DMI and F:G indexes on the feed efficiency-bull tests

Help Support Steer Planet:

aj

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
I was going through the Wedel Red Angus 16th annual bull and Replacement sale......here close to me. But he tests bulls on the GrowSafe intake data equipment. Anyway the index on the bulls include DMI ratios(dry matter intake) and F:G ratios. The less the bull eats is a better ratio in the DMI category and the F:G ratio is strictly a pounds per gain vs pounds eaten(feed efficiency). What is the the DMI ratio for? Is it a indicator of fleshing ability cause say a cow or steer eats less? The F;G ratio is fairly self explainitory but the DMI ratio kinda stumps me. All this stuff is new and maybe its all up in the air as far as economical traits are concerned. And all this data really muddies the water as far as simply valuing fast gaining cattle being the ones to value as premium. Any gurus out there. I know I have always questioned the value of feed efficiency of cattle in a feedlot test when it comes to selecting cows that can survive on a sawdust and sand diet. Thanks in advance.
 
aj

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
And as far as putting in one of those safe grow systems.....it would be a long term investment but can any serious breeder......breed.....go without one? After say 15 years of selection would this pay off and put a breeder in the drivers seat?
 
S

shortybreeder

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2015
Messages
476
The DMI could just be included to increase transparency, so buyers see all the numbers in the formula vs just the calculated totals. It would be most helpful when comparing across rations, because the F:G ratio is using pounds of feed (as fed) which includes moisture weight. For example, if you had a bull on a pure corn diet vs a bull on a pure sweet corn silage diet, the bull on corn would have a much higher F:G ratio because there is less moisture (12-15%) in the pounds of feed fed compared to sweet corn silage which I believe is like 20-30% moisture? But in the end, they should have similar DMI levels. If I had access to daily gain info and DMI levels, I think I'd use those numbers to compare the feed conversion ratios between two bulls on different diets, which is still imperfect due to nutrient differences in the two diets.

It could also be used as a tool to compare that bull test's program to other bull tests around the country to see where bulls are consuming the most dry matter.
 
aj

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
Thanks Bedrock and shortybreeder. If you had two pens of cattle and one pen was say 15% better in efficiency that would make a difference on the bottom line but I assume there is a ceiling on efficiency at some point. There is so much data to read in these catalogs its almost over whelming.
 
r.n.reed

r.n.reed

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
611
If they were able to get this feed efficiency testing down to a science it would be interesting to know if there was a correlation to the efficiency of the cow herd.
AJ, It is quite apparent that you are not talking about Shorthorn catalogs.I think some kind of a grading system that takes into account and scores the individual animal offered by the large data providers would be a no brainer.Once you figure out the scoring system pick a threshold grade and go from there.
Context is the most important criteria when evaluating the data,without it the numbers are meaningless.
 
B

bedrock

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
37
Leachman did a group of yearling heifers , bought them back in to retest as 3 year olds with calves on the side , was told they didnt change much if any on intake
 
r.n.reed

r.n.reed

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
611
I guess I was thinking one step further.Using AJ's example of a 15% range.How would the feed efficiency range from one end of the spectrum to the other effect the measures of cow efficiency like calving intervals,% body weight weaned, longevity,age of puberty etc.
 
B

bedrock

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
37
Look at Leachmans  $Profit figure , it takes everything into consideration,  thats part of why i believe they are 10-15 years ahead of the industry
 
r.n.reed

r.n.reed

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
611
Other than the corelation of the smaller lower a.d.g. steers in Hereford guys article having the highest Feed efficiency profit value and Leachman touting the smaller framed cow as the most profitable,I didn't find anything that mentioned the effect on the maternal traits I mentioned earlier. I would assume that most producers who know their costs have moderated their herds frame size so the question should be rephrased. Assuming that the test pen is made up of similar frame size bulls,will the most efficient F.E.I. bulls in the pen have heifer mates that are the most efficient producers maternally speaking or is the F.E.I.just another way to measure frame score.
 
aj

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
When I was a college boy in 1980 they were teaching how to set up indexes........maybe 4 indexes......birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, and marbling. If you think in terms of selecting......or more importantly culling......on indexes........and you now have indexes set up for 10 traits......how do manage this deal? I would think that maternal breeds would have to select for maternal traits.......mainly if you were going to make (so called) genetic process. Maybe select on indexes dealing with 5 traits........instead of 10 traits. That might mean culling everything that dropped below 100 on indexes......for replacement heifers? That would call for some gut wrenching culling decisions. I just think that it is interesting how breeders and breeds may have to position themselves.......in order to fill a market niche...or a market share. A maternal breed that prized itself on say winning weight per day of age contests would get blown out the market in the long run......15 years down the road.
 
HerefordGuy

HerefordGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
442
Location
Sturgeon, MO
aj said:
When I was a college boy in 1980 they were teaching how to set up indexes........maybe 4 indexes......birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, and marbling. If you think in terms of selecting......or more importantly culling......on indexes........and you now have indexes set up for 10 traits......how do manage this deal? I would think that maternal breeds would have to select for maternal traits.......mainly if you were going to make (so called) genetic process. Maybe select on indexes dealing with 5 traits........instead of 10 traits. That might mean culling everything that dropped below 100 on indexes......for replacement heifers? That would call for some gut wrenching culling decisions. I just think that it is interesting how breeders and breeds may have to position themselves.......in order to fill a market niche...or a market share. A maternal breed that prized itself on say winning weight per day of age contests would get blown out the market in the long run......15 years down the road.
Click to expand...
aj-
Not sure I understand your questions/comments completely.
Designing an economic selection index is quite complicated. Individual breeders really don't have the resources to do it properly. If a breeder sets up an index, it is really quite makeshift and crude (not to be offensive). To set up the correct weighting for each trait takes quite a bit of data and simulations.
Now, do we put all the traits in the index or only the traits we want to change? The indexes Mike MacNeil has designed puts all of the traits in the index, but some of the traits may have a very small weighting. The indexes used by Angus only put a subset of the traits in the index.

What trait should a producer be trying to optimize/maximize? I would argue, we should be selecting for profit. An economic selection index allows our breeding objective to be profit (not some suite of traits).
 
aj

aj

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,420
Location
western kansas
Well spoken. I would argue that a economic index would swing so wildly because corn may be valued at 3 dollar a bushel or at 8 dollars a bushel. How much of the breeds economic value index is based on feedlot performance? And how much of it is based on stayability of the cow line. If a breeder desired to make across the board improvement.......single indexes might allow him or her to throw out replacement type heifers that were below ave. in any trait. If a breeder would concentrate entirely on say 5 indexes......over a 20 year period......he would have one hell of a set of cows. They might never be rewarded financially because high maternal traits is a pretty boring subject.
 
B

bedrock

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
37
Bar C K in Oregon used just the simmental associations API index less then 10 years ce bw and all the simmental associations epds were balanced dont need 5 indexs just 1 if its the right one
 
HerefordGuy

HerefordGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
442
Location
Sturgeon, MO
bedrock said:
Bar C K in Oregon used just the simmental associations API index less then 10 years ce bw and all the simmental associations epds were balanced dont need 5 indexs just 1 if its the right one
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
B

bedrock

Active member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
37
Leachmans $ Profit a operation could build a awesome group of cows out of that index alone also
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top