Analyst Gazes Into Crystal
Ball To See Feeding Trends

By David Bowser

CANYON, Texas — A New Mexico consultant sees powerful feed additives, dial-a-dose implants, designer feeds and environmentally sound production systems in the beef cattle industry of the 21st century.

Dr. Kenneth Eng of Winston, N.M., told participants in the recent High Plains Beef Conference here that he foresees increasing roles for high-tech drugs, additives and feeds, as well as new feedlot practices and designs.

The consulting nutritionist with a master's degree from the University of Nebraska and a Ph.D. in nutrition and bio-chemistry from Oklahoma State University designed a feedlot lecture series for Texas A&M while on their faculty. He now ranches in New Mexico, California and Texas.

As the 20th century gives way to the 21st, Eng predicts increasing use of feed additives such as beta-agonists to improve beef cattle performance.

"Beta-agonists are an incredibly powerful feed additive," he says.

They are generally used in the last 35 to 50 days of the feeding period to directly stimulate muscle development.

"Primarily it stimulates development of the rear quarters," he explains.

When he came across beta-agonists several years ago, he says he thought they would be popular in the National Football League and the show ring associations.

"So far, I've been correct," he says.

Unfortunately, he adds, there are a few toxic side effects.

"We've had some misuse of it in Europe," he notes.

There's not a lot of discussion about it right now because a lot of people just want to get it cleared for use in other parts of the world.

"It's cleared in South Africa," he says. "It is cleared in Mexico."

He predicts wider use of beta-agonists in the future.

Another area where he sees changes is with the hormone leptin.

"Leptin is a hormone produced by an animal which basically shuts off appetite as the body fat levels get high," Eng says.

As days on feed increase, there comes a point when cattle reach a certain fat level and will begin decreasing their daily intake of feed.

"Leptin, we now think, is the bio-feedback mechanism that causes that," Eng says. "If you can block the leptin production, instead of getting a decrease in consumption, you might be able to maintain the feed consumption and get more body fat deposition because of the higher consumption at the tail end of that feeding period."

Something Eng says he'd like to see is an implant system with variable dosages immediately available in the injector gun.

"We have all types of implants," he notes. "A lot of them are very good products. We do know that certain combinations are the best, but with those combinations, there are certain dose rates for various sizes of cattle for various levels of energy intake and so forth."

Eng laughs that no matter how much planning goes into it, the implant in the gun never quite matches what an individual steer needs.

"I would love to see the day when we have a dial-a-dose implant gun that's got the right combination implant in there, and you give the implant dose rate based on size and feed available to the animal," he says. "It would be a tremendous advantage to our industry."

Eng also sees a future where individually designed grains and forages are grown for specific uses.

"People can do so much more with seeds than we can with the whole animal," Eng points out.

He says he sees tremendous advances by corn raisers and forage people in this area.

"We'll see grains tailored for specific feedlot uses," Eng says. "Maybe they will be high fat. Maybe they will be high protein. Maybe they will be so high in starch availability that you don't need to process them. There are going to be all types of things."

Unfortunately, as new solutions to old problems are found, there will likely be new problems.

One of the interesting things to ponder if the crop community is able to grow designer feeds is how a 50,000 head feedyard, buying 400 tons of grain a day, will handle the logistics of getting the feeds it needs, when it needs them, and getting the right feed to the right pen at the right time. Will the problem become more complex with the size of the operation, Eng wonders?

"What if you're a 10,000 head feedyard and you're buying 100 tons of grain a day?" Eng asks. "It's not that easy."

He says he thinks the industry will see more farmer-feeders with operations that are smaller than the mega-feedyards of today.

"I think what we will see is, perhaps, for every 5000 head capacity, they'll have 1000 acres of irrigated ground around them," Eng says. "If you did that, you could produce a very significant amount of the type of feed you needed for your operation. It would give you a buffer to your neighbors. It would give you a place to go with your manure."

A 10,000 head feedlot might need 2000 acres, he says. Eng figures that's a relatively small investment compared to what is invested in a feedlot today.

Another area Eng thinks will change is the use of by-products from the food processing industry. As each industry tries for more efficiency, more by-products may become food for cattle.

"You would not believe the incredible volume of liquid by-products that are going to be coming on the market that do not have a home except for cattle," he says. "It's going to be very interesting as to how they are utilized, how they're marketed, and how they're purchased."

Using potato waste as an example, Eng points out that such waste is 80 to 85 percent water.

"One of the huge advantages of cattle over other animals is that cattle drink 100 pounds of water a day," he says. "Provide it in the feed and they have effectively dewatered the by-product so you don't have to dehydrate."

Behavior is another area where Eng sees continued evolution in the future.

"It's becoming more and more apparent that there are behavioral effects on performance," he says. "The calmer cattle are the best performing cattle."

Not only do wild cattle not do well, they interrupt the rest of the pen.

He cites conversations with cowboys in the rugged southwestern area of New Mexico as an example. They talk about how they love to ride and rope and how much fun it is with certain cattle at roundup time. When Eng asks who buys these cattle, they simply reply, "different people every year."

One of the last items on Eng’s list of future developments — and maybe the most far-reaching — is re-aligning the production environment.

"Environment times production," he says. "There's going to be so much of that going on. There will be total systems research and development."

It comes back to his vision of the farmer-feeder.

"I hate to use the term farmer-feeder, because most people think of a farmer in Iowa with 100 cattle in a feedyard," he says. "That's not what I'm talking about."

While the concept may be the same, Eng says he thinks they will be larger operations than what most people think of as farmer-feeder programs. They will be large enough to take advantage of certain economies of scale or they will unite with their neighbors to form more efficient units.

"It's efficiency, stupid," he says, paraphrasing a campaign strategy from the early 1990s. "We do not have a production problem in this business. We've got too damn much production, if anything. What we don't have is good efficiency."

Eng insists that the industry focuses too much on productivity when in reality they should focus on efficiency.

"I hope as we go into the 21st century that's where we're headed," he says.

Genetically, he maintains, the industry has done a horrible job. Gain is not efficiency.

"That wasn't true when they first said it 100 years ago," Eng says, "and it isn't true today."

Identifying the best gainers during a bull test does not mean the most efficient animal has been identified.

Research out of Australia, he says, indicates that if animals are selected for efficiency instead of gain, within a generation or two there is a lower level of feed consumption and gain is not necessarily compromised.

"What are you going to do if you select for nothing but gain?" he asks. "You're going to select for a bigger and bigger animal, and that is not what we need. We need a more moderate sized animal. We need a more efficient animal."

Feed efficiency comes back to the additives and management, he says.

"We know that when it comes to the cow, there are a lot of differences in maintenance requirements," Eng says. "You don't want high maintenance. Seventy-five percent of what you do in this business relates to that maintenance requirement."

Normally, high milking cows mean increased maintenance requirements.

"What does that mean for the calf?" he asks.

Eng thinks the industry will see more and more retained ownership. If that happens, what an animal weighs at any particular time prior to finish is not important.

"What is important is you get to the finished animal efficiently," he says. "If that's your final goal, I think one of the most useless measurements in all the animal industry for productivity is weaning weights. Who cares what the animal weighs at weaning as opposed to what it's going to do in the feedyard if you're going to retain ownership? What are you measuring if you measure weaning weight? You're measuring the cow's ability to milk, which probably has a detrimental effect on her reproductive rate and certainly means she's going to take a lot more feed."

If a rancher is retaining ownership, weaning weight doesn't necessarily mean that much, he insists.

Calves with heavier weaning weights may go into the feedyard at 700 to 900 pounds. They may reach 1500 pounds after 120 days on feed. That can lead to a $20 per cwt carcass discount for a heavyweight carcass.

"Why are we producing an animal with an 18-inch ribeye when the average retailer wants a 13-inch one?" Eng asks.