Improving Feed Efficiency through Genetic Selection and Management Strategies
to Improve Overall Herd Efficiency
Jon Wright (Coota Park Blue-E)
The theme for today’s seminar is “Efficiency of Production” and I have been invited to talk about our operation on
“Coota Park” at Woodstock near Cowra where we do feed conversion testing of our bulls. Without going into too
much detail about the calculations and research behind feed conversion, I will share what we have learnt from
working with feed conversion and explain various management strategies that may help to improve the overall
efficiency of your cattle enterprises.
At Coota Park we have developed a composite line of cattle on our property named the Blue-E’s, which is an Angus x
Shorthorn line of cattle (always 50% -50%), selected over time for feed conversion or efficiency. We chose this simple
composite program because of its:
1.
Recognition of the importance of marbling
2.
Ability to access genetics from large performance recording herds
3.
Desire for a multi-trait animal that would add to our client’s programs in a responsible and balanced way
4.
Acknowledging that it doesn’t matter which breed you choose but the animals you choose from within that
breed and then what selection strategy you use over time
We built a simple facility on the farm that enables us to record the daily intakes of each animal. At the end of the 70
day test we have feed consumed and weight gain, hence a feed conversion figure. This has enabled us to put feed
conversion into our selection when choosing our own herd sires and we provide this information to our clients at our
on property sale. Our bulls are sold with Net Feed Intake EBV’s (feed conversion EBV’s). We are the only herd in
Australia to do this.
We have tested over 750 Blue-E bulls over 31 tests. The purpose of this testing is to not only produce highly efficient
steers but to breed highly efficient cows in the paddock. In most breeding herds it is the cost of feeding the cows year
after year that is the greatest expense.
Recent research has shown that identifying high efficiency young bulls tested in a post weaning test does produce
more efficient cows in the paddock.
We’ve been able to make good genetic progress over time and have become more and more passionate about what
this selection process offers our herd. Conducting a feed conversion test has the advantages of:
 Identifying bulls superior for Net Feed Intake and Gross Feed Conversion
 Identify bulls superior for growth with a greater expression of the variation between animals. (Average gain
in test is about 2 kg/day)
 Identify animals intake levels relative to growth and hence methane per unit protein
 Measuring EMA, Marbling, Rib and Rump Fat at the end of the test with a body condition that enables
expression of the variation possible between animals
 Having all animals on the same diet for a set period every year
 Making the animals very quiet
 Giving a kick start to weaner bulls
 Some reduction in feed usage in the paddock
We were fortunate enough to have an Adelaide University student Jen Cooke do her master’s degree on our data
under the scrutiny of Assoc Prof Wayne Pitchford. Her analysis has shown the following changes within our herd.
Table 1
Table 1 (left) shows the change in Net Feed Intake EBV we
have seen over the past 12 years.
Remembering we did not select only for feed conversion
but used a multi-trait selection. We had no way of
identifying high efficiency Angus sires coming into our
program. It has been a complete lottery when choosing
Angus AI sires in how their progeny will perform for feed
conversion. There have been some good sires but some
very bad sires as well, many of which are very widely used
AI sires. The variation within the cattle population is extraordinary. The real challenge for any seed stock producer is
to identify those factors that are important to your own herd and your client’s bottom line. At Coota Park the
emphasis we put on the different factors that influence profitability are (in priority order):
1.
Fertility
2.
Feed Conversion
3.
Growth
4.
Marbling
5.
Muscularity
6.
Structural soundness.
Table 2
Table 2. (left) to the left shows the changes we have made by
selecting for feed conversion. Our cattle are growing faster,
eating less and converting better. Adelaide University’s
investigations have shown we have achieved about a 3%
change in our feed conversion over the past 12 yrs. This may
not appear on face value to be much but to put in perspective
the Angus breed as a whole have achieved an 8% change in
growth over 18 yrs, noting the size of the Angus breed
internationally and the fact that they have had accurate EBV’S
for growth as a selection tool from the start. This change
within the Angus breed is fantastic and probably a lot better
than any other breed.
Table 3
Table 3 (left) It is very important for us to take a multi-trait
approach to our program which slows the genetic gains we
could have achieved for each individual trait. Recognising our
obligation to our clients’ long term profitability we wanted to
move the other production traits in the right direction whilst
improving feed conversion. The table 3 shows the gains we
have made in these other important production areas. Whilst
improving feed conversion we have improved our marbling,
increased eye muscle area and decreased our fat. We do need
to keep an eye on our fat measurements over time so as not to
sacrifice fertility.
Table 4
Table 4 (left) But the most important thing we needed to ensure
was that we did not sacrifice our fertility along the way (as
demonstrated in table 4) and in fact we have been able to
improve our fertility at the same time.
As an industry overview we need to understand that genetic
progress in this area of feed efficiency is totally in the hands of
the seed stock producers.
Commercial producers at this stage can’t identify animals that are
superior for feed conversion. It is a relatively expensive trait to
identify and many stud produces have been using this as an excuse
not to test. There are many studs that have been experiencing
incredible success after many years of hard work and dedication
but in my opinion, many can now afford to test and have a responsibility to their clients to start providing this
information. The reality is the advantages they will experience in their own herds will be extremely worthwhile.
I think it is very important for us to recognise the impact that our industry has with regard to carbon emissions via
methane. High feed converting animals produce less methane per unit protein generated, compared to low efficiency
animals. Being proactive as an industry and trying to reduce our impact will be perceived as a positive thing by the
rest of the community.
Table 5
Feed conversion is all about saving feed and increasing
production. To really recognise the value of saving feed in our
grass fed systems we have to work out what a kilogram of
grass is worth. This is not easy but is essential to do. If our
cattle convert better we have grass left in the paddock so what
could we achieved with that grass? If the grass was still in the
paddock and we put a backgrounding steer onto it, how much
money could we make? Assuming we get paid $1.00 for each
kilogram we put on and our steer grows at 0.7 kg per day. The
steer is, on average 400 kg whilst on our property. If the steer
eats 2.5% of its body weight each day we can calculate that our
steer will eat 14.3 kg per day for which we get paid $1.00.
Hence our grass is worth $0.07 cents per kilogram. If you do
this calculation yourself, you will see that if your grass can only
achieve lower weight gains then your grass is not worth as
much ie 0.5kg/day gain means grass is worth $0.05 cents.
Income
$1.00 Kg gain
Average daily gain
0.7 Kg per day
Days
1.4per Kg
Steer eats
2.5% of body weight per day
Steer weight
400 Kg
Steer eats
10 Kg per day
Therefore
14.3 Kg of feed per Kg gain
Therefore $1.00 for
14.3 Kg eaten
Value of your grass
$0.07
This is just a simple method and the values of this calculation may vary in different situations but it is an easy way to
calculate a value for grass. If you can get better weight gains or return more than $1 per kg gain (which many can do)
then your grass is worth more. If your animals eat less than 2.5% per day (ie have better feed conversion) then again
your grass is worth more.
To predict what improving feed conversion in our whole herd can achieve in dollar terms is now possible. I have just
used our own numbers from Coota Park for this purpose.
Table 6
Category
Cow
No
500
Wt (kg)
550
Intake per animal
(2.5% of body
weight)/day
13.7
Calves
Heifer
Steer
Bulls
480
150
150
80
250
400
425
650
6.2
10
10.6
16.2
Total
1360
Kg of
feed/year
5019
Tons of feed
/animal/year
5.0
Total tons of
feed/herd/year
2509
3%
change
in intake
75
Annual cost
per animal
@$.07/kg grass
$351
2281
3650
1275
5931
2.3
3.7
1.3
5.9
1095
548
191
475
33
16
6
14
$160
$256
$89
$415
4818
145
Table 7
We see that Coota Park has 1360 cattle, we worked on an average
weight of the animal for the year and that they consume 2.5% of their
body weight each day. Our herd consumes 4818 tons of feed per year.
If we have reduced their intake by 3% whilst maintaining growth then
we saved 145 tons of feed each year. From our previous calculation
we said our grass is worth $0.07, hence $10,150 more income we could make from the grass we saved.
Tons of feed saved/tons
Cost of grass
Feed cost saved/year
Big square bales (400kg bale)
145
0.07
$10,117
361
Another way to look at it is, if we have saved 145 tons of feed and put that amount in terms of big square bales (400kg
bale) of hay, then we have 362 bales available to us. We save that every year and as we improve our conversions we
will increase that amount.
Changing our focus from the genetics of efficiency to whole herd
550kg cow will consume 13.75kg per day
efficiency allows us to look at management strategies that could affect
our feed usage and hence our profitability. We should look at the feed conversions of our non - lactating pregnant
cows. If you are practicing early weaning you could have this class of cattle for up to 5-6 months of the year. The
conversion of a cow in this period of time is 1 to infinity ie, whatever she eats has no weight gain related to it. If we
allow a cow to eat as much as she likes, she will consume 2.5% of her body weight.
A cow will maintain (ie stay at the same body weight and condition
550 kg cow will maintain on 6.6kg feed per
score) and continue her pregnancy if she is fed at maintenance or a bit
day (over half the amount).
over, let’s say 1.2% of her body weight. Remember this will vary
according to the quality of the grass available. (Increases as we move toward calving).
Our replacement heifers can fall into this category as well. (Depending on the growth potential of your herd and
calving risk).
We should never ever compromise the ability of our females to get in calf, but once in calf, they fall into a completely
different category. The table below shows at Coota Park how restriction on cows for 6 months and heifers for 6
months can affect our overall feed requirements.
Table 8
Category
Cow
Calves
Heifer
Steer
Bulls
Number
500
480
150
150
80
Total
1360
Wt
550
250
350
425
650
Intake per cow 2.5% day for
1/2 year and 1.2% for other
9.9
6.3
6.3
10.6
16.3
Kg of feed/year
3614
2281
2300
1275
5931
Ton/year
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.3
5.9
Total herd/year
1807
1095
345
191
475
3912
Table 9
Total herd intake when unrestricted.(from table 6)
Difference
Cost of grass
Feed cost saved/year
Big square bales (400kg bale)
4818
906
$0.07
$63,364.00
2264
Tons
Tons
Cents
Bales
Over 900 tons of feed a year or $63,000 of grass
This is certainly the extreme end of what can be achieved but if
you only achieve half or quarter of this amount it is still significant.
How to do this is challenging. Restricting intake out in the paddocks is difficult without doing any damage to our
pastures. Putting animals in big numbers in smaller paddocks we know can reduce performance; this is probably
because of reduced intakes. Think of ways you can work towards achieving this as the rewards are enormous, just
being aware will help change your management. Having our cows on lower value grass is one way. If you are in an
area where your grass is worth $0.07/kg or more, this has some real advantages.
Conclusion
 We now know that selecting for feed conversion is possible in an on farm situation. It does have costs but
the rewards to the seed stock producer and their clients’ are enormous.

Recognising that your grass has a value and that reducing your usage will give you grass to use at a later stage
or will ensure you hit the next drought at a later stage.

Coota Park’s gains have been fantastic but due to our multi-trait selection program and the fact that we had
no other herds to access superior feed conversion genetics from, means that in the future our gains could be
been even greater.

To understand the feed requirements of each individual class of stock and how best to allocate that feed can
provide the opportunity for huge feed savings and a better overall herd efficiency.
So much of our industry research has taken so long to be adopted. We now see how Breedplan and EBV’s are widely
adopted and when used sensibly as an aid to selection, can enable producers to make real production gains.
MSA is now a common term we hear and see in our beef retailers. It is used in marketing to promote quality in our
beef product. MSA evolved from research that was conducted over 20 years ago and only now is it part of our
everyday language. Feed conversion and the benefits that can evolve from selecting for this trait are yet to be
realised and the impact that it can have on our industry in the future is enormous. Being able to select animals that
produce more protein and energy per unit input, whilst also being able to select animals that may potentially reduce
our industry’s impact on the climate, will ensure that the genetic trait that is feed conversion will have a crucial part to
play in our industry’s future.