Youth Ranch Management Camp (YRMC) spans five intense days where 30 youth, ages 15 to 19, discover what it takes to own or manage a beef cattle operation. This was no ordinary camp with crafts or canoeing. To watch the full presentation and view the data charts, visit the Beef Improvement Federation website.Photo credit: NMSU Youth Ranch Management Camp StaffĮven though she comes from five generations of ranching, Cheyanne Carlisle had no idea of the financial difficulties of sustaining a ranch until she went to camp. So what is selected for on the cow-calf side can really influence some post-weaning performance as well, he said. Mulliniks went on to explain that offspring from high-milking animals have increased requirements, increased organ mass and size, and with that, an increase in energy requirement and a decrease in feedlot efficiency. Lastly, how does this fit into the feedlot? Referring to data out of Nebraska and Tennessee that looked at low, moderate and high milk potential in feedlot performance, Mulliniks pointed out that offspring from lower milking animals are a little more efficient from a growth aspect post-weaning than their counterparts. We’ve really got to focus on the resources we have and selecting animals that fit best within that season.” Feedlot performance “It’s the same environment, it’s just forage quality is driving some of these differences between March and May calving. So the cow that would fit this May-calving herd would be totally different then the type of cow that would fit that March-calving herd due to the forage quality difference,” he said. “When we look at a May-calving herd, we look at cows that before we even get into the breeding season in August, who are already in a negative energy balance. He attributes this to the level of milk production and when the cows are lactating. For example, in Nebraska with mostly spring- and summer-calving herds, Mulliniks will often get calls from producers with lower pregnancy rates or strung-out calving seasons. “This could be driving longevity, especially for a young female,” he said.Īnother thing to pay attention to, is the energy balance at calving. Data from New Mexico shows that more than 14 pounds of milk puts cows at a disadvantage to cycle and breed in time. One of the reasons for this lower pregnancy rate, Mulliniks said, could be the resumption of estrus. When you get over that, you are going to start to decrease reproductive efficiency driven by this reproductive response.” Mulliniks said, “If you couple this reproduction response back to calf weaning weight, the optimum cow in this more higher-quality environment in Tennessee would be a cow that produced 20 to 22 pounds of milk at peak lactation. Referring to another study out of Tennessee that looked at 237 spring-calving Angus cows, fed a high-quality forage diet from calving through breeding, researchers found the cows started to lose reproductive efficiency at about 24 to 26 pounds of milk. Pressure on milk selection can have a negative effect on reproductive efficiency, Mulliniks said. We may be weaning more calf, but we are not weaning more total pounds of production due to that pregnancy rate, and it’s costing us more to get there,” he said. “When you look at that from a complete production standpoint, by selecting for increased growth and increased milk, we’re really not getting that out from an entire production system. And New Mexico had a lower cost of production at about $300 to $400 less.Tennessee cows had a 44% retention rate at 5 years of age, while New Mexico cows had 61%.Tennessee cows had an 88% pregnancy rate, while New Mexico cows had 96%. Tennessee cows weighed 1,500 pounds and New Mexico cows weighed 1,100 pounds.Tennessee cows had 25 pounds of calf weaned per 1 pound of milk, while New Mexico cows had 43 pounds of calf weaned per 1 pound of milk.There was about a 50-pound difference in calf weaning weight on average, so it’s not really an efficient system in selecting for more milk to get a higher calf weaning weight,” Mulliniks said. “When we looked at 24-hour milk production in these cows, we go from 24 pounds at peak lactation in Tennessee and 13 pounds at peak lactation in New Mexico. The cows in New Mexico had moderate growth, low milk potential, limited forage availability and lower feed input. The cows in Tennessee had high growth potential, high milk potential, high forage growth and high feed input. To give viewers a better idea on how much the environment influences genetics and productivity, Mulliniks compared milk production data from cows in Tennessee and New Mexico.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |