Implications for future system design

The higher MELWL occurrence in 2010 and 2012 (Figure 4.6) is associated with the higher

liveweight loss in the Droughtmaster and Bali feedlots (Table 4.1). The reason for the higher MELWL in

these feedlots during those years is not clear. Perhaps, it was due to the PKC used in the concentrate in some of the months in those years having a lower in ME content, and not supporting cattle growth to the same extent, to a higher degree of distress associated with weaning, or a higher herbage rejection due to moisture because rainfall in 2012 was the highest among the years for which data were collated. The higher annual growth of cattle in those years (Table 4.1), on the other hand, is also difficult to explain from the data available in this study. The manager, however, stated that the cattle that lost more weight would be fed a supplement of Bovitas (Bovita-8). Perhaps, the higher growth of cattle during those years was because of the extra feeding of Bovitas (Bovita-8).

An additional point noted by the author for potential future study was the positive inter-annual

correlation between FCE and MELWL (Section 4.3.2.4), that is, greater MELWL occurrence was followed

by a period of improved system performance (not formally tested in the data analysis). A possible factor in improved performance following weight loss is the phenomenon known as compensatory growth depending on the severity of weight loss. Compensatory growth could improve animal FCE (Wilson and Osbourn, 1960). A second possible factor is that the farm manager as stated earlier mentioned a practice of feeding Bovitas (Bovita-8, a protein supplement and appetite stimulant) to animals when marked weight loss was observed. Hence, a study could be carried out to gain a more complete scientific understanding of the energetics of the recovery of lost body weight and the potential role of dietary supplements in the context of feedlot system in Sabah.

4.4.3 Implications for future system design

Based on the analysis above the first step for future evolution of cut-and-carry feedlot system in Sabah would be to choose a configuration to optimise FCE of existing system, and over time develop higher herbage productivity and maintaining a system configuration that will utilise the additional herbage and increase animal production in parallel with the increased herbage production. The focus is on system of high FCE because in cut-and-carry feedlot where the feed is brought in for the cattle, higher conversion

faster. This is also because cut-and-carry feedlot is already risky to operate, since the animals depend heavily on manual supply of feed and can lose weight rapidly when feed supplied is insufficient. When this happens, there will be more feed required per unit of meat produced. If herbage production were improved as the first step, besides continuation of feed utilisation inefficiencies just described, there would also be a lack of stock available to consume the extra herbage as the industry is currently very small and there would be little scope to purchase animals from other farms, with the calving presently below 50% (DVSAI, 2008; see also Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1.1). By focusing on configuring current system for optimal FCE, the cut-and-carry feedlot system can be operated at the current cost but with a higher beef production, and therefore more profitably (sell the cattle at a higher weight, or sell them sooner at the same weight with a faster growth rate, but this latter option means more replacements would still be needed).

Based on the results of the above analysis, the farm system configurations in 2010 or 2009 (all feedlots) are an example of a configuration from among those studied that could be used as a template for optimising FCE of current cut-and-carry feedlot system in Sabah. The key farm information for those years was presented in Table 4.1, and the relevant optimisation details for year 2010, for example,

are as follows: 36 Brahman cattle (282.3 kg LWT hd–1, 20.9 mo hd–1), 25 Bali cattle (244.5 kg LWT

hd–1, 32.7 mo hd–1) and 20 Droughtmaster cattle (293.0 kg LWT hd–1, 28.4 mo hd–1), and 1.60 t DM

mo–1 of feed concentrate as herbage equivalent (this could simply be eliminated by increased herbage

production). These stock were carried on 22.26 ha, giving a stocking rate per ha for the above system of

994 kg animal LWT ha–1. Land area for different animal numbers or weights could be adjusted on a pro

rata basis, and can be maintained constant throughout the year because herbage supply is aseasonal. N

application in 2010 (77 kg N ha–1 yr–1) was slightly lower than the average (92 kg N ha–1 yr–1), but from

another perspective, this means that an efficient system can still be attained even at lower N addition, as long as other system configuration factors are aligned correctly. The average cost of N application

during 2009–2013 was RM0.61 kg N–1 (see Section 4.2.1.1), which means in 2010 the cost of N

application was RM46 ha–1 yr–1 or RM9 ha–1 yr–1 cheaper than the average cost of N application. The

advantage of this approach to farm operation is the system configurations recommended have been practically tested in the past and so would involve less risk for farmers implementing them, compared

with a new system configuration devised from an untested combination of higher productivity and stocking rate.

Since the system is still pasture-based (cut-and-carry), to explore further the ideal balance between feed demand and supply for similar system in Sabah, the system analysed in this study can be used to develop a benchmark for a farm with the current pasture production characteristics (on cut-and- carry paddocks). In this study examples are seen of low, near optimal and overstocked production

system by year: respectively, 2008 (FCE = 25.3 kg DM kg LWG–1, without allowing for feed non-

utilisation), 2010 (FCE = 21.4 kg DM kg LWG–1), and 2011 (FCE = 25.3 kg DM kg LWG–1). The

average stocking rates for these three units calculated from data in Table 4.1 were respectively, 767,

994 and 1044 kg animal LWT ha–1. In New Zealand, to account for imported feed in dairy farm systems

a “comparative stocking rate (CSR)” (kg animal LWT ha–1

per tonne total feed DM offered ha–1: Penno,

1999; MacDonald et al., 2008) is now used, with milk solid ha–1 maximised when CSR was 91 and

operating profit was maximised when CSR was 76 (MacDonald et al., 2008). The optimal range is now

considered to be 75–80 kg LWT t DM (DairyNZ, 2013). If the feed offered is taken as the average feed

harvested of the production system (8.02 t DM ha–1, see Figure 4.3) plus a 15% allowance for non-

utilisation, then for the years of production values just mentioned, the CSR values are, respectively, 81,

105, and 111 kg LWT t DM–1. Further evaluation is needed to establish the optimal values of this index

for this particular system in Sabah. A higher CSR for a cut-and-carry system seems logical because, for an animal in confinement, energy requirement for grazing activity is zero and thus a higher animal production can be supported by a hectare of cut-and-carry paddock than a grazing paddock and this may explain the higher CSR for the system in this study.

To facilitate an incremental improvement of the system in the future, work recommended along with the optimisation adjustments proposed above is:

(i) Production of a management guide that mitigates the adverse effect of weaning on

growth of feedlot beef calves — there are several methods proposed to condition feedlot cattle:

performing acclimation lessons; training cattle to be confident; reducing stress; encouraging rehydration, nourishment, and rest; and treatments supporting immune function (Noffsinger et al., 2015; Reinhardt and Thomson, 2015). A trial, however, is necessary to confirm the benefits in Sabah, of implementing these suggestions from the literature.

(ii) Investigation of a concentrate feeding regime to prevent excessive weight loss (i.e.

excessive MELWL) — the focus would be to mitigate MELWL to improve FCE and investigate the

possible role of compensatory growth as noted above (without affecting the time the cattle achieve the maturity or preferred saleable liveweight). It has to be noted that fast growing calves that attain 150 kg (the weaning threshold on the farm) will be weaned at a younger age, and there is possibility that rumen function of these calves may have not yet fully developed to digest feed concentrate with a high PKC component (and weight loss after weaning may therefore become a more significant issue).

(iii) Exploration of ways to reduce the adverse effect of moisture on herbage intake during

rainy periods (other than spreading the herbage on the floor) — a hypothesis for evaluation is that cattle

reject damp herbage because of fungus that can propagate on damp herbage.

(iv) Development of a pasture husbandry package to define fertiliser (especially N)

application regime, and harvesting cycle for increasing pasture production towards the potential DM

yield (14–20.6 kg DM ha–1 yr–1) and ME of 9.5 MJ kg DM–1 at harvesting — where feed supplement is

used (see (ii) above), concentrate of consistent ME and CP content of at least at 11.5 MJ kg DM–1 and

14%, respectively, is needed. Important factors to be considered are types, rates and timing of fertiliser application, cutting intensity and interval, and the effects of both fertiliser and harvesting policies on herbage nutritive value (Chin, 1995). A component of the pasture husbandry package is to define the nutrient requirements and application schedule to prevent the cattle from death because of alkaloids and

oxalate toxicity, especially when S. sphacelata‘Kazungula’ is used in the system (as will be discussed

in last paragraph of Section 5.4.1.4). In monitoring forage nutritive value, avoidance of the cost of unnecessary chemical analyses would be important. Hence occasional chemical analyses and development of assessments that can be made on farm, such as visual pasture quality and body condition scores would be essential monitoring tools for the improved future system. With respect to the fertiliser application component of a pasture husbandry package, there is also a need to produce a report about pasture nutrient management on the farm including the history of how the fertiliser scheme currently recommended for the farm was prepared, and especially on what logical basis it was formulated so that incoming managers (when staff turnover occurs) could better understand the present practice and options for revision. Another factor to be incorporated in formulating fertiliser policy is the economic cost and benefits of fertiliser use, since at the present time fertiliser application is often

constrained by lack of funds, and confirmation of profitability of fertiliser use would provide more incentive not to miss applications to meet budget deficits.

(v) Investigation of the relevance of developing a conservation system to avoid feed waste

in the event of a surplus occurring — in this system, where the cut-and-carry paddocks can be managed

without the interference of the cattle, the pasture production could be lifted by fertiliser or N application. Possible approach for consideration includes drying and pelleting (if the farm budget permitted, as this is known to be expensive: Preston and Leng, 1987) or ensilage. The conserved feed could be used to meet the feed demand of the cattle during months of high rainfall or ENSO.