Schu-Lar 2021 Born Bulls Feed Test Results

Werner Feed Efficiency Testing Center 1954 180th Street Diagonal, IA 50845

Lot # 1 2 3 15 4 5 9 17 6 12 7 8 13 11 10 14 N/A

Ear Tag 6J 101 13J 49J 23J 14J 31J 56J 102 4J 103 28J 36J 2J 34J 46J 26J

Feed Cost per Pound of Gain ($0.125/lb. DM) 0.593 0.595 0.599 0.649 0.654 0.654 0.661 0.706 0.719 0.774 0.774 0.793 0.795 0.825 0.840 1.024 1.191

Avg Min Max

0.756 0.593 1.191

Cost of Cost of 12/3/21 2/15/22 Gain x Gain RADG RFI Start End 600 lbs. Rank RADG Rank RFI Rank Wt. Wt. $355.50 1 0.64 1 -0.25 10 861 1203 $357.00 2 0.47 4 -1.56 3 826 1146 $359.25 3 0.54 2 -0.26 9 792 1127 $389.25 4 -0.12 10 -3.11 1 715 976 $392.25 5 0.39 5 -0.69 7 652 942 $392.25 6 -0.02 9 -0.03 11 804 1114 $396.75 7 0.50 3 -1.10 6 677 960 $423.75 8 0.18 8 1.84 15 720 1026 $431.25 9 -0.31 13 3.01 16 809 1127 $464.25 10 -0.15 12 -1.44 4 681 917 $464.25 11 -0.36 14 -1.61 2 846 1090 $475.50 12 0.22 7 -0.45 8 711 956 $477.00 13 -0.52 15 -1.16 5 775 1014 $495.00 14 -0.13 11 0.23 12 838 1086 $504.00 15 0.28 6 1.80 14 712 969 $614.25 16 -0.81 17 4.21 17 726 960 $714.75 17 -0.81 16 0.57 13 730 902

Fat Raw Adj. ADG Cover DMI F:G F:G 4.69 0.33 25.0 5.32 4.74 4.38 0.31 22.6 5.16 4.76 4.59 0.37 23.5 5.12 4.79 3.58 0.29 17.8 4.98 5.19 3.97 0.33 19.4 4.89 5.23 4.25 0.42 23.5 5.54 5.23 3.87 0.25 19.4 5.02 5.29 4.20 0.42 23.6 5.63 5.65 4.36 0.54 26.8 6.15 5.75 3.23 0.24 18.3 5.67 6.19 3.35 0.23 21.6 6.46 6.19 3.36 0.17 20.1 5.99 6.34 3.27 0.29 20.6 6.29 6.36 3.40 0.21 23.4 6.87 6.60 3.52 0.22 22.6 6.41 6.72 3.21 0.43 24.9 7.76 8.19 2.35 0.17 20.2 8.62 9.53

$453.31 $355.50 $714.75

3.74 2.35 4.69

9 1 17

0.00 -0.81 0.64

9 1 17

0.00 -3.11 4.21

9 1 17

757 652 861

1030 902 1203

0.31 0.17 0.54

Bryce Schumann 785-424-0360 schumannb@hotmail.com E-mail: BonnieLarson10@gmail.com Fax: 641-464-0772

Page 1 of 1

22.0 5.99 6.04 17.8 4.89 4.74 26.8 8.62 9.53

Office: 641-344-8258 Clint: 641-344-1330 Joe: 641-344-4926

Feed Efficiency Defined RFI: residual feed intake, RFI is a measure of feed efficiency calculated as the difference between and animal’s actual feed intake and its predicted feed intake, for a given level of production. When RFI is used as a genetic selection tool, the resulting progeny will consume less feed for the same level of production. RFI is independent of growth, body size and other performance traits (Koch et al., 1963), selection for animals with low RFI will lead to reduced feed intake and improved feed efficiency without compromising body size, carcass quality or growth. Lower RFI values are more favorable, cattle with low RFI values are more efficient than cattle with high RFI values.

RADG: residual average daily gain, the difference between an animal’s actual weight gain and its predicted gain based on its dry matter intake, body weight maintenance and fat cover. Residual average daily gain puts each animal’s feed intake on the same playing field and looks at differences in average daily gain while RFI puts each animal’s growth and body size on the same playing field and looks at differences in feed intake. When selecting for RADG, cattle with higher values are more desirable than those with lower values, meaning that they had greater ADG for the same amount of feed.

DMI: dry matter intake, an animal’s average daily dry matter intake during test. DMI is dependent on the dry matter content of the ration fed during the trial period.

Raw F:G: feed to gain ratio, also referred to as feed conversion ratio (FCR). F:G ratio refers to the amount of feed consumed per unit of weight gain on a dry matter basis. A lower ratio is considered more favorable. While selection for F:G (FCR) results in animals that grow faster it is also associated with cattle that have a larger mature size.

Adj. F:G: adjusted feed to gain ratio, accounts for differences in animal age and size during test. This currently is the standard of feed conversion efficiency used by the Beef Improvement Federation. This value is the base F:G value multiplied by the contemporary group’s metabolic mid weight divided by the individual’s metabolic mid weight. A lower adjusted F:G ratio is more favorable.

Bryce Schumann 785-424-0360 schumannb@hotmail.com