March 2019 – Johann Zietsman’s Profitable Ranching

Mar

Nutritional adaptation is the overall most important attribute required by cattle.

The above photos epitomise overall adaptation and health. How can we see that? The shiny coat tells us everything:

Healthy immune system.
Body condition / nutritional adaptation.
Healthy endocrine system.

All of the above is the result nutritional adaptation resulting from:

Small frame.
Climatic adaptation.
Parasite / Disease resistance.
Voracious appetite.

The photos are from very different environments (Wessel Zietsman, Zimbabwe; Charlie Wilson, Eastern Cape highland sourveld in South Africa), but with a similar genotype – both animals have a high proportion of African breed blood.

I believe coat is the most important characteristic indicating overall adaptation and health. A lack of shiny summer coats on many animals in the USA indicates to me there is a problem with overall adaptation / inherent body condition. This can be rectified easily by incorporating appropriate African breed blood.

Mar

Bokdrolle is nie rosyntjies nie

Best translation: “Goat droppings will never turn into nuggets of gold”.

On the right is the calving record of the dam of a pedigree bull given the nod by “experts” for sale at an Elite Bull Sale. As you can see she dropped her 1st calf at the age of 65 months (5 years and 5 months) and produced 5 calves over 13 years. Surely by any logical standards this is a very poor cow (“goat droppings”) and not a gem (“nugget of gold”) as being portrayed.

Let’s leave the fantasy world of Stud Breeding and identify the real gems. In the picture on the right, the cow on the left calved at 2 plus 3 years. The cow on the right calved at 3 plus 5 years under the same conditions. We just need to use common sense to identify the the gems that can be found in all (or most) herds.

No amount of window dressing will change a “bokdrol” into a “rosyntjie”.

Mar

Are we mimicking Nature?

Are we mimicking Nature by grazing the “top third” or by preventing “overgrazing at all times?”

Similar scenes to that in the above photo of Wildebeest migrating over the plains of Western Zambia inspired Allan Savory to suggest that we have to replace cattle with wildlife in order to manage veld appropriately. Later, with the Non-Selective Grazing concept of John Acocks from South Africa he realized that cattle can be used in lieu of severe grazing wildlife. The problem that Savory encountered was the inability of ranchers to mimic the predator pry effect by implementing sufficiently high Stock Density. This was achieved on 12th January 1995 via portable electric fences.

I, and others, have made many mistakes since then due to the fact that we concentrated on managing for maximum grass growth at the expense of cattle body condition. It is variously suggested that we graze “selectively” or “only the top third”. This is NOT the answer.

If we consider the situation of grazing in nature, as depicted in the above photo we realise:

Impact is essential.
Overgrazing (repeated defoliation) does occur due to groups / herds of grazers that are territorial.

Therefore in managing for maximum sustainable profit / ha we have to keep the following in mind:

Maximum grass does not necessarily translate into maximum productivity, particularly on sourveld (low octane grazing). In such circumstances we have to shorten the recovery period at certain times to benefit body condition.
Non-Selectivity of grazing is essential in order to achieve efficient grass harvesting without negative changes in species composition.
A drought reserve is essential.
In arid environments high animal impact may not be required at every grazing. However, it is essential at periodic intervals.

Let’s use common sense in all our breeding and management decisions.

Mar

Fertility: Feeding or Breeding?

Fertility is determined by Body Condition and Hormonal Balance. Body Condition is determined by Genetics and Nutrition.
Increasing fertility through Selection is highly cost effective. Increasing fertility via supplementation is also cost effective, but only up to a point.

Is increasing calving rate from 80 pc to 90 pc through extra supplementation cost effective? That extra supplement required to allow an additional 10 pc cows to become pregnant is also fed to 80 pc of cows who do not require it. That extra 10 pc conception comes at too high a price.

Both cows pictured above are hormonally balanced (academically fertile). Only the cow on the left is practically fertile (hormonal balance and inherently good body condition. In order for the cow on the right to be able to calve annually she has to be subsidized by the cow on the left. Breed more cows like the one on the left and feed less cows like the one on the right.

Feed for 80 pc calving rate and breed for 100 pc calving rate.

Mar

The foundation of a veld productive animal is a high relative intake.

Inherent good Body Condition is the result of a high Relative Intake, an indicator of Grass Conversion Efficiency and the major determinant of a good Immune System as well as Practical Fertility.

Relative Intake is dependent on:

Frame Size. The smaller and heavier the better.
Climatic Adaptation.
Disease / Parasite Resistance.
Aggressive grazing behaviour.

Very simple. Why not more veld productive genotypes? Because:

Selection for absolute growth.
Selection for Feed Conversion “Efficiency”.

All “scientific” selection practices are negatively correlated to Inherent Body Condition and Practical Fertility. The quicker we can discard “Science” and start using Common Sense the better.

Mar

Consider the big picture and not detail

The top photo is that of a sub-fertile Afrikaner cow resulting from man selecting for specific details. Show judges and breed inspectors decided a bull must have a certain type of head / face (feminine). They also decided cows should have large humps. The result: effeminate bulls and masculine cows

The bottom photo is that of an extremely fertile Afrikaner cow (calved annually from the age of two years). The male equivalent is extremely masculine. This is the result of selecting directly for fertility (the bigger picture).

We must select directly for productivity without regard for detail that might , or might not, be related to productivity.
If the bigger picture is desirable then all the detail will also be desirable.

Mar

The difficult part of cattle breeding is that it so simple!

The magnificent Veldmaster bull pictured above and bred by Cas Breedt of South Africa is not the result of complicated “modern scientific” breeding. Nowhere did magical blood combinations (3/8 of this and 5/8 of that), EPDs, Genomics and blood cleansing rituals (F1 to F4 / SP) feature.

Science in the true sense of the word (“organised common sense”) was applied:

An acceptance that environment dictates genotype. Every environment requires a specific genotype.
Depending on environment, specific breed combinations will result in the most productive genotype.
There is so much variation within a breed that it is imperative to identify the the best individuals.
Once the desired combination (breeds; individuals) is attained (possibly the first cross) the herd is “closed” and natural selection accelerated. This entails “reading” Nature correctly (genetically discerning selection criteria) and accelerating the process (AI; Two-year calving).
The genetically discerning selection criteria emphasised were Corrected ICP (cow fertility) and Full Package / 12 Month Maturity (Bulls). This results in a positive genetic correlation with ALL other important traits.

What Cas achieved so simply is something too difficult for conventional “science”.

Mar

What is the biggest breakthrough in terms of resource management?

My answer, without any doubt, would be: Ultra High Density Grazing.

The principles involved as well as the consequences have forced us to look at our relationship with Nature through different eyes:

Soil health is critical for life.
Livestock are critical for soil management.
The appropriate genotype is determined by environment and not man.
At the micro level genetic diversity needs to be small. At the macro level genetic diversity needs to be high.
Diversity of life needs to be extremely high.
In terms of breeding and management we have to concern ourselves more with the bigger picture and less with detail.
Learning comes from observing.

These are biological facts pertaining to growth:

The faster an individual gains weight the more efficient the growth. This is determined by the total maintenance requirement relative to daily feed intake. At a growth rate of 0.1 kg / day 10!days of non productive maintenance is required to accumulate 1 kg gain. At a gain of 1.0 kg / day only 1 day’s maintenance is required. Management allowing a high daily intake / daily gain is essential. This is where supplemental feeding can be extremely effective / profitable.
At the same growth rate smaller animals are much more efficient than larger animals.
In order to be equally efficient animals have to grow in direct proportion to their size. Considering that frame size in any herd can vary by approximately 30 pc that means that the larger animals will have to grow 30 pc faster or weigh 30 pc more at any age.
Although animals have to grow in proportion to their size, they can not eat in priory to their size. Small frame animals, on average, are much more efficient and fatter than large frame animals. In cows this means that smaller cows are more fertile.

The above biological facts mean that we have to use relative growth and not absolute growth as a measure of grass conversion efficiency. All the conventional measures of growth / efficiency are genetically negatively correlated to Inherent Body Condition. All we are achieving with conventional selection is the breeding of animals that require improved nutrition in order to be “productive”.

We need to select for fullness of package / 12 month maturity.

Mar

“To be right we have to do the opposite of what is believed.”

Look at the accompanying table. Do these results support conventional wisdom? Quite the contrary. The breed that has been selected for negative “growth” (Lowline) is by far the most productive.

Some institutionalised “truths” that are false:

1. Performance tested breeds (“scientifically improved” breeds) are more productive.
Veld tests in Southern Africa prove the exact opposite. The so-called “unimproved” native breeds are far superior in terms of profit per unit of land.

2. Land degradation is caused by too many grazers.
The opposite is true. Land is degrading due to selective overgrazing by too few animals.

3. Lean animals are more efficient.
Fat genotypes are more grass efficient. Being fat they are more fertile and healthier.

4. Fertility is lowly heritable.
No, fertility is highly heritable. The challenge is to use genetically discerning measures of fertility.

5. White (feedlot) fat is good.
Yellow (grass) fat is healthy and anti carcinogenic.

6. Weight gain and FCE (feed conversion efficiency) indicate grass conversion efficiency.
This is not true since such measures are negatively correlated to Inherent Body Condition. Small frame, fast maturing animals are more efficient.

7. High intake animals are wasteful and less efficient.
The opposite is true. Animals with a high Relative Intake are the most efficient.

8. Bigger is better
No, the smaller and heavier is better.

9. Calve before the rains.
For maximum fertility calve on green grass.

10. An animal’s genetic potential must be expressed through improved (nutrition; parasite control) management.
No, an animal’s genetic potential must be determined by environment!

We need to seriously change our thinking. Nothing changes until our thinking changes. A good start is to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.

Mar

Biological Efficiency or End Price?

Price Taker, Maker or Manipulator?

As far as I see it none of us are Price Makers. The one who pays us makes the price. We can be Price Takers (accept the going price) or we can be Price Manipulators (influence the end price and decrease the cost).

Price Manipulation:

Increase stocking rate (grow more grass).
Increase Harvest Efficiency (Non-Selective Grazing).
Increase Grass Conversion Efficiency (Fertility; Maturity Rate).
Production in sync with naturally occurring nutrition.
Increase Relative Intake (grazing management; rumen supplementation).
Increase the value of the end product (seasonal price variation; cheap weight gain; genetic; consumer value).

It is far better to concentrate on improving biological efficiency than on depending on a high end price. I would much rather pay a man induced penalty for producing a low cost product than paying a biological penalty for producing a product considered undesirable by man. The best we can do is produce a low cost product and add as much value as possible.