An example of cooperation within the
R&D community
Emma Sanne (emma.sanne@idele.fr)
Bernard Sepchat (bernard.sepchat@clermont.inra.fr)
Pascal D’Hour (pascal.dhour@clermont.inra.fr)
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
October 30th 2013
1
Part 1
The two players
and their research topics
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
2
Beef researches in Inra
Clermont-Ferrand
Mains objectives :
•
•
•
Adaptative capacities of beef cows
Optimisation of beef production efficiency
and meat quality
Technical and economic performances of
commercial beef farms in grassland areas
Facilities :
• 200 suckler cows (Charolaise,
Salers)
• 120 fattening young cattle (bull,
steer, females)
• Slaughter house
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
3
The French Livestock Institute
A specialised R&D organization
Knowledge for competitiveness in herbivorous livestock farming and value chains
GENETICS
HUSBANDRY &
ENVIRONMENT
FARM &
PRODUCT
QUALITY
ECONOMICS
FARMERS &
SOCIETY
LIVESTOCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS
FARMING SYSTEMS & NETWORKS
• Control of production costs
–
–
–
–
Self-sufficiency in feed
Low cost production techniques
Feed efficiency
Animal productivity
Examples of projects:
-Feed self-sufficiency in cattle in France
-CAP’ECO: tool to compute life weight
production and feed and breeding costs
-BEEFALIM: feed efficiency in cattle
-REPROSCOPE: benchmarking of breeding
performances according to the system
-BEEF BOX: young bulls growth simulator
• Systems reassurance
-Inter-annual variations in forages production
-SALENPRO: trade-off production/environment,
multi-criteria analysis
-…
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
4
– Tools for farms to adapt to unforeseen
events
– Compromise production / environment
Part 2
The Joint Technological Unit (JTU)
« SAFE »
SAFE
Systèmes Allaitants
Fourrages Environnement
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
5
The JTU « SAFE »
suckling systems, forages and environment
Purposes
Topic
SAFE
Systèmes Allaitants
Fourrages Environnement
•To strengthen partnership and
collaborations in between the 2
institutes
•Hub of skills and knowledge on beef,
sheep and horses productions
•To secure suckling systems in response to:
•Volatility in inputs costs
•Increase in unforeseen events
•Social demand
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
6
The JTU « SAFE »
SAFE
Research topics
Systèmes Allaitants
Fourrages Environnement
Area of
expertise
Field of action
Scale/level
Efficiency
Forages
production
Pasture
Livestock
Animal
(beef, sheep,
horses)
Herd
Resistance to
unforeseen events
Environmental
impacts
Fodder system
Projects
Husbandry
Systems
Farm
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
7
The JTU « SAFE »
SAFE
Means
Systèmes Allaitants
Fourrages Environnement
•Combined means :
–~14.5 FTE / 27 scientists
–Databases and models
–Commercial farms networks
–Experimental facilities networks
•5 beef experimental farms
•3 in sheep
•1 in horses
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
8
The beef experimental facilities network
Purposes
to develop a shared expertise to help in
devising and handling applied research in beef
Experimental
methods and
procedures
Shared
expertise
Herd
management
Technological
surveillance
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
9
The beef experimental facilities network
Farms location and characteristics
« Mauron »
Bretagne
62 ha- 250 places in finishing
Breeds: meat and dairy
System: finisher
« Thorigné d’Anjou »
Maine et Loire
125ha - 68 cows- 50 LU fattening
Breed: Limousine
System: CCBF, organic
« Etablières »
Vendée
140ha- 120 cows- 200 YB
Breed: Charolaise
System: CCBF
Inra Laqueuille
« Jalogny »
Saône et Loire
215ha -140 cows - 50 YB
Breed: Charolaise
System: CCBF
Puy de Dôme
200 cows
450 ha (1000-1500 m a.s.l.)
Breeds : Charolaise, Salers
System : CC+ 120 BF with Inra-Theix
managed by a farmer board
in collaboration with
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
CCBF: cow-calf and beef finishing
YB: Young bulls
10
NEOBIF: innovative finishing
schemes in young bulls
from the suckling herd
Farm
2012
To identify new
diets
Technical,
economical and
env. benchmarks
• Supply chain stakeholders interviews
• Knowledge on feed available in regions
• Set up diets
• Trials in exp. farms
• Economical simulations
• Life cycle analysis
(and types of
animals)
Jalogny
(YB – Charolais)
Etablières
• School farms
• Supply chain stakeholders interviews
Sorghum
silage
Wrapped
grass
Grass silage
(YB – Charolais)
Mauron
(YB – Limousin
+ Charolais)
Implementation
and stakeholders
opinions
2014
Diet
Legumes
(alfafa hay +
red clover)
INRALaqueuille
Maximize
grass (fresh +
(Steers – Salers) stocked)
+ diffusion of results
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
11
Our perspectives,
to enhance exchanges and discussions at an European scale
Thank you for your attention
International Beef Cattle Workers Group
12
Milk and concentrate intakes in Salers calves
modify body composition at weaning and
next feeding efficiency during finishing
Sepchat, B., Garcia-Launay, F., Cirié, C., Egal, D. and Agabriel, J.
INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
INRA, UE1296 Monts d’Auvergne, F-15190 Marcenat, France
INRA, UE1296 Monts d’Auvergne, F-63820 Laqueuille, France
ALIMENTATION
AGRICULTURE
ENVIRONMENT
+40% of concentrate (kg/year)
on Charolais farms
since 1990
Veysset, Lherm et al. 2005 and pers. com.
Concentrate supply
on suckling Salers farms
Salers cow / Milk
production
3000kg/lactation
1. How ratios milk/forage/concentrate before weaning modify:
growth
body and carcass composition
feeding efficiency
2. and what are the residual impacts during fattening?
Experimental design : 2 series, n1=18, n2=30
Age
3 Months
Growth
under mother
9 months
weaning
Fattening
16-17 months
Control
n=16
Concentrate
n=16
Milk
N=16
2 sucklings under mother / day + Hay ad libitum
1 suckling / day
0.5 to 5 kg/d
(more)
of concentrate
under a dairy cow
n=9
n=9
n=9
4.5 to 6.5 kg Concentrate/animal/d
Hay of permanent grassland ad libitum
Milk intake
Age
(milk = +900kg)
Milk
Milk :
Control :
1893±125.1 a
996 ±125.1 b
Concentrate : 1013±125.1 b
 additional suckling /dairy cow = 900 kg more milk drunk at weaning
 Calves can drink more milk, only dams milk production is limiting
The feeding treatments
resulted in different growth trajectories
Live weight (kg)
Before weaning
ive Weight (kg) 700
Fattening
1.48 kg/d a
1.45 kg/d a
1.18 kg/d c
600
500
Milk:
Concentrate:
400
Control:
Age
at slaughter
(months)
1.38 kg/d ab
1.26 kg/d bc
1.30 kg/d b
300
200
16.0 b
16.4 b
17.3a
100
80
180
Concentrate
280
Control
380
Milk
480
Age (calendar days)
Different evolutions of average daily gains between weaning and
fattening for the three groups
Body composition
Weaning
Control
Concentrate
Milk
Carcass Weight (kg)
180±6.3b
224±6.3a
220±6.7a
Body composition at a same EBW (315kg)
Liver (kg)
3.9±0.15b
4.5±0.14a
3.9±0.12b
Non-Carcass fat (kg)
6.7±0.41c
11.7±0.41a
8.8±0.41b
Carcass composition at a same CW (208 kg)
Muscles (kg)
143±1.4a
138±1.3b
143±1.1a
Carcass fat (kg)
24.4±1.19b
31.5±1.16a
26.8±0.77b
365±6.3b
393±5.2a
401±5.1a
Slaughter
Carcass Weight (kg)
Different profile in AA between milk and concentrate (Labussière et al. 2009)
Viscera development / maintenance requirements
Conclusions
 With 2000 kg of milk ingested, calves had an ADG of 1500 g/d
before weaning without concentrate supplementation.
 A diet before weaning favoring milk and forage compared with
concentrate provided comparable carcasses.
 Higher feeding efficiency in the milk group with a residual effect
during early fattening.
 Animals supplemented with milk deposited more protein than
animals supplemented with concentrate.
 Gross margin per animal of Concentrate group was lower than
Milk (-100 €) and Control (-85 €) groups.
M EE NN TT AA TT II OO NN
AA LL II M
Garcia-Launay F., Sepchat B., Cirie C., Egal D. & Agabriel J., 2011..
62th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal
Production (EAAP). Stavanger, 17. p.220.
AA GG RR II CC UU LL TT UU RR EE
M EE NN TT
EE NN VV II RR OO NN M