1. An example of cooperation within the R&D community International Beef Cattle Workers Group October 30 th 2013 1 Emma Sanne ( emma.sanne@idele.fr ) emma.sanne@idele.fr Bernard Sepchat (bernard.sepchat@clermont.inra.fr)bernard.sepchat@clermont.inra.fr Pascal D’Hour (pascal.dhour@clermont.inra.fr)pascal.dhour@clermont.inra.fr

2. Part 1 The two players and their research topics International Beef Cattle Workers Group2

3. 3 Beef researches in Inra Clermont-Ferrand Mains objectives : Adaptative capacities of beef cows Optimisation of beef production efficiency and meat quality Technical and economic performances of commercial beef farms in grassland areas Facilities : 200 suckler cows (Charolaise, Salers) 120 fattening young cattle (bull, steer, females) Slaughter house

4. International Beef Cattle Workers Group4 The French Livestock Institute A specialised R&D organization HUSBANDRY & ENVIRONMENT GENETICS FARM & PRODUCT QUALITY ECONOMICS FARMERS & SOCIETY LIVESTOCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS FARMING SYSTEMS & NETWORKS Control of production costs – Self-sufficiency in feed – Low cost production techniques – Feed efficiency – Animal productivity Systems reassurance – Tools for farms to adapt to unforeseen events – Compromise production / environment Knowledge for competitiveness in herbivorous livestock farming and value chains Examples of projects: -Feed self-sufficiency in cattle in France -CAP’ECO: tool to compute life weight production and feed and breeding costs -BEEFALIM: feed efficiency in cattle -REPROSCOPE: benchmarking of breeding performances according to the system -BEEF BOX: young bulls growth simulator -Inter-annual variations in forages production -SALENPRO: trade-off production/environment, multi-criteria analysis -…

5. Part 2 The Joint Technological Unit (JTU) « SAFE » International Beef Cattle Workers Group5

6. The JTU « SAFE » suckling systems, forages and environment To strengthen partnership and collaborations in between the 2 institutes Hub of skills and knowledge on beef, sheep and horses productions International Beef Cattle Workers Group6 Purposes Topic To secure suckling systems in response to: Volatility in inputs costs Increase in unforeseen events Social demand

7. The JTU « SAFE » Research topics International Beef Cattle Workers Group7 Area of expertise Scale/level Forages production Pasture Fodder system Livestock (beef, sheep, horses) Animal Herd Systems Husbandry Farm Field of action Efficiency Resistance to unforeseen events Environmental impacts Projects

8. The JTU « SAFE » Means International Beef Cattle Workers Group8 Combined means : – ~14.5 FTE / 27 scientists – Databases and models – Commercial farms networks – Experimental facilities networks 5 beef experimental farms 3 in sheep 1 in horses

9. The beef experimental facilities network Purposes to develop a shared expertise to help in devising and handling applied research in beef International Beef Cattle Workers Group9 Shared expertise Experimental methods and procedures Technological surveillance Herd management

10. International Beef Cattle Workers Group10 « Etablières » Vendée 140ha- 120 cows- 200 YB Breed: Charolaise System: CCBF « Jalogny » Saône et Loire 215ha -140 cows - 50 YB Breed: Charolaise System: CCBF « Thorigné d’Anjou » Maine et Loire 125ha - 68 cows- 50 LU fattening Breed: Limousine System: CCBF, organic « Mauron » Bretagne 62 ha- 250 places in finishing Breeds: meat and dairy System: finisher Inra Laqueuille Puy de Dôme 200 cows 450 ha (1000-1500 m a.s.l.) Breeds : Charolaise, Salers System : CC+ 120 BF with Inra-Theix The beef experimental facilities network Farms location and characteristics managed by a farmer board in collaboration with CCBF: cow-calf and beef finishing YB: Young bulls

11. International Beef Cattle Workers Group11 NEOBIF: innovative finishing schemes in young bulls from the suckling herd Example Supply chain stakeholders interviews Knowledge on feed available in regions Set up diets To identify new diets Trials in exp. farms Economical simulations Life cycle analysis Technical, economical and env. benchmarks School farms Supply chain stakeholders interviews Implementation and stakeholders opinions 2012 2014 Farm (and types of animals) Diet Jalogny (YB – Charolais) Sorghum silage Wrapped grass Etablières (YB – Charolais) Grass silage Mauron (YB – Limousin + Charolais) Legumes (alfafa hay + red clover) INRA- Laqueuille (Steers – Salers) Maximize grass (fresh + stocked) + diffusion of results

12. Thank you for your attention International Beef Cattle Workers Group12 Our perspectives, to enhance exchanges and discussions at an European scale

13. A L I M E N T A T I O N A G R I C U L T U R E E N V I R O N M E N T Milk and concentrate intakes in Salers calves modify body composition at weaning and next feeding efficiency during finishing Sepchat, B., Garcia-Launay, F., Cirié, C., Egal, D. and Agabriel, J. INRA, UMR1213 Herbivores, Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France INRA, UE1296 Monts d’Auvergne, F-15190 Marcenat, France INRA, UE1296 Monts d’Auvergne, F-63820 Laqueuille, France

14. Veysset, Lherm et al. 2005 and pers. com. +40% of concentrate (kg/year) on Charolais farms since 1990 before 1. How ratios milk/forage/concentrate before weaning modify: growth body and carcass composition feeding efficiency 2. and what are the residual impacts during fattening? Salers cow / Milk production 3000kg/lactation Concentrate supply on suckling Salers farms

15. Experimental design : 2 series, n 1 =18, n 2 =30 Age 3 Months 9 months weaning Growth under mother 0.5 to 5 kg/d of concentrate 1 suckling / day (more) under a dairy cow 2 sucklings under mother / day + Hay ad libitum Concentrate n=16 Milk Control n=16 N=16 Fattening 16-17 months 4.5 to 6.5 kg Concentrate/animal/d Hay of permanent grassland ad libitum n=9

16.  additional suckling /dairy cow = 900 kg more milk drunk at weaning  Calves can drink more milk, only dams milk production is limiting Age Milk Milk intake (milk = +900kg) Milk : 1893±125.1 a Concentrate : 1013±125.1 b Control : 996 ±125.1 b

17. Before weaning 1.48 kg/d a 1.45 kg/d a 1.18 kg/d c Fattening 1.38 kg/d ab 1.26 kg/d bc 1.30 kg/d b The feeding treatments resulted in different growth trajectories Age at slaughter (months) 16.0 b 16.4 b 17.3 a Different evolutions of average daily gains between weaning and fattening for the three groups Milk: Concentrate: Control: Live weight (kg)

18. Body composition at a same EBW (315kg) Liver (kg) 3.9 ±0.15 b 4.5 ±0.14 a 3.9 ±0.12 b Non-Carcass fat (kg) 6.7 ±0.41 c 11.7 ±0.41 a 8.8 ±0.41 b Carcass composition at a same CW (208 kg) Muscles (kg) 143 ±1.4 a 138 ±1.3 b 143 ±1.1 a Carcass fat (kg) 24.4 ±1.19 b 31.5 ±1.16 a 26.8 ±0.77 b Body composition Different profile in AA between milk and concentrate (Labussière et al. 2009) Viscera development / maintenance requirements Slaughter Carcass Weight (kg)365 ±6.3 b 393 ±5.2 a 401 ±5.1 a Weaning ControlConcentrateMilk Carcass Weight (kg)180 ±6.3 b 224 ±6.3 a 220 ±6.7 a

19. A L I M E N T A T I O N A G R I C U L T U R E E N V I R O N M E N T  With 2000 kg of milk ingested, calves had an ADG of 1500 g/d before weaning without concentrate supplementation.  A diet before weaning favoring milk and forage compared with concentrate provided comparable carcasses.  Animals supplemented with milk deposited more protein than animals supplemented with concentrate.  Gross margin per animal of Concentrate group was lower than Milk (-100 €) and Control (-85 €) groups. Conclusions  Higher feeding efficiency in the milk group with a residual effect during early fattening. A L I M E N T A T I O N A G R I C U L T U R E E N V I R O N M E N T Garcia-Launay F., Sepchat B., Cirie C., Egal D. & Agabriel J., 2011.. 62th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (EAAP). Stavanger, 17. p.220.