Stabilisers

[Top Tip.]

Only when all livestock can graze more then they wish to, as otherwise dlwg may indicate pushing another cow away from the best grazing.

It would still indicate the best converter in that group.

 

[HundyMundy]

Just need a Ritchie weighing water trough on my paddock grazing the now, grass is out of control definitely more grass in front of cattle than they can eat!

 

[M-J-G]

View attachment 1112071
Weighing feed consumed by individual housed animals identified by EID tag.
Not sure how that could be done in the context of the grazing platform.

From what I gather with a great enough level of difficulty that its not really being done at any significant level.
So far there is nothing to prove that efficiency in one is correlation to the other, despite it being touted as a way to breed cows that are easier to maintain.

 

[M-J-G]

Also, muscle is denser in weight than fat, but requires less calories to gain. I'd worry these trials would be favouring fast growing hard fleshing animals with high mature weights and low fat cover.

Not really what I'd be looking for in a maternal line.

It may also favour a thin skinned animal that would struggle on a winter outdoors on a mediocre diet but thrives well enough in a shed.

 

[unlacedgecko]

Just need a Ritchie weighing water trough on my paddock grazing the now, grass is out of control definitely more grass in front of cattle than they can eat!

I'll sell you one.

 

[Stuart J]

I'll sell you one.

Not like it?

 

[unlacedgecko]

Not like it?

Doesn't work for the mob size I have. Some individuals don't get the opportunity to drink. Best with 40 or less I think.

 

[shields kaiser]

Thought id help with a few of the posts about feed conversion and Stabilisers being measured for this, however this is not the case.
There are 2 measurements being spoken about in the posts - most sound like Feed conversion.

• Feed Conversion/Feed Conversion Efficiency/Feed Conversion Ratio (similar measurements) are measured as feed intake against liveweight gain. Usually the lower the number, the better the animal converts a foodstuff into liveweight. Breeding for animals with desired FCE can give you the best growth rates, therefore getting larger and larger animals, that eat larger and larger volumes of Dry Matter.

• Residual Feed Intake - this is what Stabiliser cattle are measured on. This is the difference in EXPECTED dry matter intake for the animals weight/size vs what the ACTUAL dry matter intake was. Therefore by using this measurement and EBV, you can choose to breed animals that will grow at a desired rate similar to the population.........however will do it by consuming less volume of Dry Matter Intake. The EBV figure is for LESS Kg's eaten (- ve) or MORE Kg's eaten (+ve).

I'm pretty sure Rawburn are measuring the same Residual Feed Intake (RFI) as the calculations are done through Growsafe in Canada who make the bins..
Also it was mentioned that a bull with low RFI ate more than a bull with a high RFI, but if both had been on an RFI test, i would seriously doubt this, UNLESS they were animals which had very low numbers of similar bloodlines tested, even then it would be strange to see one's intake jump up and another possibly fall from where they had been measured on trial.

RFI can only be measured within a population that have also been measured, so an untested animal may well eat less - and also another breed may eat less. If you believe in the science, all you can do is strive to drive this figure down by recording as many animals as possible - similar to what the pig and poultry industries have done for years. At some point you will hit a sweet spot before growth is inhibited.

On the question about inside feeding vs grazing - again as it is Residual Feed Intake measurement, the ration needs to be 1) the same level of energy (for a desired rate of growth) and 2) the same dry matter - therefore grass with altering energy and dry matter on an hourly basis can not be used. However an RFI EBV that shows LESS or MORE Dry matter eaten in a specific animal will also work on a grazing system, just that the animal will eat less or more volume of Dry Matter of Grass instead of a total mixed ration.

 

[shields kaiser]

Or to simplify it - Residual Feed Intake EBV will give you the animals which grow at the optimal rate, but by eating as little volume of Dry Matter as possible.

Also - I have called it Residual Feed Intake (RFI) - this is what i know it as, (the american name) in the UK it is called Net Feed Efficiency (NFE)

 

[S.Jamieson]

Or to simplify it - Residual Feed Intake EBV will give you the animals which grow at the optimal rate, but by eating as little volume of Dry Matter as possible.

Also - I have called it Residual Feed Intake (RFI) - this is what i know it as, (the american name) in the UK it is called Net Feed Efficiency (NFE)

Very comprehensive suss.

 

[M-J-G]

Thought id help with a few of the posts about feed conversion and Stabilisers being measured for this, however this is not the case.
There are 2 measurements being spoken about in the posts - most sound like Feed conversion.

• Feed Conversion/Feed Conversion Efficiency/Feed Conversion Ratio (similar measurements) are measured as feed intake against liveweight gain. Usually the lower the number, the better the animal converts a foodstuff into liveweight. Breeding for animals with desired FCE can give you the best growth rates, therefore getting larger and larger animals, that eat larger and larger volumes of Dry Matter.

• Residual Feed Intake - this is what Stabiliser cattle are measured on. This is the difference in EXECTED dry matter intake for the animals weight/size vs what the ACTUAL dry matter intake was. Therefore by using this measurement and EBV, you can choose to breed animals that will grow at a desired rate similar to the population.........however will do it by consuming less volume of Dry Matter Intake. The EBV figure is for LESS Kg's eaten (- ve) or MORE Kg's eaten (+ve).

I'm pretty sure Rawburn are measuring the same Residual Feed Intake (RFI) as the calculations are done through Growsafe in Canada who make the bins..
Also it was mentioned that a bull with low RFI ate more than a bull with a high RFI, but if both had been on an RFI test, i would seriously doubt this, UNLESS they were animals which had very low numbers of similar bloodlines tested, even then it would be strange to see one's intake jump up and another possibly fall from where they had been measured on trial.

RFI can only be measured within a population that have also been measured, so an untested animal may well eat less - and also another breed may eat less. If you believe in the science, all you can do is strive to drive this figure down by recording as many animals as possible - similar to what the pig and poultry industries have done for years. At some point you will hit a sweet spot before growth is inhibited.

On the question about inside feeding vs grazing - again as it is Residual Feed Intake measurement, the ration needs to be 1) the same level of energy (for a desired rate of growth) and 2) the same dry matter - therefore grass with altering energy and dry matter on an hourly basis can not be used. However an RFI EBV that shows LESS or MORE Dry matter eaten in a specific animal will also work on a grazing system, just that the animal will eat less or more volume of Dry Matter of Grass instead of a total mixed ration.

I didn't say the bull with the low RFI took less to keep it gowing, I said he and his progeny did very well on the hill farm that he was bought for, the high scored bull didn't do at all well.

Just because they did well in a shed doesn't mean they'll do well on a hillside

 

[shields kaiser]

Very comprehensive suss.

got carried away, sorry

 

[shields kaiser]

I didn't say the bull with the low RFI took less to keep it gowing, I said he and his progeny did very well on the hill farm that he was bought for, the high scored bull didn't do at all well.

Just because they did well in a shed doesn't mean they'll do well on a hillside

You said they were the opposite on what they were supposed to be - 1 was supposed to eat less than the other, how was that measured on the hill Farm?

If they do well in RFI in a shed, it means they will eat less dry matter on a hillside

 

[Top Tip.]

You said they were the opposite on what they were supposed to be - 1 was supposed to eat less than the other, how was that measured on the hill Farm?

If they do well in RFI in a shed, it means they will eat less dry matter on a hillside

On a hillside by its nature the quality of the feed is poorer so you are needing animals who will eat large amounts of dry matter so the animals that eat less are at a disadvantage.

 

[JHT]

60 stabiliser cows and calves for sale in Knighton market tomorrow. McCartneys.

 

[shields kaiser]

On a hillside by its nature the quality of the feed is poorer so you are needing animals who will eat large amounts of dry matter so the animals that eat less are at a disadvantage.

I quite agree, as with the other EBV's, its just one that can be used how you see fit

 

[M-J-G]

You said they were the opposite on what they were supposed to be - 1 was supposed to eat less than the other, how was that measured on the hill Farm?

The bull that was rated better turned out to be more difficult to keep and it showed on his progeny, which I'm guessing comes back to @unlacedgecko's point about weight favouring leaner types.

If they do well in RFI in a shed, it means they will eat less dry matter on a hillside

Where is that proven?
Because I have yet to see anyone prepared to stick their neck out and show me where that has been studied, I asked a Canadian friend who is involved with AA and they said that there is nothing to prove that studies done in a shed can be translated to a foraging animal.

Taking in less dry matter on a hillside is not usually a good thing.

 

[unlacedgecko]

The bull that was rated better turned out to be more difficult to keep and it showed on his progeny, which I'm guessing comes back to @unlacedgecko's point about weight favouring leaner types.


Where is that proven?
Because I have yet to see anyone prepared to stick their neck out and show me where that has been studied, I asked a Canadian friend who is involved with AA and they said that there is nothing to prove that studies done in a shed can be translated to a foraging animal.

Taking in less dry matter on a hillside is not usually a good thing.

Absolutely agree. With low quality forage intakes need to be a large as possible. Hence the massive guts on NZ Romney sheep etc.

 

[CiderJan]

All the feed efficiency trials I have looked into are feeding a decent tmr which is great if that's representative of your system, but what I think would be interesting is for them to use just average 10.5ME silage.

 

[ringi]

Would be also interesting have a EBV for the minimal cheap feed required to maintain condition over winter while housed.