nguni feedlot project r

NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT REPORT

Photo: Sernick presentation www.ngunicattle.info

Report by:

Dr. H.E. Theron

Dr. J. van der Westhuizen

SA Stud Book

Yolanda Venter

Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society

May 2017

http://www.ngunicattle.info/

Nguni Feedlot Project Report

2

CONTENTS

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Nguni Feedlot Project ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Animals ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Status & Sex ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Origin .................................................................................................................................................................. 6

Sires .................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Horn status ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Rations ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

4. Description of trial ........................................................................................................................................ 10

5. Data Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 11

6. Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Traits ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

Statistical Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 15

The effect of Ration, Test Length and Province ................................................................................................ 15

Feeding animals for a constant period ............................................................................................................. 17

The effect of Arrival weight .............................................................................................................................. 18

RTU ................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Health traits ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

7. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................... 23

8. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 23

9. References .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix 1: Average values for traits according to ration ................................................................................... 25

Appendix 2: Average values for traits according to test length............................................................................ 26

Appendix 3: Graphs .............................................................................................................................................. 27


3

SUMMARY The purpose of the project is mainly to assist the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society to determine the most

suitable ration for Nguni calves under feedlot conditions. Two hundred Nguni male calves, sourced from

different herds, were randomly allocated and tested on four different rations, viz Nguni Starter (High

roughage), Nguni Grower (Medium roughage), Nguni Finisher (Low roughage) and Feedlot Grower Commercial

(Low roughage) and slaughtered when they reached acceptable carcass subcutaneous fat classification, either

after 105, 120 or 135 days on test.

The heaviest animals were slaughtered first (105 days), and despite having been on the test for two or four

weeks longer, the 120 and 135 day groups never reached the weights of the first slaughter group (105 day

group) animals. The 105 day group were significantly heavier (229kg, 195kg and 162kg for 105, 120 and 135

day groups respectively), but not significantly older than the other groups at the start of the test. The 105 day

group gained on average 159kg in 105 days, while the other two groups gained 147kg and 149 kg in 15 and 30

extra days respectively. The ADG (Average Daily Gain) for the groups slaughtered after 105, 120 or 135 days

was 1.49, 1.24 and 1.15kg/day respectively, irrespective of the ration that the groups received.

The effect of ration on the growth of the calves is not as clear cut as the effect of test length (days fed). The

calves on the commercial ration did significantly better than the calves on the other rations for ADG (1.34 vs

1.24-1.27), total gain (159.1 vs 147-150), end weight (7 to 11 kg heavier) and had a carcass weight of 204kg vs

196-198kg for the other rations. Dressing percentage was 56.5%, which was not significantly better than the

dressing percentage of the high roughage ration animals. However, the commercial ration animals started out

slightly (about 9-10 kg) although significantly heavier at 201kg than the other groups and needed on average 3

to 5 days longer to reach marketability than the calves on the other rations. In conclusion, the calves on the

commercial ration probably did best. If cost of ration is also considered, the two low roughage rations are best.

Some significant differences in starting weight and age were evident in calves originating from different

provinces, but these differences were not significant at the end of the test and with the carcass traits. Arrival

weight had a marked influence on test length and margin over feed costs, favouring the heavier calves.

Carcase weights of calves with higher arrival weights were also heavier and closer to market requirements.


4

NGUNI FEEDLOT PROJECT

1. INTRODUCTION The common practice for beef production in South Africa consists of a production chain where cattle are

grown out and finished in feedlots at a relatively early age after weaning. It is argued that feeding cattle in a

feedlot is more profitable than feeding cattle on pasture, mainly due to faster and more efficient growth

(Esterhuizen, et al., 2001). Feedlot cattle have significantly higher final weights, warm and cold carcass

weights, warm and cold dressing percentage, ADG, intramuscular fat content and back fat thickness

measurements than organic and conventional pasture cattle (Esterhuizen, et al., 2001). Feedlots ideally prefer

weaner calves around 220kg (www.ngunicattle.info) to 225kg (www.fortresscattle.co.za) that grow at a rate of

2kg with a good feed efficiency and temperament (Sernick, 2016). Feedlots require positive feed margins,

which can be obtained with high growth rate and low feed costs per kilogram gain.

As a calf grows, the order of tissue growth and development is firstly bone, followed by muscle and lastly fat

(Berg, et.al., 1968). When an animal reaches sexual maturity, bone development is generally complete and

muscle development almost complete. To increase growth after puberty, the increase in weight is caused by

addition of muscle and mostly fat. In normal slaughter ranges, as weight increases, fat percentage increases

while muscle and bone percentage decreases. The stage of development at slaughter thus has an influence on

carcass composition (Berg et al., 1968). An early maturing type of animal will be mature at a younger

chronological age, and therefore have more fat at an earlier age than later maturing types, which makes it

more difficult to feed early maturing types profitably in a feedlot. The Nguni breed is an early maturing, small

framed indigenous Sanga breed (Schoeman et al., 1989, Strydom et al., 2001; 2008). As feedlots prefer

medium- to late maturing breeds, major feedlots are either not accepting Nguni weaners or pay significantly

less for them (Strydom et al., 2008; http://www.ngunicattle.info/Publications-Articles). Bone, muscle and fat

are measured on live animals by using real-time-ultrasound (RTU) technology, and are used to indicate carcass

traits on possible breeding bulls. Measurements with RTU technology includes Eye Muscle Area (EMA), two

measurements of subcutaneous fat (easily mobilized) as well as marbling (intramuscular fat, not easily

mobilized). Correlations between these traits and various other production traits may also be of importance

(Pabiou et al, 2012).

Esterhuizen et al. (2001) noted that the extension of the growth phase of lighter Bonsmara animals is

successful in producing uniform carcass weights and conditions as no significant differences (P >0.05) were

observed in live weight or carcass weight and other production traits between groups fed 85 and 120 days.

When determining price and feed margins, the authors did however not determine the difference in profit

between different test lengths. Strydom et al. (2008) reported differences up to 70 days on feed had no

significant effect (P >0.05) on tenderness of aged meat, even when large differences in carcass weight and

fatness occurred.

As level of nutrition also affects growth and therefore carcass composition (Berg et al., 1968, Esterhuizen et al.,

2001) the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society has therefore commenced on an extensive trial to test Nguni calves

on different feedlot rations to determine an optimum and cost effective nutritional level specifically for Nguni

cattle.

To address the lower prices paid for Nguni weaners by feedlot buyers, a feedlot at Douglas, with assistance

from GWK (an agricultural coop), embarked on a service where Ngunis were fed on a lower energy but higher

protein diet. The expected growth rate was in the order of 1300 gram per day. Preferable intake weight was

between 200Kg to 220Kg (with an absolute minimum allowed of 160Kg) and days on feed of between 90 to

120 days resulting in slaughter weights of between 360Kg to 400Kg (Dugmore 2014). Apparently this option, to

make use of the feedlot at Douglas, is no longer available.


http://www.fortresscattle.co.za/

http://www.ngunicattle.info/Publications-Articles


5

2. ANIMALS

A diverse group of 200 Nguni calves from 5 provinces were obtained by the Nguni Cattle Breeders’ Society and placed in a feedlot trial at Sernick feedlot. Calves were on average 10 months old, ranged between 6 and 14 months of age and weighed between 94 and 242kg at arrival. The average weight of all the calves on arrival was 165 ±30kg. Table 1: General statistics of Nguni calves in the trial.

Trait Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N

Starting age (days) 309.49 45.17 193 450 196

End age (days) 429.84 44.36 312 569 196

Arrival Weight (Kg) 164.56 30.10 94 242 200

Starting weight (kg) 189.46 34.45 106 288 200

End weight (Kg) 342.98 36.76 236 444 196

Total gain (Kg) 153.23 18.93 66 196 196

ADG (Kg) 1.28 0.21 0.49 1.85 196

RTU Rump fat (72 days on test) (mm) 5.04 1.25 1.8 8.8 200

RTU Rib fat (72 days on test) (mm) 3.15 0.81 1.5 5.5 200

RTU Marbling (72 days on test) (%) 2.68 0.48 1.6 3.8 200

RTU EMA (72 days on test) (cm2) 49.22 6.29 31 66 200

Slaughter weight (Kg) 346.89 33.78 244 444 200

Hot carcass weight (Kg) 198.60 21.31 132.6 258.8 200

Cold carcass weight (Kg) 194.63 20.88 129.9 253.6 200

Dressing percentage 56.08 1.72 49.73 62.59 200

EBV wean direct (Kg) 1.91 4.81 -8.15 15.33 185

EBV wean maternal (Kg) 0.31 2.50 -6.25 8.54 184

Cow Value (EBV Index units) 104 11 77 137 143

Growth Value (EBV Index units) 104 13 72 141 167

STATUS & SEX

All animals were male, of which 7 were oxen. Most animals were stud animals, although some Appendix and

grade animals were also included in the trials.

Figure 1: Origin of animals Figure 2: Status


6

ORIGIN

Animals originated from 24 herds, with between 3 and 26 animals per herd. Almost 50% of the animals

originated from the Eastern Cape, followed by the Free State and Northern Cape with 16% each, North West

with 13% and the Western Cape with 13%. Animals were randomly placed on one of 4 different rations, and

with an intended attempt that each herd was equally represented under each ration.

Table 2: Number of calves contributed by herds and provinces, as well as distribution of animals on the different rations.

Herd Number of animals per

herd

Number of animals allocated per ration

1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Comm

SHABALALA NGUNI'S 26 6 7 6 7

SUNRISE NGUNI'S 15 4 3 4 4

MR C. STOCH 13 3 3 4 3

LEOPARD RIDGE CONSERVANCY CC 12 3 3 3 3

MNR. F.J. BESSELAAR 12 3 3 3 3

RHUS LANCEA NGUNI BOERDERY BK 12 3 3 3 3

ADEK TRUST 11 3 3 2 3

GANNA NGUNI STOETERY 8 2 2 2 2

MNR A.J. ERASMUS 8 2 2 2 2

MNR. D.P. VAN ZYL 8 1 2 2 3

MNR. W.A. DU PLESSIS 8 2 2 2 2

MR P.M. HOBBS 8 2 2 2 2

QHINA NGUNIS 8 2 2 2 2

KRAGGA KAMMA TRUST 6 2 1 1 2

MR R.P. SPARKS & SON 6 2 2 1 1

SLAGBOOM NGUNI'S 6 1 2 2 1

ELIZABETH KNOTT TRUST 5 1 1 2 1

XHACHA NGUNI STUD 5 2 1 1 1

CAVALO STABLES 4 2 1 1

KUHNARDT BROTHERS TRUST 4 1 1 1 1

MEV. J.W.E. WILLEMSE 4 1 1 1 1

MNR P.J. STRYDOM 4 1 1 1 1

MRS M.A.M. SCHMITT 4 1 1 1 1

INKONJANE NGUNI STUD 3 1 1 1

Province Number of Herds

Number of Animals

1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Comm.

Eastern Cape (EC) 14 97 27 23 24 23

Free State (FS) 5 32 8 8 8 8

Northern Cape (NC) 3 32 7 8 8 9

North West (NW) 1 26 6 7 6 7

Western Cape (WC) 1 13 3 3 4 3


7

SIRES

No sire dominated and there was a good representation of sires. 20% of the animals had unknown sires, and 7

were the sons of FF09187.

Table 3: Sires represented in the data.

Sire Number % of total

Unknown (includes multiple sires) 40 20.0

FF 090187 7 3.5

ISF 060022 6 3.0

PH 080087 6 3.0

IM 090446 5 2.5

JLS 090016 5 2.5

CS 080122 4 2.0

CS 110056 4 2.0

DH 100041 4 2.0

DPN 070116 4 2.0

FB 120116 4 2.0

FHU 060024 4 2.0

GA 110152 4 2.0

GL 050030 4 2.0

GL 090039 4 2.0

MVN 100029 4 2.0

O 080007 4 2.0

WT 100100 4 2.0

CS 030038 3 1.5

ED 080023 3 1.5

FB 070123 3 1.5

FF 100051 3 1.5

GL 020142 3 1.5

GL 050108 3 1.5

JF 110041 3 1.5

LP 030094 3 1.5

MVN 060017 3 1.5

MVN 100090 3 1.5

Q 120039 3 1.5

STR 100017 3 1.5

Sires with <3 calves 47 23.5

HORN STATUS

The horn status of all animals were also recorded, but not standardized. For example, it is not clear whether ‘Klein’ meant small horns or Scurs, and ‘Geen’ could indicate either polled or dehorned. Table 4: Horn shapes Figure 3: Number of animals with different horn shapes

Horn shape Classes

Normal ‘Normaal’

Thick ‘Dik’, ‘kort dik’ and ‘lang dik’

Polled ‘Poena’

Scurs Scurs, ‘klein’

Dehorned ‘Onthoring’

None Could be polled or dehorned


8

3. RATIONS Nguni weaner calves were tested for growth and general performance under 4 different rations containing

different roughage contents. These treatment groups were named White, Orange, Yellow and Green, as

below. There were on average 50 animals per treatment group, where the Green group acted as control, as

these animals received the commercial feedlot ration. For easier interpretation of results, the colours will be

replaced with ‘1 High’ for White, ‘2 Medium’ for Orange, ‘3 Low’ for Yellow and ‘4 Comm’ for Green.

Table 5: Rations tested in this project

Table 6: Chemical composition of rations on dry matter intake (DMI) basis

Commercial low roughage diet (Control)

Low roughage diet

Medium roughage diet

High roughage diet

Green Group Yellow group Orange Group White Group

Dry material (%) 87 86 86 86

Metabolizable energy (MJ/kg) 11.6 11.5 10.9 10.4

Crude protein (CP) 14.3 14.2 14.7 14.4

Neutral resistant fibre (%) 22.5 23.3 28.5 33.6

Fat (%) 4.7 4.4 4.1 4.0

Calcium (%) 0.75 0.71 0.72 0.74

Phosphorus (%) 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.35

Calves were back grounded on pastures after they arrived in July 2016. Initially they started off on starter

ration as they had to adapt to feedlot conditions. Intake during back grounding was 3.11kg/day/animal. As the

trial started on 16 August 2016, they were only fed their trial ration for two weeks in August. During August

calves received a mixture of Starter and Ration. The standard feedlot practise was followed. The kraals are

level and 26m x 40m in size, while the feeding troughs are 13m in length. The feeding regimes met the

standards and protected both human and animal health. A nutritionist of Sernick feedlots was used to

formulate the different rations. Calves were slaughtered in three batches, namely on 29 November, 14

December and 29 December 2016. In December, the full number of calves was therefore not fed.

Table 7: Feeding programme

aTotal days = Nr animals x days in month

bIntake / animal / day = (Ton feed/nr animals) x days in month x 1000

dSlaughtering took place at beginning, during and end of December.

Ration Colour Ration Number of animals

1 High White Nguni Starter High roughage 51

2 Medium Orange Nguni Grower Medium roughage 49

3 Low Yellow Nguni Finisher Low roughage 50

4 Comm Green Feedlot Grower Commercial Low roughage, Normal 50

Ration

August September October November December d

Starter

(ton) Ration

(ton) Total Days

Intake Feed (ton)

Total days

a

Intake (kg)

b

Feed (ton)

Total days

Intake (kg)

Feed (ton)

Total days

Intake (kg)

Feed (ton)

Total days

Intake (kg)

1 High 5.74 867 6.62 12.88 1530 8.42 14.64 1581 9.26 17.75 1494 11.88 7.4 714 10.36

2 Med 0.34 5.08 833 6.51 12.16 1470 8.27 14.4 1519 9.48 17.2 1446 11.89 7.4 736 10.05

3 Low 1.74 4.12 850 6.89 12.68 1500 8.45 13.44 1550 8.67 15.9 1466 10.85 5.85 639 9.15

4Comm 1.78 4.40 850 7.27 11.72 1500 7.81 13.2 1550 8.52 16.5 1474 11.19 8.35 781 10.69


9

Figure 4: Average intake per animal/day Figure 5: Average total intake on different feeds

Figure 6: Average intake per month

The Low group had the lowest average intake per animal per day, while the high and medium groups had the

highest average intake per day. Although the low roughage and commercial rations were more expensive per

ton, the animals fed on them were the most profitable.

Figure 7: Ration cost Figure 8: Nett income per animal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Comm

Ran

d

Nett income per animal

R 3 400

R 3 450

R 3 500

R 3 550

R 3 600

R 3 650

R 3 700

R 3 750

R 3 800

1 2 3 4

Ration cost (R/ton )


10

4. DESCRIPTION OF TRIAL Figure 9: Number of animals tested per ration

The trial was run at the Sernick feedlot in Kroonstad in the Free-state. The Sernick company was founded in 1982, and is a diversified organization with its focus on agriculture and agricultural processing activities, which includes a Bonsmara stud, animal feed production, feedlot, red meat production (abattoir, de-boning and processing) as well as retail outlets (www.sernick.co.za). Animals arrived at Sernick during July 2016 and were

back grounded for a period of 32 days, after which they

were randomly divided into four treatment groups. Each

group received a different ration. The official trial started on 16 August 2016. Animals were measured and

weighed for several traits on various occasions during the trial. RTU scanning were also done, and Rib Fat and

Rump Fat measurements were taken on all 4 RTU occasions. Eye Muscle Area (EMA) and Marbling were

measured as well on two of the occasions. Dates on which weights were taken and scanning was done, are

listed in the table below.

Table 8: Time schedule and measurements taken

*Not on all animals

Figure 10: Carcass classification per ration and test length

Animals were slaughtered when they

reached a marketable carcass weight and

uniform condition (A2 carcass

classification). Animals were slaughtered

at three possible dates – after 105, 120 or

135 days on test. The animals that were

deemed to be ready for slaughter were

selected for slaughtering on the first and

second occasions – after 105 days and

120 days on test. All remaining animals

were slaughtered after 135 days on test.

Animals were identified according to their

weight, body condition and visual appearance for slaughtering, mostly at a carcass classification of A2 (No

teeth, Lean), although 3 animals in the 105 day group had already reached A3 (No teeth, Medium fatness) and

Day on test Date days since

previous Measurements on date

-32 (Back grounding) 2016/07/15 Weight

0 (Start of test) 2016/08/16 32 Weight

9 2016/08/25 9 Weight

44 2016/09/29 35 Weight RTU (Fat & Marb*)

72 2016/10/27 28 Weight RTU (Fat, Marb, EMA)

91 2016/11/15 19 RTU (Fat & EMA)

99 2016/11/23 8 Weight

105 (Slaughter) 2016/11/29 6 Weight Carcass, Health

120 (Slaughter) 2016/12/13 14 Weight RTU (Fat) Carcass, Health

135 (Slaughter) 2016/12/29 16 Weight Carcass Traits


11

1 animal in the 135 day group had only reached A1 carcass classification (No teeth, very lean).

(www.samic.co.za). Animals were slaughtered according to normal abattoir protocol.

Table 9: Number of animals in the different weight classes at slaughtering

120-130kg @R35

140-150kg @R36

150-160kg @R36

160-170kg @R37

170-180kg @R37

180-190kg @R38

190-200kg @R38

200+ kg

@R38

1 High roughage 1 3 3 10 16 3 15

2 Medium roughage 5 6 11 13 14

3 Low roughage 1 1 2 5 12 9 20

4 Commercial 1 2 7 4 9 27

This practice of selecting the heaviest animals to be slaughtered added another dimension to the project. The

rations were in fact now once again subdivided into test length, with the heaviest animals under each ration

being 105 days on test, the more or less average animals in the trial being 120 days on test and the animals

needing the most time to grow, being 135 days on test. The calves tested were very diverse – from calves

ready to be slaughtered at 105 days to calves only ready 30 days later.

Several additional post mortem measurements related with health during the feed lot period were also

recorded on some animals post slaughter of the 105 and 120 day groups, for example the condition of the

lungs and rumen.

5. DATA QUALITY In general information and data were accurately and meticulously recorded, indicating a data set that will be

of great use to Nguni breeders, the Breeders’ Society and students planning to further analyse the data. As

most of the calves were registered stud animals, the data was linked to the Logix data base and additional

information could be obtained, notably date of birth, which made it possible to calculate the exact ages at

measurement. Genetic information, like sires and breeding values are also available. This was not possible for

the few grade animals.

6. RESULTS All animals that started the trial, completed the test – no animals were lost during the trial, although two were

lost during adaptation. Ration/Test Length groups ranged between 8 and 20 animals per group. Only the

slaughter groups were weighed at 105 and 135 days, while all remaining animals were weighted at 120 days.

There were calves on all four rations slaughtered at all three test lengths.

Figure 11: Number of animals per ration


12

Figure 12: Number of animals per test length

The heavier and older calves at start of test were the ones that were ready to be marketed at 105 days, and it

seems that the effect of weight of the animal were more important than the effect of ration.

Figure 13: The calves that were on average older at start of the growth test, tended to have the shortest test

lengths.


13

Figure 14: The heaviest calves at start of test had the shortest test lengths. A clear difference between average

weight and test length is visible.

In some traits, province of origin also showed significance, therefore growth per province were also plotted.

However, Figure 16 clearly shows that all provinces had better (blues), average (reds) and poor (greens)

performing calves.

Figure 15: Calves originating from different provinces showed some differences in growth.


14

Figure 16: Growth of calves per test length and province show that calves from all provinces were present in all

3 test lengths.

TRAITS

Traits investigated were:

Test Length: Time needed to reach market weight might have a significant influence on profitability for the

feedlot, depending on the feed margin. Excessively long standing time will result in lower profitability.

Age and Weight at start of test: The age and weight that calves should enter the feedlot were investigated.

ADG: Average daily gain is an indicator of growth of the animal, and also affects profitability. The more

effective an animal puts on weight, the more profitable it will be. Higher weight gain in a shorter time is more

desirable. This was calculated for the duration of the animal on the test (ADG = (Weight at end of test – Weight

at start of test) / Test length)

Total gain: The total weight gained over the test, irrespective of time needed to attain the gain, indicates the

increase in muscle weight, and therefore edible meat, during the test.

ADG99 & Gain99: Comparisons between groups were also done should the tests have ended on 99 days., i.e.

Test Length = 99 days for all animals.

Age and Weight at end of test: In this case, the test was ended at the same market ready conditions for all

animals: when an A2 carcass classification was reached.

Carcass weight: Hot carcass weight is the weight of the unchilled carcass after the head, hide and internal

organs have been removed. Cold carcass weight was calculated as 2% less than hot carcass weight. This is a

direct measure of profitability for the feedlot.

Dressing percentage: This is the cold carcass weight divided by the slaughter weight and should be as high as

possible.


15

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data needs to be statistically analysed to be able to interpret results correctly. By simply comparing the means,

one could reach the wrong conclusion as other factors might also be at play. For this data set, the ‘Least

Squares Means’ was calculated for the traits, using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS. In short, a model is fitted

for each trait, which tests all known effects in the data for significance. For example, from the table below:

Test length and ration had no significant effect on the trait starting age, which can be interpreted as that

calves on the different test lengths and rations were not significantly older or younger than calves on other

test lengths or rations. However, province of origin did test significant for starting age, which can be

interpreted as calves from FS and NC being significantly younger than calves from the other provinces. Their

ages are however not significantly different from each other (both are marked with an b, so 308 days and 294

days are not significantly different at the 5% probability level, or are basically the same), while calves from the

FS where significantly younger at 308 days than calves of the EC at 331 days for example, and this is indicated

with an a and a

b).

Another advantage of this method is that the effect of a trait can be determined irrespective of other

confounding aspects. Take for example the trait starting weight: Test Length, Ration and Province all tested as

having significant effects on the starting weights of calves. However, we could determine the average starting

weight of calves tested for 105 days, irrespective of the ration they were on or the province they came from.

The average starting weights for test lengths are corrected for the effects of ration and province, giving a much

clearer picture of the effect of test length on a trait like starting weight.

Although not all significant effects are shown here, the class effects that were significant for some or all traits

were Test Length, Ration and Herd / Province of origin.

THE EFFECT OF RATION, TEST LENGTH AND PROVINCE

Test length had a significantly larger effect on important traits, than ration had. Interestingly enough, province

of origin also showed up significant in some traits.

Table 10: Statistical results of the effect of ration, test length and province

Averages with different superscripts differ significantly at the 5% level. Non significance are indicated as n.s.

Test

Length Start Age

Start Wt

ADG Slaughter

Gain Slaughter

End Age

End wt Carcass

wt Dress. %

Test length 105 d. 120 d. 135 d.

n.s.

229

a

195b

162c

1.51

a

1.23b

1.10c

159

a

147b

149b

n.s.

352

a

344a

334b

212

a

197b

189c

56.51

a

55.86b

55.89b

Ration 1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Com

117

c

120b

119c

123a

n.s.

191

a

198ab

192

a

201b

1.24

b

1.27b

1.27b

1.34a

147

b

150b

150b

159a

n.s.

342

b

343b

339b

350a

196

b

199b

198b

204a

56.2

ab

55.8b

55.9b

56.5a

Prov. NW EC FS NC WC

122

a

122a

119b

118b

118b

347

a

331a

308b

294b

348a

175

c

193b

206a

205a

198ab

1.39

a

1.33b

1.22c

1.20c

1.26c

165

a

158a

144b

142b

149b

454

a

439a

412b

400b

450a

n.s. n.s. n.s.


16

The calves from the group that that reached slaughter condition after 105 days was significantly better than

the calves from the other groups for all traits: Starting weight, ADG and Total Gain, End weight, Carcass weight

as well as Dressing Percentage. They were not significantly older or younger than the other groups (age did

not matter), but they were significantly heavier at the start of the test at a corrected average of 229 kg,

meeting the requirement of the feedlots of a weaner weighing around 220+ kg (Sernick, 2016). They had a

total average weight gain of 159kg, with an ADG of 1.51kg per day. Weight at end of test was 352 kg, with a

hot carcass weight of 212kg and a dressing percentage of 56.5%. The calves from the 120 day slaughter group

had an average corrected starting weight of 195kg, while the starting weight of the 135day group were only

162kg. Neither of these groups reached the performance of the 105 day group, despite having been on test for

a longer period than the 105 day group. In the study of Esterhuizen, et al., 2008, animals did reach comparable

weights, but they compared 85 day weights to 120 day weights. In the present study, the 120 day group nearly

reached 200kg carcass weight and the 135day group had the same total gain up to slaughter and dressing%

than the 120 day group. However, the best performers by far were the 105 day group with a starting weight of

more than 220kg, ADG >1.5kg/day and a total gain of more than 150kg in 100 days. Carcass weight was also

above 200kg with a dressing % of 56%.

However, the effect of ration on the growth of the calves is not as clear cut as the effect of test length. The

calves on the commercial ration did significantly better than the calves on the other rations for ADG at

slaughter (1.34 vs 1.24-1.27), total gain at slaughter (159.1 vs 147-150), end weight (7 to 11 kg heavier) and

carcass weight of 204kg vs 196-198kg for the other rations. Dressing percentage was 56.5%, which was not

significantly better than the dressing percentage of the high ration animals. However, the commercial ration

animals started out slightly (about 9-10 kg) although significantly heavier at 201kg than the high and low

groups and needed on average 3 to 5 days longer to reach marketability than the calves on the other rations.

In conclusion, the calves on the commercial ration probably did best, due to the higher ADG, total gain and

carcass weights, in spite of starting out heavier and needing more days on test.

Calves from the FS, NC and WC had the shortest test length (118 - 119 days). They however had the heaviest

starting weights (205, 206kg and 198kg on average). FS and NC calves were the youngest at start and end of

test as well. These calves gained 142 to 144 kg in total, with an ADG of 1.2-1.22 kg per day. The WC calves

were a bit older at start and end of test, but gained 149kg in 118 days, with an ADG of 1.26kg per day. The

class ‘Province’ did not have a significant effect on end weight, carcass weight or dressing percentage. After

being on the same test and the same environmental conditions, only test length and ration had a significant

effect – all effects of origin had disappeared.

The NW and EC calves started out older and lighter, but had a longer test length of 122 days than calves of the

other provinces. They gained between 158 and 165kg and grew better than the calves of the other regions at

1.33 to 1.39kg per day. Although being on average longer on test, they had better ADG and total gain than

calves from other provinces. This is probably caused by numbers: Most calves from the Eastern Cape were

slaughtered in the last group. However, some calves were slaughtered at 105 days, which grew well.

Figure 17: The number of calves tested per province per test length.


17

Figure 18: The ADG (average daily gain) of calves tested per province and test length

SUMMARY

The heavier calves at the beginning of the test had the shortest test time on test. They weighed 229kg at the

beginning of the test, while the group slaughtered at 120 days weighed 34kg less at 195kg and the 135 day

group started out weighing only 162kg. Feedlots require calves of 220kg (Sernick, 2016), and those were the

calves that performed best, as they only needed 105 days to reach marketability. Note that there were no

significant differences in the ages at the start of the test between the different test lengths, only significant

weight differences.

The animals on the commercial ration were on average 3 days longer on test than the medium group. The high

and low groups had the shortest average time on test. Calves from the North West and Eastern Cape provinces

were significantly longer on test on average than calves from the other provinces. However, one needs to

consider that average is 120 days, and these averages are 2-3 days above or below average. No group had an

extreme high or low time on test.

The calves tested for 105 days did significantly better on both Total Gain and Average Daily Gain than the

calves tested for longer periods. However total gain did not differ significantly between the 120 and 135day

groups. As was possibly expected, none of the groups, including the 105 day group, performed similar to

Bonsmara calves in a feedlot (Esterhuizen et al, 2008) in terms of starting weight, final weight, carcass weight

and dressing percentage. The ADG of the 105 day group in the present trial were, however 1.51, which were

comparable to the 1.52 of the Bonsmara calves in the trial by Esterhuizen et al (2008).

The calves on the commercial ration had significantly better total gain and ADG than calves on any of the other

rations, which did not differ significantly from each other.

Calves from the NW had the most total gain and the best ADG. It could be that they grew compensatory

because they started out the youngest (175 days). The EC calves also did comparatively well with 158kg total

gain and ADG of 1.33kg/day.

FEEDING ANIMALS FOR A CONSTANT PERIOD

Comparisons have up to now been made with animals that did not have equal opportunities – some were on

test for only 105 days, while others were tested for 120 days. Would the same results be obtained if

comparisons are made for animals fed for the same period? All animals in all groups were weighed at 99 days,

which is within the standard 90 to 120 day feedlot feeding period (KZN Production Guidelines, 2016).


18

Table 11: Significance levels for traits if the test was ended at 99 days.

Averages with different superscripts differ significantly at the 5% level. Non significance are indicated as n.s.

The ADG for 99 days on test were better for all test lengths and rations (except the commercial ration) than for

the ADG for the whole of the period that the animals were tested. This indicates that growth have slowed

down after around 99 days on test, which can be seen in the graph as well, (and could maybe indicate that the

test could have stopped earlier). However, the ADG up to 99 days on the commercial ration was significantly

LESS than the ADG up to 99days for the other rations, while this turned around and ADG for the test period for

each animal was significantly BETTER than the other rations. The reason for this is unknown at present and

should be investigated. The difference in total gain between 99days and total test is also interesting – the

commercial ration animals still gained around 27kg between 99 days and end of test (animals were still

growing) in comparison to the 5 to 11kg gain of the other three ration groups, which indicates that animals

have slowed in growth, while animals on the commercial ration were still growing. From Figure 14 it can also

be seen that although growth has started to slow down towards the end, the calves on the commercial ration

on average grew best towards the end.

THE EFFECT OF ARRIVAL WEIGHT

The effect of arrival weight on Test length, ADG and Carcass weight was also calculated, to see whether

accepting calves within certain weight ranges could predict a better outcome for the feedlot. Arrival weight is

the weight even before back grounding started. From the table it is clear that the heavier the animal at arrival,

the shorter the test, the better the ADG and the heavier were the carcass weight. It could therefore be

recommended that animals should weigh 200kg or more at arrival, for the best results. Nearly half of the

calves for this study weighed less than 160kg at arrival.

Start Age Start Wt 99d Wt ADG 99d Total Gain 99d

Test length grp 105 d. 120 d. 135 d.

n.s.

229

a

195b

162c

379

a

327b

283c

1.56

a

1.37b

1.26c

155

a

135b

124c

Ration grp 1 High 2 Med 3 Low 4 Com

n.s.

191

a

198ab

192

a

201b

n.s.

1.43

a

1.41a

1.40a

1.33b

142

a

140a

139a

132b

Prov. grp NW EC FS NC WC

347

a

331a

308b

294b

348a

175

c

193b

206a

205a

198ab

n.s.

1.48

a

1.43a

1.33b

1.33b

1.40a

147

a

141a

132b

132b

139ab


19

Table 12: General statistics regarding Arrival weight

Arrival Weight Group

1 (<160) 2 (161-180) 3 (181-200) 4 (>200)

Number of animals 97 43 34 26

Arrival wt Avg ± SD Min – Max

139 ± 14 94 -160kg

172 ± 6 162 - 180kg

191 ± 6 182 - 200kg

214 ± 11 220 - 242kg

Test length Avg ± SD Min – Max

129 ± 9 105 - 135

118 ± 9 105 - 135

110 ± 7 105 - 120

107 ± 7 105 - 135

ADG ± SD Min – Max

1.21 ± 0.16 0.84 - 1.66

1.28 ± 0.19 0.92 - 1.66

1.35 ± 0.21 0.88 - 1.85

1.46 ± 0.26 0.49 - 1.79

ADG 99 days ± SD Min – Max

1.35 ± 0.17 0.75 - 1.68

1.39 ± 0.16 1.03 - 1.76

1.44 ± 0.19 1.05 - 1.84

1.51 ± 0.23 0.75 - 1.96

Carcass wt ± SD Min – Max

185 ± 15 133 - 215

200 ± 11 178 - 222

211 ± 14 181.6 - 241

231 ± 18 176.2 - 259

RTU

Not all animals and all RTU traits were measured at all occasions. Data was therefore statistically analysed on

day 72, when all RTU traits were measured and animals were weighed as well. Weight is significantly

correlated with subcutaneous Fat and Eye Muscle Area, but not with intramuscular fat (Marbling). Age is

significantly correlated with marbling, indicating that older animals had more marbling, but the correlation is

still low (18%), indicating that at this stage (72 days on test), animals has probably not really started to lay

down intramuscular fat. For Marbling, only Age and Rib fat tested significant, and neither ration nor test length

had any significant effect.

Table 13: Significant (P<0.05) Pearson correlation coefficients between RTU traits and Weight and age at 72

days on test.

Age and rib fat has a significant effect on Rump Fat. The animals on test length 105 had significantly more

rump fat, and animals on the commercial ration had significantly less than high and low rations. Weight and

rump fat tested significant for Rib fat; but because of weight in the model, test length was only significant at

10% level. Ration did not have a significant effect on Rib fat.

Rib fat Marbling EMA Weight Age ADG

Rump fat 0.59 - 0.41 0.29 - 0.21

Rib fat 0.52 0.60 0.21 0.39

Marbling - - 0.18 -

EMA 0.78 - 0.49

Weight 0.25 0.62

Age 0.14


20

Figure 19: Marbling versus ration and test length

Figure 20: Average RTU fat measurements (rump fat and rib fat) for each test length

Figure 21: Average RTU fat measurements (rump fat and rib fat) for each ration

For Eye Muscle Area (EMA), Weight tested highly significant. As weight and EMA is 78% correlated and weight

is highly correlated with test length (heaviest animals in the short test length, etc), test length does not show


21

up as significant in EMA, (unless weight is left out of the model). Province is significant, with EC and NW calves

significantly lower for EMA than calves of other provinces.

Figure 22: Average Eye Muscle Area (EMA) as measured by RTU, for the different rations and test lengths.

HEALTH TRAITS

Animals in the 105 and 120 day slaughter groups were screened for health traits, particularly effects of the

ration to the rumen. However, it is not clear which animals were tested for lung, heart, and liver traits. Fifteen

animals had rumen lesions, 27 had Pericarditis and 7 had fungi. No liver and heart abnormalities were

recorded. Out of 31 animals, 8 (26%) had lung scars.


22

Table 14: Summary of Rumen Area information

TL Healthy Acute Ac/Chr Chronic

1 High 105d 12 6 0 0

120d 7 0 2 5

2 Med 105d 3 7 2 0

120d 7 5 5 3

3 Low 105d 6 11 0 0

120d 7 6 2 4

4 Comm 105d 6 6 1 0

120d 4 1 4 8

52 42 16 20

Ration TL Healthy <10 cm

10-20 cm

20-30 cm

>30 cm

Total

High

105 12 0 3 2 1 18

120 6 2 2 2 2 14

Med

105 3 0 1 3 5 12

120 7 4 4 3 2 20

Low

105 6 1 1 6 3 17

120 6 4 5 3 1 19

Comm

105 6 1 1 3 2 13

120 4 2 5 3 3 17


23

8. RECOMMENDATIONS Further studies should investigate possible interactions between origin and ration and the differences

between animals in for example the different test lengths – why do some animals grow faster and

others not?

The effect of ration might become clearer if animals below acceptable production levels (for example

below 160kg arrival weight) are omitted.

Genetic differences were not considered during the current study, and should be investigated further.

Genomic studies are also recommended.

The data lends it particularly well to the study of the relationship between RTU measurements on the

live animal and carcass traits and for the development of selection indices. A MSc student at UP, Jani

de Vos, has already been identified.

The conclusions regarding the health traits should be made by an expert – it was not addressed in this

study.

7. CONCLUSIONS Given adherence to some basic conditions, Nguni cattle can be fed profitable in feedlots.

Results indicate that the precondition for minimum weights to be considered at arrival to be close

to 200Kg with an absolute minimum of 180Kg. Nearly half the animals in this study weighed less

than 160kg at arrival.

Although ration had a significant effect on ADG, it was negated by other factors contributing to

differences in feedlot profitability. Although the low roughage and commercial rations were more

expensive per ton, the animals fed on them were the most profitable. Nguni cattle did also

perform profitably on the (normal) commercial diet.

Significant differences in feedlot performance could be attributed to the source of animals.

Individual herds were obviously confounded in region or province. Although not necessarily

proven by this trial, these differences can be due to genetic merit, but also environmental

conditions prior to being fed in a feedlot.


24

9. REFERENCES

Berg R. T. 2 & Butterfield R. M., 1968. Growth patterns of bovine muscle, fat and bone. J.Anim.Sci. 27 (3): 611-

619

Dugmore H., 2014. The Nguni crisis, what is really going on? Farmer’s Weekly, 48-50.

Esterhuizen J., Groenewald I.B., Strydom P.E. and Hugo A., 2008. The performance and meat quality of

Bonsmara steers raised in a feedlot, on conventional pastures or on organic pastures. South African Journal of

Animal Science, 38 (4): 303-314.

KZN Production Guidelines, 2016. Feedlotting cattle. www.kzndard.gov.za

Pabiou, T., 2012. Genetics of carcass composition in Irish cattle exploiting carcass video analysis. Doctoral

Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

Sernick Group, 2016. Presentation at Nguni Beestelersgenootskap, 16 November 2016. Available at

www.ngunicattle.info.

Strydom P.E., Naudé R.T., Smith M.F., Kotzé A., Scholtz M.M. and van Wyk J.B., 2001. Relationships between

production and product traits in subpopulations of Bonsmara and Nguni cattle. South African Journal of Animal

Science 2001, 31(3): 181 – 194.

Strydom, P.E., Frylinck, L., Van der Westhuizen, J. & Burrow, H.M., 2008. Growth performance, feed efficiency

and carcass and meat quality of tropically adapted breed types from different farming systems in South Africa.

Aus. J. Exp. Agr. 48, 599-607.

http://www.kzndard.gov.za/


Nguni Feedlot trail – Preliminary results

25

APPENDIX 1: AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRAITS ACCORDING TO RATION

1 High 2 Medium 3 Low 4 Commerial

Variable Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max N

ADG 1.26 0.2 0.84 1.66 51 1.26 0.22 0.88 1.79 47 1.29 0.2 0.96 1.75 49 1.32 0.22 0.49 1.85 49

Age begin 309a

42 193 442 51 315a

45 235 411 47 311 a

51 229 450 49 303 a

43 238 436 49

Age End 429 40 312 547 51 435 45 354 546 47 430 49 348 569 49 425 44 343 541 49

Start Weight 186 35 112 264 51 190 34 128 288 47 191 35 106 268 49 192 35 122 256 49

End Weight 336 38 262 432 51 342 37 288 442 47 343 37 236 444 49 352 34 276 412 49

Total Gain 150 16 114 182 51 151 18 106 188 47 152 18 116 194 49 160 23 66 196 49

Arrival Weight (-32d)

164 31 100 234 51 164 28 116 242 49 163 32 94 230 50 167 30 114 216 50

Weight day 0 186 35 112 264 51 190 33 128 288 49 190 35 106 268 50 192 35 122 256 50

Weight day 9 200 37 124 280 51 204 35 140 308 49 208 38 114 278 50 207 37 136 278 50

Weight day 44 250 42 166 346 51 258 39 190 372 49 256 42 154 340 50 254 41 164 332 50

Weight day 72 298 44 210 396 51 301 41 226 416 49 304 43 196 408 50 299 44 212 394 50

Weight day 99 329 46 252 440 51 329 41 264 434 49 330 44 212 436 50 322 45 226 412 50

Weight day 105 376 26 330 432 18 386 34 340 442 12 379 28 342 444 17 389 21 356 412 13

Weight day 120 306 27 254 358 33 320 27 266 382 37 316 28 224 360 33 329 33 258 382 37

Weight day 135 302 18 262 330 19 312 18 288 340 17 311 29 236 350 14 322 25 276 366 20

RTU Rump fat44 3.31 0.82 1.8 5.5 51 3.36 0.53 2.1 4.2 49 3.49 0.76 1.5 4.8 50 3.2 0.75 1.5 4.8 49

RTU Rib fat 44 2.39 0.56 1.5 3.8 51 2.41 0.47 1.5 3.2 49 2.55 0.6 1.3 3.8 50 2.36 0.55 1.3 3.8 50

RTU Marbl 44 2.49 0.66 1.5 3.5 7 3.07 0.46 2.6 3.8 6 2.64 0.4 2.2 3.2 5 2.24 0.48 1.6 2.9 8

RTU Rumpfat72 5.01 1.38 2.5 8.8 51 5.11 1.07 2.8 7.7 49 5.37 1.35 2.8 8.8 50 4.68 1.13 1.8 2.1 50

RTURibfat 72 2.89 0.91 1.8 4.8 51 3.32 0.65 2.1 4.8 49 3.35 0.8 1.8 5.5 50 3.06 0.8 1.5 5.5 50

RTU marb 72 2.77 0.55 1.8 3.8 51 2.71 0.43 1.8 3.6 49 2.68 0.45 1.8 3.5 50 2.57 0.46 1.6 3.6 50

RTU EMA72 47.71 5.88 37 63 51 49.51 5.4 40 66 49 49.98 7.29 35 64 50 49.72 6.35 31 60 50

RTU Rumpfat 91 5.27 1.54 2.8 9.9 51 5.67 1.2 3.2 8.8 49 5.73 1.25 3.5 8.8 50 5.03 1.19 2.5 8.2 50

RTU rib fat 91 3.2 1.04 1.8 5.8 51 3.55 0.71 2.5 4.8 49 3.68 0.87 2.1 5.5 50 3.58 0.91 1.8 6.6 50

RTU ema91 51.55 5.94 40 65 51 52.18 5.07 44 69 49 53.08 6.56 37 66 50 53.6 5.8 41 66 50

RTUrumpfat120 5.42 1.37 3.2 9.9 33 5.82 1.04 3.8 8.8 37 6.49 1.3 4.2 8.8 33 6.24 1.78 2.8 9.9 37

RTU ribfat 120 3.3 0.68 2.1 4.8 33 3.97 0.72 2.8 5.8 37 3.98 0.62 2.5 4.8 33 4.03 0.72 2.5 5.5 37

Slghter wght 340 34.7 271 426 51 348 32.9 294 444 49 347 34.1 244 432 50 353 32.9 285 415 50

Carcass wght 194 22.3 152 250 51 198 20.2 166 253 49 199 23.1 133 259 50 203 18.9 157 238 50

Cold carcass 190 21.9 149 245 51 194 19.8 163 248 49 195 22.6 130 254 50 199 18.6 154 233 50

Dressing% 55.96 1.56 51.02 58.97 51 55.78 1.5 50.91 59.09 49 56.24 2.07 49.73 61.04 50 56.35 1.65 52.8 62.59 50

EBVwean dir 2.07 5.32 -7.07 15.22 47 2.13 4.15 -6.08 11.9 45 1.37 4.92 -8.15 15.33 47 2.09 4.87 -4.07 14.73 46

Cow Value 103 11 77 128 38 105 13 78 137 34 104 13 77 132 37 103 10 80 119 34

Grwth Value 103 13 76 136 42 106 12 80 141 41 104 14 72 123 40 104 12 81 135 44


26

APPENDIX 2: AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRAITS ACCORDING TO TEST LENGTH

Test length 105 days Test Lenth 120 days Test Length 135 days

Variable Mean S.Dev Min Max N Mean S.Dev Min Max N Mean S.Dev Min Max N

ADG 1.49 0.15 1.18 1.85 60 1.24 0.14 0.88 1.52 67 1.15 0.17 0.49 1.45 69

Age begin 325.23 51.03 238 446 60 303.24 43.74 193 450 67 301.9 37.69 236 411 69

Age End 430.23 51.03 343 551 60 422.24 43.74 312 569 67 436.9 37.69 371 546 69

Wt begin 225.27 22.12 184 288 60 191.85 18.61 152 248 67 156.8 21.71 106 236 69

Wt end 381.9 27.38 330 444 60 340.27 18.91 300 382 67 311.8 23.33 236 366 69

Total Gain 156.63 15.73 124 194 60 148.42 16.51 106 182 67 155 22.64 66 196 69

Arrival Wt 195.67 20.28 152 242 60 164.4 18.71 126 208 70 138.1 18.9 94 204 70

Weight day 0 225.27 22.12 184 288 60 191.37 18.51 152 248 70 156.9 21.55 106 236 70

Weight day 9 243.4 22.88 204 308 60 206.31 19.39 168 276 70 169.7 21.47 114 242 70

Weight day 44 300.7 25.19 254 372 60 255.06 18.14 220 328 70 214.6 22.03 154 280 70

Weight day 72 348.9 26.9 310 416 60 300.77 17.66 260 370 70 258.5 22.21 196 308 70

Weight day 99 378.9 26.09 340 440 60 327.43 15.11 298 390 70 283.6 21.78 212 312 70

Weight day 105 381.9 27.38 330 444 60 0 0

Weight day 120 0 339.69 18.75 300 382 70 296.3 22.45 224 340 70

Weight day 135 0 0 312.1 23.34 236 366 70

RTU Rump fat44 3.88 0.66 2.5 5.5 60 3.34 0.55 2.1 4.5 69 2.87 0.61 1.5 4.2 70

RTU Rib fat 44 2.87 0.48 1.8 3.8 60 2.42 0.46 1.5 3.5 70 2.05 0.39 1.3 2.8 70

RTU Marbl 44 2.6 0.59 1.5 3.8 21 2.4 0.28 2.2 2.6 2 2.53 0.84 2 3.5 3

RTU Rumpfat 72 5.87 1.17 3.5 8.8 60 4.98 1.19 2.8 8.8 70 4.36 0.97 1.8 6.60 70

RTURibfat 72 3.79 0.68 2.1 5.5 60 3.12 0.68 1.8 4.8 70 2.64 0.65 1.5 4.2 70

RTU marb 72 2.73 0.53 1.8 3.8 60 2.7 0.47 1.8 3.6 70 2.62 0.45 1.6 3.60 70

RTU EMA 72 55.2 4.98 44 66 60 49.14 3.97 41 58 70 44.17 4.5 31 55 70

RTU Rumpfat 91 6.21 1.23 4.2 8.8 60 5.37 1.36 3.2 9.9 70 4.8 1.01 2.5 7.7 70

RTU rib fat 91 4.18 0.74 2.5 6.6 60 3.45 0.79 1.8 4.8 70 2.97 0.75 1.8 4.8 70

RTU EMA 91 58.15 4.57 50 69 60 52.51 4.11 44 66 70 47.93 4.01 37 58 70

RTU Rumpfat 120 0 6.35 1.49 3.8 9.9 70 5.64 1.32 2.8 8.8 70

RTU Ribfat 120 0 4.07 0.73 2.8 5.8 70 3.59 0.69 2.1 5.5 70

Slghter wt 380.27 26.92 329 444 60 345.66 19.76 305.5 395.5 70 319.5 23.43 244 373 70

Carcass wt 220.45 17.1 190 259 60 196.97 10.99 176.2 227.8 70 181.5 14.96 132.6 215 70

Cold carc. 216.04 16.75 186 254 60 193.04 10.77 172.7 223.2 70 177.9 14.66 129.9 211 70

Dressing% 56.82 1.59 53.2 61 60 55.88 1.58 49.73 58.82 70 55.66 1.77 50.91 62.6 70

EBVwn dir 2.35 4.92 -8.15 15.2 60 1.71 4.42 -7.58 13.26 62 1.69 5.12 -5.91 15.3 63

Cow Value 100.88 13.73 77 137 51 105.44 8.54 90 126 45 104.7 10.94 81 132 47

GrwthValue 103.65 15.68 76 141 57 105.48 11.33 80 133 56 103.8 9.98 72 119 54


27

APPENDIX 3: GRAPHS


28


29


30

nguni feedlot project r

Documents