Feeding Holstein Steers: What is the optimal market endpoint?

Transcription

1 Feeding Holstein Steers: What is the optimal market endpoint? T. E. Lawrence West Texas A&M University, Canyon

2 Introduction Holstein steers vs. beef steers Poorer ADG (-13%) and G:F (-4%) fed to similar weights (Duff and McMurphy, 2007, using Benchmark data). Limited data exists on the growth and performance of Holstein steers over extended days on feed.

3 Cattle Management Steers (n=135; single source; BW of 886±35 lb) selected at 180 DOF and administered Revalor XS. On day 365, all remaining (n=60) steers were administered a second Revalor XS. Harvest at multiple DOF: 254, 282, 310, 338, 366, , 450, 478, 506 and 534.

4 Meal Behavior & Growth Individual intake was collected using the GrowSafe system Steers were weighed every 28 d DMI, ADG, Feed:Gain and SBW (BW*0.96) were calculated.

5 DMI (lbs) Dry Matter Intake DOF

6 Shrunk (4%) Weight l b 1500 s ,131 1, lbs/day Days on feed

7 Shrunk (4%) Weight l b 1500 s Days on feed

8 Daily DMI%BW Dry Matter Intake as %BW Days on Feed

9 DMI/meal (lbs) Dry Matter Intake per Meal DOF

10 Daily meal frequency Meal Frequency DOF

11 ADG (lbs) Average Daily Gain Days on Feed

12 Gain:Feed Feed:Gain Days on Feed

13 Tyson Foods 58 rule 07June2013

14 Holstein height issues Maximal slaughter point for calf-fed Holsteins based on hip height has recently become a contemporary issue Holstein steers continue to increase in skeletal height Associated with DMI and milk yield Creates challenge (food safety & physical size) for some abattoirs to handle the increased size of the animal

15 Biometric Measurements Hip height was collected each 28d using a proprietary system from Performance Cattle Company, LLC (Amarillo, TX) Device installed to the working chute Measuring device took hip height measurement Same researcher performed the measurements

16 Hip height, in Linear relationship of live weight to hip height Hip height = ( x live weight) R² = Live weight, lbs.

17 Probability of a Holstein steer with hip height of 58" or greater as a function of live weight Live weight, lbs.

18 Hip height, in Linear relationship of days of age to hip height Hip height = ( x days of age) R² = Days of age

19 Probability of a Holstein steer with hip height of 58 or greater as a function of days of age Days of age

20 NON-CARCASS AND CARCASS YIELDS

21 Empty body weight lbs/day 1, l b s , Days on feed

22 Hot Carcass Weight , lbs/day 1000 l b s Days on feed

23 Dressed Yield % / day % Days on feed An additional 29 DOF increased dressed yield by 0.5 %.

24 Gastrointestinal fill % % o f L i v e W e i g h t Days on feed

25 Grading Performance DAY 254 DAY 394 DAY 534

26 12th rib fat depth F a t An additional 0.10 inch of backfat was deposited every 91 days. ( i 0.3 n ) in./day Days on feed

27 14 Ribeye area R E A ( i n ) in²/day Days on feed

28 HL Ribeye Specifications HL4 <10.0 in² HL in² HL in² HL1 >12.5 in² (<64.5 cm²) ( cm²) ( cm²) (>80.6 cm²)

29 Probability of HL Score Days on feed

30 Probability of HL Score Days on feed

31 REA:HCW ratio R E A : H C W Days on feed

32 Kidney, pelvic, heart fat % K P H 4 3 ( % ) %/day Days on feed

33 Calculated yield grade Y G days were required to increase one YG unit units/day Days on feed

34 Probability of YG 1 or Days on feed 0.00

35 1 Probability of YG 4 or Days on feed

36 60 Marbling score M An additional 166 days on feed were required to go from USDA Select to USDA Choice. Small 74 a r 45 b l 40 i n 35 g 30 Slight units/day Days on feed

37 Probability of or better Days on feed

38 Marbling:Yield Grade M a r b : Y G Days on feed

39 Fabrication Yields

40 Bone % % o f C S W Days on feed %/day

41 Trimmable fat % % 25 o f C S W %/day Days on feed

42 Saleable Lean Yield % 66 % o f 62 C S W %/day Days on feed

43 Empty Body Composition

44 Fat, % Empty Body Fat, % Days on Feed %/day

45 Marbling Score Relationship between Marbling Score and Empty Body Fat Empty body fat

46 Marbling Score Relationship between Marbling Score and Empty Body Fat WTAMU 21.7% EBF = Select Empty body fat

47 Marbling Score Relationship between Marbling Score and Empty Body Fat WTAMU 29.1% EBF = Choice 30 WTAMU 21.7% EBF = Select Empty body fat

48 Marbling Score Relationship between Marbling Score and Empty Body Fat WTAMU 37.5% EBF = Premium Choice WTAMU 29.1% EBF = Choice 30 WTAMU 21.7% EBF = Select Empty body fat

49 Marbling Score Relationship between Marbling Score and Empty Body Fat WTAMU 37.5% EBF = Premium Choice WTAMU 29.1% EBF = Choice 30 WTAMU 21.7% EBF = Select Empty body fat

50 Yield Grade 7 Relationship between Yield Grade and Empty Body Fat Empty Body Fat

51 Protein, % Empty Body Protein, % Days on Feed %/day

52 Moisture, % Empty Body Moisture, % Days on Feed %/day

53 EBWG, g/d 1750 EBW Gain, g/d Days on Feed

54 HCWG, g/d 1750 HCW Gain, g/d Days on Feed

55 g/d Carcass Transfer % 68% 73% Days on Feed

56 Holsteinomics

57 Marketing Methodology Three Distinct Methods: Forward Contract Formula Negotiated Grid ALL METHODS MAY BE ACHIEVED ON A LIVE OR DRESSED BASIS.

58 Marketing Snapshot IA-MN Forward Contract: 53.99% of Cattle Dressed Basis 146,110 $205.15/cwt Live Equivalent = * 0.61 = $125.14/cwt Live Basis 29,796 $124.39/cwt

59 Marketing Snapshot IA-MN Formula: 23.30% of Cattle Dressed Basis 75, /cwt Live Equivalent = * = $ Live Basis ~223 $128.85/cwt

60 Marketing Snapshot IA-MN Negotiated Grid: 23.71% of Cattle Dressed Basis 73,789 $227.11/cwt Live Equivalent = * = $136.90/cwt Live Basis 198 $154.00

61 Live vs. Dressed Marketing Dressed Sales Methodology: 90.72% of Dairy Bred Calves Marketed Live Sales Methodology: 9.28% of Dairy Bred Calves Marketed MARKETING DRESSED CATTLE: GREATEST RISK = GREATEST REWARD

62 Breakeven, $/cwt 250 Producer Carcass Breakeven $0.06 /day Days on Feed

63 Value, $/cwt Producer Formula Value $0.06 /day Days on Feed

64 Value, $/cwt Packer Value $/cwt $0.04 /day Days on Feed

65 Acknowledgements Trent McEvers Lee-Anne Walter Nathan May Jake Reed John Mitchell BCRC team John Hutcheson and Merck Animal Health

66 Questions?