Economic evaluation of beef cattle breeding schemes incorporating performance testing of young bulls for feed intake

Abstract

A model beef cattle breeding scheme consisting of a breeding unit and a commercial unit was used to evaluate the impact on genetic gain and profitability of incorporating feed intake measurements as an additional selection criterion in breeding programmes. Costs incurred by the breeding unit were compared with returns generated in the commercial unit, with bulls from the breeding unit being used as sires in the commercial unit. Two different market objectives were considered — a grass-fed product for the Australian domestic market, and a grain-fed product for the Japanese market. Breeding units utilising either artificial insemination or natural service were also considered. A base scenario was modelled incorporating a range of criteria available to Australian cattle breeders. A second scenario incorporated selection of sires for the breeding unit using a 2-stage selection process, with a proportion of bulls selected after weaning for measurement of (residual) feed intake. Measurement of feed intake of bulls improved accuracy of breeding unit sire selection by 14–50% over the equivalent base scenario, and genetic gain in the breeding objective was improved for all scenarios, with gains ranging from 8 to 38% over the base scenario. After accounting for the cost of measuring feed intake ($150–450), additional profit was generated from inclusion of feed intake measurement on a proportion of bulls for all breeding schemes considered. Profit was generally maximised where 10–20% of bulls were selected at weaning for measurement of intake, with improvement in profit ranging from 9 to 33% when optimal numbers of bulls were selected for intake measurement.

Effects of genotype and plane of nutrition on growth and carcass characteristics of lambs from hill sheep systems

“…There were no statistically significant differences in RFI between the lamb genotypes, and for each lamb genotype a considerable range in RFI was found (Blackface, 20.33 to 10.19; Swaledale cross, 20.25 to 10.24; Cheviot cross, 20.30 to 10.21; Lleyn cross, 20.31 to 10.24; Texel cross, 20.20 to 10.19 kg DM/day). Archer et al (2004) concluded that profit was maximised when RFI measurement was included in beef cattle breeding schemes for the top 10% to 20% performance tested bulls. There may be scope for inclusion of (residual) feed intake into the selection objectives of terminal sire breeds to increase growth rate without increasing feed intake (Cammack et al, 2005).…”

Relationships between residual feed intake and feedlot performance, profitability, and carcass traits in Brahman cattle

“…These costs may be between 70 and 80% of the total costs of the breeding unit (Archer et al, 2004). Several authors have demonstrated the importance of RFI for decreasing these costs.…”

U.S. Beef Industry: A Sustainable Success Story, Challenges and Priorities

“…First there needs to be a major emphasis on reducing inputs both to ease pressure caused by competition for the cropland used to produce grain for human consumption and biofuel production but also to reduce the breakeven point for producers. Improving feed efficiency could improve long-term profitability for beef producers by as much as thirty-three percent [14]. However, to accomplish this, the molecular basis for feed efficiency needs to be established both in soft tissues of the carcass and in regions of the brain known to regulate satiety, metabolic rate and modulation of the somatotropic axis.…”