCS at start Cow BCS at weaning Cow BCS change B From 90 days prior to weaning to weaning. C Period 1 - from 90 days to weaning to about 45 days prior weaning; Period 2 from 45 days to weaning. Hersom et al., 2010

28 Paracitides Bodyweight, lb Control Loyacano et al., 2001 Doramectin Iverm-Clorsl Day Mean nematode egg count, eggs/g feces D 0 D 28 D 56 D 84 D 112D 140

29 Paracitides Impact Effect Cow Herd Weaning Weight, % 4.24 Weaning Rate, % Breakeven Selling Price, % Impact on Cost of Production, $ Stocker Average Daily Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 2.74 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Feedlot Average Daily Gain, % 5.59 Feed:Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 2.11 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

30 Physiological Modifiers β-agonists (Optaflexx - ractopamine HCl, Zilmax - zilpaterol HCl) Works on muscle fibers Feedlot response to increase: live-weight gain Gain efficiency carcass weight gain Carcass yield Repartioning agent is a misnomer

31 Physiological Modifiers Item Control Optaflexx P-value Weighted days on feed Arrival BW, lb Final BW, lb 1,236 1, ADG, lb/d Feed offered, lb/d Feed:gain Steer performance from initial processing or re-implantation to harvest, Optaflexx fed During the last 29 days. Adapted from Loe et al., 2005

32 Physiological Modifiers Item Control Optaflexx P-value Days of Optaflexx period Initial BW, lb 1,142 1, Final BW, lb 1,236 1, ADG, lb/d during Optiflexx Feed offered, lb/d Carcass adjusted Feed:gain Adapted from Loe et al., 2005

33 Physiological Modifiers Item Control Optaflexx P-value Hot carcass wt, lb Dressing % USDA Prime, % USDA Choice, % USDA Select, % Yield Grade 1, % Yield Grade 2, % Yield Grade 3, % Yield Grade 4, % Yield Grade 5, % Adapted from Loe et al., 2005

34 Physiological Modifiers Impact Effect Cow Herd Weaning Weight, % -- Breakeven Selling Price, % -- Impact on Cost of Production, $ -- Stocker Average Daily Gain, % -- Breakeven Selling Price, % -- Impact on Cost of Production, $ -- Feedlot Average Daily Gain, % Feed:Gain, % Breakeven Selling Price, % 1.24 Impact on Cost of Production, $ Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

35 Vaccines Among the oldest pharmaceutical technology used in cattle 1 st vaccine was against blackleg Vaccines are developed for specific viral and bacterial pathogens Accepted for all aspects of production Conventional, Natural, Organic

36 Vaccines Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) Bovine viral diarrhea (BVD) Bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV) Parainfluenza Clostridium perfringens A, B, C, D Clostridium chauvoei (blackleg) Haemophilus Pasteurella Leptospria Pasturella Vibriosis Rotavirus, Coronavirus Esherichia coli O157:H7

37 Vaccines Prophylactic use Hard to quantify efficiency benefits Either exposed and useful or not exposed Healthy animals perform better Permissive for all other technologies

38 Genetics

39 Genetics Genetic Technology Crossbreeding Artificial insemination Bull testing EPDs DNA-typing Gene mapping and markers Residual feed intake

40 Nutrition Ionophores and Feed antibiotics Nutriceuticals DFM, Fats, Yeasts Computer least-cost software Feed testing Corn processing Crop yields Evolution of understanding of nutrient req.

41 All Technologies Impact Effect Cow Herd Breakeven Selling Price, % Impact on Cost of Production, $ Stocker Breakeven Selling Price, % Impact on Cost of Production, $ Feedlot Breakeven Selling Price, % Impact on Cost of Production, $ Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

42 What About Naturally Raised Programs? Most will not allow the use of: 1. Antibiotics-Antimicrobial 2. Ionophores 3. Implants 4. Paracitides Are you willing to give up the production advantage? Does the possibility of a premium outweigh the decrease in production

43 Model of Beef Production Inventory (million head) Beef Supply and Use (million lbs) Cow-calf Returns ($/cow) With Technology Without Technology Percent Change Beef Cows, Jan Total calf crop Steer & heifer harvest Cattle and calves, Jan Cattle on feed, Jan Production 24,784 20, Net imports 2,901 5, Retail consumption Receipts Expenses Net Returns Source: Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2006

44 Beef Industry Landscape Without Technologies 1. Beef production and consumption would be significantly less 2. Cattle and beef prices would be higher 3. Cattle industry $/lb of beef produced would be higher 4. Cattle herd would be larger with less production 5. Environmental load of the beef industry would be greater 6. Consumer would need to spend more per pound of beef consumed 7. Alternative meats would have a greater market share

45 Questions