1. BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Dan Faulkner Department of Animal Sciences

2. WHAT ABOUT INPUTS? We have done a good job of selecting for outputs.

3. Feedlot Profit Model (Quality Grid) Variables Partial R 2 MS0.2456 HCW 2 0.1703 G:F0.1287 YG 2 0.0639 MS 2 0.0625 YG0.0562 G:F 2 0.0153 HCW0.0097

4. Why Efficiency is Becoming More Important Decreasing acres for crop production Increasing world population Increased utilization of food for fuel Increasing feed cost (including forages) Other inputs increasing in cost (fuel, transportation, fertilizer)

5. Feed Cost Represent 65-70% of Beef Production Costs

6. A 1% improvement in feed efficiency has the same economic impact as a 3% improvement in rate of gain

7. On a feed:gain basis, beef cattle are least efficient compared to other livestock < 2:1< 3.5:1> 6:1

8. Poultry Improvement 250% improvement in efficiency since 1957

9. Why are beef cattle less efficient? Feed higher fiber diets

10. Why are beef cattle less efficient? No selection for feed efficiency Why? –Individual feeding –Expensive facilities –High labor requirement –Lack of social interaction decreases feed intake –Difficult to compare at similar body compositions

11. Combining the GrowSafe and Ultrasound technologies allows feed efficiency comparisons at different endpoints Endpoints: –Weight –Backfat –Marbling –Age –Time on Feed

12. Risks of selecting for Feed:gain Selecting for F:G –Increase cow size –Increase leaness –Increase feed intake resulting in decreased digestibility, increased organ weights, and increased heat increment

13. Net Feed Efficiency (Residual Feed Intake) Is the difference between an animal’s actual feed intake and expected feed intake based on its size and growth over a specific test period Is moderately heritable (0.30 – 0.45) and may reflect an animals maintenance energy requirement Is independent of body size and growth rate

14. Selection for RFI will: Not effect rate of gain Not effect animal size Reduce feed intake by 10- 12% Improve F:G by 9-15%

15. Processes for Variation in Feed Efficiency Feed consumption Feed digestion and associated energy costs Metabolism Activity Thermoregulation

16. Genetic of RFI There is genetic variation in RFI and it is moderately heritable Progeny of cattle selected for low RFI consume less feed at the same level of growth On low quality pastures, cattle selected for low RFI will exhibit higher growth rates Low RFI cattle remain efficient throughout their life Low RFI cattle have a strong genetic correlation only with feed intake Genetic improvement in feed efficiency can be achieved by selection for low RFI Review by Paul Arthur

17. Why are the opportunities to improve feed efficiency greater now than ever before? GrowSafe system Ultrasound Net Feed Efficiency

18. Angus Project High use Angus Bulls bred to commercial SimAngus cows Goal of 15-20 progeny per bull Complete measurements Heifer mates evaluated on a high forage diet

19. Data Collected All standard performance information Individual feed intake, efficiency and RFI All standard carcass measurements Serial ultrasound and hip height Chute exit speed (behavior) DNA (blood) collected on every animal

20. 2007 Study Three diets varying in starch level Early weaned calves (85 days) Base price $83.35 Five year average grid

21. Feedlot Performance SireRFIF/GDMIADGNo. A-.584.5317.93.9523 B-.424.6518.23.9119 C-.104.4217.83.8517 D.104.7818.13.7827 E.124.7417.73.7323 F.954.9617.93.6118

22. Carcass Data SireHCW Value $ REABFMarb A835114414.5.61547 B866122613.9.61586 C821117414.0.59608 D833123114.8.68622 E789112213.6.73612 F772107813.6.59579

23. Comparing RFI Sire Grain RFI Forage RFI A-.58-.18 B-.42-.03 C-.10-.46 D.10.44 E.12.29 F.95.00

24. Angus Bulls (2008 data)

25. Feedlot Performance SireRFIF/GDMIADGNo. A -1.184.8620.94.305 B -0.985.4521.03.854 C -0.905.2022.34.318 D -0.695.2621.74.157 E -0.555.2022.04.249 F -0.275.2822.74.3015 G -0.185.2024.54.738 H -0.165.4823.04.237

26. Feedlot Performance SireRFIF/GDMIADGNo. I -0.105.3223.04.368 J 0.025.3623.44.3811 K 0.135.3122.84.3020 L 0.135.2922.14.1810 M 0.385.3323.74.4411 N 0.635.5923.34.203 0 0.745.5023.74.328 P 0.855.6123.64.2412

27. Carcass Data SireHCW Value $ REABFMarb A 78699612.20.66540 B 79796812.90.64480 C 850103912.50.75583 D 808100312.40.66589 E 814103112.10.73671 F 836105412.40.66632 G 915110913.50.72621 H 84897911.40.74552

28. Carcass Data SireHCW Value $ REABFMarb I 83896911.60.76595 J 857103112.10.79658 K 81796011.70.77523 L 78599212.30.63595 M 847109013.20.69613 N 823100012.30.66515 O 834102112.30.82649 P 82399312.20.71568

29. Comparing RFI Sire No. on Grain Grain RFI Forage RFI No. on Forage A 5-1.18 -.124 B 4-0.98 -.3312 C 8-0.90.882 D 7-0.69 -.287 E 9-0.55 -.358 F 15-0.27.788 G 8-0.18 -.388 H 7-0.16 -.524

30. Comparing RFI Sire No. on grain Grain RFI Forage RFI No. on Forage I 8-0.10.3810 J 110.02.9312 K 200.13 -1.0612 L 100.13.184 M 110.38.215 N 30.63.035 O 80.74 -.475 P 120.85.614

31. Forage Intake Measure voluntary forage intake of purebred heifers as cows (5 two week long observations throughout the yearly cycle) Relate this to RFI on forage as heifers and to RFI of steer mates

32. Variation in Heifer Intake T008 weighed 1360 lbs and ate 38.3 lb/d (2.8% BW) T032 weighed 1357 lb and ate 53.5 lb/d (3.9% BW) T073 weighed 1359 lb and ate 30.1 lb/d (2.2% BW) T007 weighed 1529 lb and ate 47.5 lb/d (3.1% BW) T106 weighed 1020 lb and ate 48.6 lb/d (4.8% BW)

33. Assessment of US Cap and Trade Proposals MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Paltsev et al., 2007 (Report No. 146)

34. Proposals There is a wide range of proposals in the US congress that would impose mandatory controls on green house gas emissions yielding substantial reductions in us greenhouse gas emissions relative to a projected reference growth. The scenarios explored span the range of stringency of these bills.

35. Pricing of CO 2 Equivalents (metric ton) Economy wide Cap –In 2015 prices for three cases are $18, $41 and $53 –In 2050 prices for three cases would reach $70, $161, and $210 Agricultural, Households, Services excluded –In 2015 prices for the three cases are $14, $31 and $41 –In 2050 prices for the three cases would reach $54, $121, and $161

36. Three Ways to Reduce Methane Emissions From Beef Cattle Manipulate the diet Use genetic selection to improve efficiency Reduce the life cycle of the animal

37. Dietary Factors Level of feed intake Type of carbohydrate in the diet Feed processing Adding lipid to the diet (Alberta Protocol) Alterations of rumen fermentation with products like ionophores

38. Level of Intake Higher the level of intake higher the rate of methane production –Limit feeding –Programmed feeding –RFI –Manure production is related to intake

39. Type of Diet High grain diets produce less methane High forage diets produce more methane

40. Feed Additives to Reduce Methane Ionophores –Not a change in practice for the feedlot industry –Could be a change for the cow/calf industry Essential Oils (Calsamiglia et al., 2007 JDS)

41. Genetic selection to Improve Efficiency

42. RFI on Methane Production Ten high and low RFI steers were selected out of 76 steers to evaluate Methane production Steers with the lowest RFI emitted 25% less methane daily When expressed per unit of ADG the reduction was 24% Hegarty et al., 2007

43. RFI on Methane Production Twenty seven steers were selected out of 306 based on their RFI (high, medium and low) Methane production was 28 and 24% less in the low RFI animals compared with high and medium RFI animals Nkrumah et a., 2006

44. Bull Selection for RFI Using high efficiency bulls will allow producers to capture carbon credits Initially direct measurement of bulls will be the only means of evaluating efficiency Breed Associations are currently compiling information on feed intake and efficiency of bulls and may develop EPD in the near future Phenotypes and genotypes are being evaluated to develop genetic markers to predict efficiency of cattle

45. Reduce the Life Cycle of the Animal This has the largest potential reduction in methane production

46. Beef Life Cycle (Alberta Protocol) Beef cattle in Canada are slaughtered at 18 months of age (range of 14-21 months) Must prove that a change has occurred (reduced age) relative to practices in the baseline (before project) conditions

47. Challenges Size of cow/calf operations Documenting ration changes Documenting baseline data

48. Days on feed (Alberta Protocol) Must prove that a change has occurred (less days) relative to practices in the baseline (before project) conditions Attained by placing heavier cattle This system actually increases methane emissions throughout the life cycle (but reduces methane in the finishing as documented)

49. Methods to Reduce the life Cycle Creep feeding Early weaning Feeding higher energy diets –Reduces intake which decreases methane production –High concentrate diets reduce methane production –Increases rate of gain (reduced age at slaughter) –Improves efficiency in the feedlot

50. Verification Independent third party verification will be required to generate carbon credits Process verified programs could expand to fill this role Entities to aggregate and market the credits will need to be developed Potential returns are large Producers need to document current practices to get carbon credits for making changes

51. Other Related Carbon Credit Sources Anaerobic digesters Rangeland management Manure reduction No-till

52. Value of Credits Unlike land based carbon credits which are stored in the soil and are reemitted with practice change, those generated from cattle are permanent Larger amounts of credits are worth more per unit –Advantage for large operations like feedlots

53. Conclusions There is potential to create carbon credits through beef production practices There are challenges in documenting the changes, aggregating the credits and marketing the credits Potential returns are large It is important to document current production practices

54. Questions?