Machine effects on accuracy of ultrasonic prediction of backfat and ribeye area in beef bulls, steers and heifers
|
|
- Mabel Hutchinson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Machine effects on accuracy of ultrasonic prediction of backfat and ribeye area in beef bulls, steers and heifers P. K. Charagu, D. H. Crews, Jr., R. A. Kemp, and P. B. Mwansa Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P. O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, Alberta Canada T1J 4B1 ( LRC contribution number , received 10 May 1999, accepted 21 November Charagu, P. K., Crews, Jr., D. H., Kemp, R. A. and Mwansa, P. B Machine effects on accuracy of ultrasonic prediction of backfat and ribeye area in beef bulls, steers and heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80: Pre-slaughter ultrasound and carcass measurements of ribeye area (REA) and backfat (FAT) were recorded on composite beef bulls (n = 60), heifers (n = 60) and steers (n = 60). Breed composition of the composite was: 0.44 British (Hereford, Angus and Shorthorn) 0.25 Charolais, 0.25 Simmental and 0.06 Limousin. The Aloka SSD-1100 (AL) and the Tokyo Keiki CS 3000 (TK) ultrasound machines were compared by evaluating the difference between ultrasound and carcass measurements (bias), and the standard error of prediction (SEP). AL underpredicted REA in all three sexes while TK overpredicted heifers and steers and underpredicted bulls. Both machines were similar in accuracy among bulls for REA. For FAT AL underpredicted all three sexes while TK underpredicted heifers and had very small bias for bulls and steers. SEP for FAT were similar for both machines. Both machines underpredicted REA in larger muscled cattle and overpredicted in smaller-muscled cattle. Both machines also underpredicted FAT in fatter animals and overpredicted FAT in leaner animals. Machines were similar in accuracy among cattle with larger REA but differed significantly (P < 0.05) among smaller-muscled cattle. Machines were comparable in accuracy among animals of all FAT sizes. This study demonstrates that there is an important relationship between machine and the size and depth of muscle and backfat, respectively, and consequently between machine and sex, in accuracy of ultrasound prediction. Key words: Beef cattle, ultrasound, accuracy, back fat, ribeye area Charagu, P. K., Crews, Jr., D. H., Kemp, R. A. et Mwansa, P. B Effets dus à l appareil sur l exactitude des prédictions par ultrasons de l épaisseur du gras dorsal et de la surface de la noix de côte chez des taurillons, des bouvillons et des génisses à viande. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80: Des évaluations par ultrasons des animaux sur pied et des mesures sur carcasse de la surface de la noix de côte (NSC) et de l épaisseur du gras dorsal (EGD) ont été prises sur des taurillons, des génisses (taures) et des bouvillons à viande de race composite. La composition génétique de la race était 44 % races britanniques : Hereford, Angus et Shorthorn, 25 % Charolais, 25 % Simmental et 6 % Limousin. Nous comparions les appareils à ultrasons Aloka SSD (AL) et Tokyo Keiki CS 3000 (TK) d après l écart entre les valeurs ultrasoniques et les valeurs mesurées sur carcasse et d après l erreur type de prédiction (ETP). L appareil AL produisait une sous-prédiction de la NSC pour les trois types sexuels, tandis que TK la surprédisait pour les génisses et les bouvillons et la sous-prédisait dans le cas des taurillon, les deux appareils démontrant chez ces derniers une exactitude comparable. L épaisseur du gras de couverture était sous-prédite sur les trois types sexuels par AL et sur les génisses par TK lequel, pour les taurillons et les bouvillons, fournissait des prédictions très proches des valeurs mesurées. L ETP pour EGD était de même amplitude avec les deux appareils qui, par ailleurs, sous-prédisaient SNC dans les bovins de grand format et la surprédisaient dans ceux de petit format. Ils sous-prédisaient aussi EGD chez les sujets plus gras et la surprédisaient sur les animaux plus maigres. Le degré d exactitude des appareils était comparable parmi les animaux de grand format, mais il variait de façon significative (P < 0,05) parmi ceux de petit format. Enfin il était le même pour les sujets de toutes catégories de gras de couverture. Ces observations mettent en évidence l important rapport existant, d une part, entre les appareils, et d autre part, entre le volume du muscle et l épaisseur du gras de couverture et, par conséquent, entre appareil et type sexuel, pour ce qui est de la prédiction par ultrasons. Mots clés: Bovin à viande, ultrason, exactitude, gras de couverture, surface de la noix de côte Ultrasound technology has been used in the North American beef industry since the 1950s, and researchers are now increasingly interested in the use of real-time ultrasound as a tool for selection of replacement breeding animals. The efficacy of ultrasound in selection programs, however, is dependent on its accuracy in predicting corresponding carcass measurements. It has been shown that measurements of ribeye area and backfat thickness obtained using real-time ultrasound technology are moderately accurate (Perkins et al. 1992a; Bergen et al. 1997) and are further improved by the use of digitized image analysis software (Sather et al. 1996). There are, however, factors that introduce variation and inaccuracy, both in the collection and interpretation of 19 Abbreviations: AL, Aloka SSD-1100 ultrasound machine; CFAT, carcass backfat thickness; CREA, ribeye area; FAT, backfat thickness; FATDEV, magnitude of the difference between carcass and ultrasound-measured back fat thickness; FATDIFF, difference between carcass and ultrasound measured back fat thickness; LD, longissimus dorsi; REA, area of longissimus dorsi muscle; READEV, magnitude of the difference between carcass and ultrasound-measured rib eye area; READIFF, difference between carcass and ultrasound measured rib eye area; SEP, standard error of prediction; TK, Tokyo-Keiki CS 3000 ultrasound machine; UFAT, real-time ultrasound measures of backfat
2 20 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE images. Perkins et al. (1992b), Robinson et al. (1992), Herring et al. (1994) and Moeller and Christian (1998) demonstrated that different machines and operators affect the accuracy of measurements. Cost and availability considerations have resulted in a variety of different makes of ultrasound equipment being used to collect data for genetic evaluation and management use. There is a consequent need to investigate the effect of ultrasound equipment differences on animal ranking and accuracy of prediction for use in genetic improvement programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS Composite (0.25 Charolais, 0.25 Simmental 0.06 Limousin and 0.44 British (Hereford/Angus/Shorthorn) beef animals (n = 60 bulls, n = 60 heifers and n = 60 steers) used in this study were born in 1997 at the Onefour Research Substation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada at Manyberries in Southern Alberta. All animals involved in this study were cared for in accordance with the standards set by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (1993). Following weaning (average age 257 d), bulls and heifers were reared on a growing ration for about 200 d to achieve a mean gain of approximately 0.75 kg d 1 for heifers and 1.0 kg d 1 for bulls. Thereafter they were put on a finishing ration (mean gain of approximately 1.25 kg d 1 for bulls and 1.0 kg d 1 for heifers) for approximately 90 d and then shipped for slaughter. The average age at slaughter was 523 d. Steers were reared on a typical (barley silage, barley grain) feedlot diet from weaning (average age 257 d) until slaughter at a pen average of 500 kg and 10 mm backfat. Steers reached the designated slaughter endpoint earlier than bulls and heifers and were slaughtered at an average age of 438 ± 13 d in three groups approximately 2 wk apart. Real-time ultrasound measures of backfat (UFAT) and ribeye area (UREA) were taken between 3 and 17 d prior to slaughter. All bulls and heifers were slaughtered 17 d after scanning, while the steers were slaughtered in three groups, 3, 4 and 15 d after scanning. All animals were scanned on the left side between the 12th and 13th rib, perpendicular to the spine. Each animal was consecutively scanned by one technician using two ultrasound machines, the Aloka SSD-1100 Flexus (Aloka Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) (AL) with a 17.5 cm linear 3.5- MHz probe and the Tokyo Keiki CS 3000 (Tokyo Keiki Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) (TK) with a 10.1 cm linear 3.5-MHz probe. The longer probe on the AL allows for capturing the entire LD muscle in one image, while with the TK two images, one of each half must be taken and the technician must match the image halves at the time of scanning to capture the entire LD. A standoff guide (Animal Guide Fabrication, Lansing, New York) was used with the AL, but not with TK, to establish good transducer-animal contact. Digitized images from both machines were analyzed by one technician using Jandel SigmaScan (Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA) software. Ultrasonic backfat thickness (UFAT) was the mean of three equally spaced measures, at approximately the 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 positions over the ribeye. The area of the longissimus dorsi (UREA) was traced from the digitized image and UREA computed by the software. Following routine slaughter and processing procedures, carcass backfat thickness (CFAT) and ribeye area (CREA) were measured by a certified beef grader on each carcass after chilling for 24 h. Statistical Analysis The sources of variation in carcass and ultrasound measurements were evaluated using the GLM procedure of the SAS Institute, Inc. (1985). For carcass measurements the model included sex and the covariate of age at slaughter nested within sex (Model 1). Ultrasound measurements (UREA and UFAT) were evaluated using a fixed effects model (Model 2) that included sex, machine, the interaction between sex and machine, and the covariate of age at ultrasound nested within sex. Product-moment correlation coefficients between ultrasound and carcass measurements were estimated within machine. For both UREA and UFAT, two measures of accuracy were derived: bias and magnitude of the bias (deviation). The difference (bias) between pre-slaughter ultrasound and carcass measurements was defined as: READIFF = (UREA CREA) FATDIFF = (UFAT CFAT) for ribeye area and backfat, respectively. These terms give the value and direction of bias. The absolute value of bias (deviation) was defined as: READEV = ( UREA CREA ) FATDEV = ( UFAT CFAT ) for ribeye area and backfat, respectively. These measures of accuracy were analyzed using the model previously described for ultrasound measurements (Model 2). Among steers the effect of time period from scanning to slaughter, which was 3, 4 or 15 d was evaluated and was not significant (P > 0.05) for any of the bias and deviation measures. It was therefore omitted in subsequent analyses. This seems to indicate deposition of muscle and fat up to 2 wk prior to slaughter is not significant, and that ultrasound measurements within this period are similar. The other measure of accuracy for ultrasound prediction assessed was the standard error of prediction (SEP) as proposed by Robinson et al. (1992). Standard error of prediction measures the degree of variability that occurs in the prediction of carcass measurements from the measurements by ultrasound. It allows for the correction of bias since each measurement is deviated from its mean, and is therefore considered more suitable than a correlation coefficient, which does not account for bias (Houghton and Turlington 1992). The standard error of prediction was calculated using the method described by Robinson et al. (1992) and Herring et al. (1994) as follows: SEP = ( ) 2 Ultrasoundi Carcassi Bias Ni 1
3 CHARUGU ET AL. ACCURACY OF ULTRASONIC PREDICTION OF BACK FAT AND RIBEYE AREA 21 Table1. Least squares means and standard errors of REA and FAT for carcass and ultrasound measurements by sex and machine REA z (cm 2 ) FAT z (mm) CARCASS ALOKA TOKYO CARCASS ALOKA TOKYO Steers 76.8 ± 5.4a 69.4 ± 2.7a 97.8 ± 2.7ab 15.0 ± 1.6a 10.4 ± 0.7a 15.1 ± 0.7a Heifers 83.0 ± 4.0a 78.8 ± 2.1b 93.1 ± 2.1a 11.3 ± 1.2b 8.1 ± 0.6b 9.0 ± 0.6b Bulls ± 3.7b 98.8 ± 1.9c 99.6 ± 1.9b 6.8 ± 1.1c 6.1 ± 0.5c 7.2 ± 0.5c z ALOKA = measurements using Aloka SSD-1100, TOKYO = measurements using Tokyo-Keiki CS 3000, CARCASS = carcass measurements a,c Means on one column having different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05) Table 2. Correlation (r) between carcass and ultrasound measurements REA z (cm 2 ) FAT z (mm) AL/CARC TK/CARC AL/TK AL/CARC TK/CARC AL/TK Bulls Heifers a Steers a z AL = measurements using Aloka SSD-1100, TK = measurements using Tokyo-Keiki CS 3000, CARC = carcass measurements a Correlation coefficient not significant (P > 0.05) where ultrasound i and carcass i were the ultrasound and carcass measures on animal i, bias was the mean difference between ultrasound and carcass measurements within the group being analyzed, and N i the number of observations in the group. The SEP was calculated within sex, machine and sex-machine subclasses. Previous studies (Perkins et al. 1992a; Smith et al. 1992; Herring et al. 1993; Moeller and Christian 1998) have shown that the magnitude of FAT and REA has an effect on the accuracy of the respective ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound backfat tends to be overpredicted (positive bias) on animals with relatively less FAT and underpredicted (negative bias) on animals with more FAT. Similarly ultrasound ribeye area is overpredicted on animals with relatively smaller carcass REA and underpredicted on those with larger carcass REA. Given these findings and the wide variation in carcass measurements in this study the decision was made to investigate the effects of size of carcass measurement on the accuracy of the two machines. An initial analysis was done to investigate the relationship between carcass measurements and the accuracy measures of bias and deviation by regressing bias and deviation on carcass measurements (CREA and CFAT). Results indicated trends agreeing with the findings of the studies quoted above. To further quantify these trends, animals were assigned to one of three categories of CREA and CFAT using the phenotypic standard deviations for these traits. Animals within one standard deviation of the mean were put into one category and those greater or less than one standard deviation were placed in separate categories. With respect to these groupings the effect of sex was interpreted as being its influence on the size of both CREA and CFAT. A similar approach was used by Moeller and Christian ( 1998) working with swine of different sexes and breeds. The respective categories (REA- CAT, FATCAT) for REA and FAT were: REACAT 1: CREA 76.8 cm 2 2: CREA > 76.8 and cm 2 3: CREA > cm 2 FATCAT 1: FAT 6.5 mm 2: FAT > 6.5 and 13.9 mm 3: FAT > 13.9 mm The effect of size category on bias and deviation was then evaluated using a fixed effects model (Model 3) including machine, category, interaction between machine and category and the covariate of age at ultrasound. Standard error of prediction was computed for each category by machine subgroup. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Least squares means and standard errors for carcass (from Model 1) and for ultrasound measurements (from Model 2) by sex and machine are shown in Table 1. At slaughter, bulls had the largest CREA and least CFAT, with little difference between heifers and steers in CREA. Similar results were reported for REA by Hassen et al. (1998b). Though heifers and steers had comparable CREA, steers had significantly more (P < 0.05) FAT. Pearson product moment correlations between carcass and ultrasound measurements for the two machines are given in Table 2. Correlations were generally higher among FAT measures than among REA measures for both machines. This was consistent with the results of Hassen et al. (1998a) and Griffin et al. (1999) who also reported higher correlations among FAT than among REA measures. Another general observation is that AL shows slightly higher correlations than TK, particularly for REA. The consistently lower correlations among REA measurements with TK might be explained by inaccuracies introduced in the
4 22 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE Table 3. Least squares means and standard errors of bias and deviation, plus standard errors of prediction, for REA by sex and machine READIFF x READEV w SEP y READIFF x READEV w SEP v (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) Steers 8.2 ± ± ± ± Heifers 4.2 ± ± ± ± Bulls 12.9 ± ± ± ± x Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. w Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. Table 4. Least squares means and standard errors of bias and deviation, plus standard errors of prediction for FAT by sex and machine FATDIFF x FATDEV w SEP v FATDIFF x FATDEV w SEP v (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Steers 4.1 ± ± ± ± Heifers 3.4 ± ± ± ± Bulls 0.8 ± ± ± ± x Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass backfat thickness. w Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass backfat thickness. matching of image halves. These correlation coefficients, however, should only be considered as preliminary indicators of accuracy. Bias (READIFF and FATDIFF) and deviation (READEV and FATDEV) were first analyzed using a model including the fixed effects of sex, machine and their interaction (Model 2). The interaction was significant for all four measures of accuracy. The resulting least squares means for bias and deviation for sex ( machine subclasses are shown in Tables 3 and 4 for REA and FAT, respectively. Among bulls both machines tended to underpredict REA (negative READIFF), and with the same magnitude. READEV and SEP were also comparable for both machines among bulls. All three measures of accuracy (READIFF, READEV and SEP) show that the two machines are comparable for REA measurement of bulls. The underprediction of REA among bulls by both machines is consistent with other reports (Perkins et al. 1992a; Smith et al. 1992; Herring et al. 1993; Moeller and Christian 1998), which show a negative association between bias and carcass REA. However, these studies did not compare directions of bias across genders. The two machines differed in their accuracy of predicting REA among the steers and heifers, both of which had smaller REA than bulls. AL underpredicted CREA in both steers and heifers while TK overpredicted both genders. Though biases for the two machines were in different directions, the mean READEV was higher (P < 0.05) for TK than AL among both heifers and steers. The SEP were also lower for AL, indicating higher accuracy of prediction for AL than TK. The differences in accuracy between the two machines in the measurement of REA among the heifers and steers would most likely be attributable to the use of split images with the TK. Among animals with a relatively smaller REA (heifers and steers) it appears that there might have been a tendency to overmatch the two halves, that is, matching them along a plane further away from the true median, resulting in an overprediction. The opposite would appear to be the case with the animals with larger REA (bulls). Technician error occurs at two sources: during image capture and during image analysis. The latter would most likely occur consistently across images from both machines. However, there is a higher likelihood for error in the measurement of REA during image capture with the TK since the matching of the split images is subject to technician interpretation. Additionally, since no standoff guide was used with TK it means images could have been subject to longitudinal movement along the animal s back. This could result in a muscle image that is not a fair representation of the actual cross-section. These two possible sources of inaccuracy might partially explain the relatively higher SEPs for the TK compared to the AL for REA measurements. Among bulls FAT was underpredicted (P < 0.05) by AL but bias for TK was not significantly different from zero. Mean bias estimates of less than 3 mm probably have little practical significance. Both machines underpredicted fat among heifers with AL showing a larger mean bias. Among the steers, AL underpredicted FAT while the mean bias for TK was less than a millimeter. The underprediction of FAT by AL among heifers and steers, which had more backfat than bulls, is consistent with the findings of other researchers (Herring et al. 1994; Moller and Christian 1998) who reported that animals with more FAT tend to be under-
5 CHARUGU ET AL. ACCURACY OF ULTRASONIC PREDICTION OF BACK FAT AND RIBEYE AREA 23 Table 5. Regression of bias and deviation on carcass traits within machine CREA x CFAT w CREA x CFAT w READIFF v u u READEV t u u FATDIFF s u u u FATDEV r u u x CREA, carcass ribeye area. w CFAT carcass backfat thickness. v Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. u Regression coefficient significant (P < 0.05). t Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. s Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass backfat thickness. r Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass back fat thickness. predicted by ultrasound. The magnitude of the bias (FAT- DEV) was similar among bulls for both machines but higher in the AL for both heifers and steers. The SEP, however, were very comparable across both machines with an average difference of 0.1 mm. This similarity in accuracy was also reflected in the higher correlations between carcass and ultrasound measurements of FAT and in the correlations between machine predictions. The correlations between machines were much higher in FAT than in REA. This might be attributable to the fact that in the measurement of FAT the problem of matching images is less of a factor. Research has also shown that there is less operator variability in the measurement of FAT than in the measurement of REA (McLaren et al. 1991). Both READIFF and READEV were independently regressed on carcass REA measurements (CREA) and then on carcass FAT measurements (CFAT). Likewise, FATD- IFF and FATDEV were regressed on CFAT and CREA. All regressions were done within machine. This was done to get a preliminary indication of the trends in accuracy of prediction (bias and deviation) when carcass values of the two traits increased. Results of this analysis are given in Table 5. For both machines the coefficients obtained from regressing READIFF on CREA indicate that an increase in carcass muscle size results in a negative trend in measurement bias. This implies that ultrasonic measurements of REA are more likely to overpredict smaller REA and underpredict larger REA. Similarly, in FAT, the coefficients indicate a negative slope for FATDIFF, implying that leaner animals are more likely to be overpredicted and fatter ones more likely to be underpredicted. The regression of READIFF on CFAT was not significant (P > 0.05) for either machine, indicating that the amount of backfat cover did not influence the accuracy of ultrasonic prediction of REA. Similarly the regression of FATDIFF on CREA was not significant (P > 0.05). To further examine the effect of REA size, and backfat depth, on the accuracy of ultrasonic measurements of REA and FAT, respectively, the animals were assigned to size categories as explained earlier. The results are shown in Tables 6 and 7 for REA and FAT, respectively. Table 6. Least squares means and standard errors of bias and deviation, plus standard errors of prediction, for REA by size category and machine READIF x READEV w SEP v READIFF x READEV w SEP v REACAT u (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) (cm 2 ) 1. REA 76.8 cm ± ± ± ± REA > 76.8 and cm ± ± ± ± REA > cm ± ± ± ± x Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. w Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass ribeye area. u REACAT, ribeye area size category. Table 7. Least squares means and standard errors of bias and deviation, plus standard errors of prediction, for FAT by sex and machine FATDIFF x FATDEV w SEP v FATDIFF x FATDEV w SEP v FATCAT u (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 1 FAT 6.5 mm 1.2 ± ± ± ± FAT > 6.5 and 13.9 mm 2.7 ± ± ± ± FAT > 13.9 mm 6.0 ± ± ± ± x Difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass backfat. w Magnitude of difference between ultrasound-measured and carcass backfat. u FATCAT, backfat thickness category.
6 24 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE For REA, both machines overpredicted animals with the smallest REA (REACAT1) and underpredicted animals with the largest REA (REACAT3), which was in agreement with the findings of Herring et al. (1994) and Moller and Christian (1998). Both machines had similar bias, deviation and SEP for REACAT3. This would indicate that among animals with larger muscle size the two machines had comparable accuracy of prediction. This corroborates the results observed earlier when looking at accuracy by sex and machine whereby the two machines had similar accuracy among the bulls, which had the highest mean CREA. Among the smaller muscled category (REACAT1), though both machines overpredicted REA, the degrees of accuracy were different as evidenced by different READIFF, READ- EV and SEP. The machine differences were more pronounced in the middle category where AL underpredicted while TK overpredicted. In the two smaller categories (REACAT1 and REACAT2) READEV and SEP were lower for AL, indicating that it had higher accuracy. For the TK, SEP reduced with increasing CREA, further supporting the observation that there might have been more error arising from the matching of images among animals with smaller REA than among those with larger REA. Results for influence of carcass backfat depth on accuracy of prediction (Table 7) showed that both machines overpredicted animals with less FAT (FATCAT1) and underpredicted those with more FAT (FATCAT3), the same trend documented by Herring et al. (1994) and Moller and Christian (1998). Both machines also underpredicted animals in FATCAT2, indicating that FAT greater than 6.5 mm was underpredicted. Differences in SEP between the two machines were less than 1 mm in all FAT categories, again implying greater similarity in accuracy of FAT measurement than in the measurement of REA. CONCLUSIONS From the observed results it can be concluded that the two machines had more differences in accuracy in the prediction of ribeye area than that of backfat. The differences in accuracy in ribeye area prediction, however, appear to be particularly more influenced by the size of muscle. This was demonstrated by the fact that the two machines had similar accuracy predicting ribeye area among bulls and size category REACAT3, among which muscle size was largest. Accuracy was much more different among animals with smaller muscle size. This was attributed to the problem of matching images with Tokyo Keiki, which appears to be more pronounced among the smaller muscled animals. Accuracy of backfat prediction, where matching of images was not an issue, was more comparable between the two machines. The results from this study demonstrate that though ultrasound technology has been shown to be relatively accurate in predicting carcass traits, differences in accuracy among machine types can be large. Variability in machine accuracy could be compounded by variability among ultrasound technicians, which has been shown to exist (Perkins et al. 1992b; Robinson et al. 1992, Hassen et al. 1998a). The implications, for example, in the use of ultrasound in sire evaluation, would be that some sires could be unfairly penalized as a result of the interaction between machine and technician. To minimize such bias would require inclusion of these effects in evaluation models. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Norm Shannon, Ronda Crews, Allan Ross and the Beef Cattle Staff at Onefour. Bergen, R. D., McKinnon, J. J., Christensen, D. A., Kohle, N. and Belanger, A Use of real-time ultrasound to evaluate live animal carcass traits in young performance-tested beef bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 75: Canadian Council on Animal Care Guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Volume 1. E. D. Olfert, B. M. Cross, and A. A. McWilliam, eds. CCAC, Ottawa, ON. Griffin, D. B., Savell, J. W., Recio, H. A., Garrett, R. P. and Cross, H. R Predicting carcass composition of beef cattle using ultrasound technology. J. Anim. Sci. 77: Hassen, A., Wilson, D. E., Willham, R. L, Rouse, G. H. and Trenkle, A. H. 1998a. Evaluation of ultrasound measurements of fat thickness and longissimus muscle area in feedlot cattle: Assessment of accuracy and repeatability. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 78: Hassen, A., Wilson, D. E., Willham, R. L., Rouse, G. H. and Trenkle, A. H. 1998b. Evaluation of carcass, live, and real-time ultrasound measures in feedlot cattle: Assessment of sex and breed effects. J. Anim. Sci. 76: Herring, W. O., Miller, D. C., Bertrand, J. K. and Benyshek, L. L Evaluation of machine, technician, and interpreter on ultrasonic measures of back fat and longissimus muscle area in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 72: Houghton, P. L. and Turlington, L. M Application of ultrasound for feeding and finishing animals: A review. J. Anim. Sci. 70: McLaren, D. G., Novakofski, J., Parret, D. F., Lo, L. L., Singh, S. D., Neumann, K. R. and McKeith, F. K A study of operator effects on ultrasonic measures of fat depth and longissimus muscle area in cattle sheep and pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 69: Moeller, S. J. and Christian, L. L Evaluation of real-time ultrasonic measurements of back fat and loin muscle area in swine using multiple statistical analysis procedures. J. Anim Sci. 76: Perkins, T. L., Green, R. D. and Hamlin, K. E. 1992a. Evaluation of ultrasonic estimates of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 70: Perkins, T. L., Green, R. D. and Hamlin, K. E., Shepard, H. H. and Miller, M. F. 1992b. Ultrasonic prediction of carcass merit in beef cattle: Evaluation of technician effects on ultrasonic estimates of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area. J. Anim. Sci. 70: Robinson, D. L., McDonald, C. A., Hammond, K. and Turner, J. W Live animal measurement of carcass traits by ultrasound: Assessment and accuracy of sonographers. J. Anim. Sci. 70: SAS Institute, Inc SAS user s guide: statistics. Version 5. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. Sather, A. P., Bailey, D. R. C. and Jones, S. D. M Realtime ultrasound image analysis for the estimation of carcass yield and pork quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 76: Smith, M. T., Oltjen, J. W., Dolezal, H. G., Gill, D. R. and Behrens, B. D Evaluation of ultrasound for prediction of carcass fat thickness and longissimus muscle area in feedlot steers. J. Anim. Sci. 70:
Animal and Dairy Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens Key Words: Beef Carcass, Composition, Fat, Muscling, Ultrasound
Gluteus medius and rump fat depths as additional live animal ultrasound measurements for predicting retail product and trimmable fat in beef carcasses 1,2 C. E. Realini, R. E. Williams 3, T. D. Pringle
More informationPrediction of Carcass Traits Using Live Animal Ultrasound
Prediction of Carcass Traits Using Live Animal Ultrasound A.S. Leaflet R53 D.E. Wilson, professor of animal science, G.H. Rouse, professor of animal science, G.-H. Graser, research director, University
More informationApplication of Carcass Ultrasound in Beef Production. T. Dean Pringle Animal and Dairy Science University of Georgia
Application of Carcass Ultrasound in Beef Production T. Dean Pringle Animal and Dairy Science University of Georgia Foodservice Sector Demand for High-Quality Beef Demand for Choice, Upper 2/3 Choice,
More informationThe Use of Real-Time Ultrasound to Predict Live Feedlot Cattle Carcass Value
The Use of Real-Time Ultrasound to Predict Live Feedlot Cattle Carcass Value A.S. Leaflet R1731 G. Rouse, professor of animal science S. Greiner, beef and sheep extension specialist Virginia Polytechnical
More informationUltrasound feedlot sorting. Evaluation of feedlot sorting system using ultrasound and computer technology
1 Ultrasound feedlot sorting Evaluation of feedlot sorting system using ultrasound and computer technology A. J. Garmyn, D. W. Moser, and J. Minick Bormann Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506 785-532-2459
More informationThe Use of Real-Time Ultrasound to Predict Live Feedlot Cattle Carcass Value
Beef Research Report, 2000 Animal Science Research Reports 2001 The Use of Real-Time Ultrasound to Predict Live Feedlot Cattle Carcass Value Gene H. Rouse Iowa State University S. Greiner Virginia Polytechnical
More informationUniversity of Debrecen
Session 21 59th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production Vilnius, Lithuania August 24th 27 th,, 2008 harangis@agr.unideb.hu agr.unideb.hu Comparison of ultrasound carcass traits
More informationEvaluation of Ultrasound for Prediction of Carcass Meat Yield and Meat Quality in Korean Native Cattle (Hanwoo)**
591 Evaluation of Ultrasound for Prediction of Carcass Meat Yield and Meat Quality in Korean Native Cattle (Hanwoo)** Y. H. Song*, S. J. Kim 1 and S. K. Lee Division of Animal Resource Science, Kangwon
More informationStrategies for Optimizing Value of Finished Cattle in Value-Based Marketing Grids
Strategies for Optimizing Value of Finished Cattle in Value-Based Marketing Grids A.S Leaflet R1727 Allen Trenkle, professor of animal science Summary Performance and carcass data from 624 steers in three
More informationGenetic correlations between live yearling bull and steer carcass traits adjusted to different slaughter end points. 1. Carcass lean percentage 1,2
Genetic correlations between live yearling bull and steer carcass traits adjusted to different slaughter end points. 1. Carcass lean percentage 1,2 R. Bergen,* S. P. Miller,* 3 J. W. Wilton,* D. H. Crews
More informationPost-Weaning Nutritional Management Affects Feedlot Performance, 12 th Rib Fat, and Marbling Deposition of Angus and Wagyu Heifers
Post-Weaning Nutritional Management Affects Feedlot Performance, 12 th Rib Fat, and Marbling Deposition of Angus and Wagyu Heifers A. E. Wertz 1, L. L. Berger 1, D.B. Faulkner 1, F. K. McKeith 1, S. Rodriguez-Zas
More informationThe Measurement of Carcass Characteristics of Goats Using the Ultrasound Method
The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resource 17:46-52 (2004) 46 The Measurement of Carcass Characteristics of Goats Using the Ultrasound Method G. Corral de Mesta Paul A. Will J.M. Gonzalez Department
More informationEffect of errors in genetic and environmental variances on the BLUP estimates of sire breeding values
Effect of errors in genetic and environmental variances on the BLUP estimates of sire breeding values A. Nardone, A. Valentini To cite this version: A. Nardone, A. Valentini. Effect of errors in genetic
More informationUsing Live Animal Carcass Ultrasound Information in Beef Cattle Selection
Using Live Animal Carcass Ultrasound Information in Beef Cattle Selection In some instances, value-based marketing systems can be economically advantageous to cattle producers. Monetary rewards are sometimes
More informationPrediction of retail product and trimmable fat yields from the four primal cuts in beef cattle using ultrasound or carcass data 1
Prediction of retail product and trimmable fat yields from the four primal cuts in beef cattle using ultrasound or carcass data 1 R. G. Tait, Jr. 2, D. E. Wilson, and G. H. Rouse Department of Animal Science,
More information1999 American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting
Producer Prediction of Optimal Sire Characteristics Impacting Farm Profitibility In a Stochastic Bio-Economic Decision Framework William Herring, and Vern Pierce 1 Copyright 1999 by Vern Pierce. All rights
More informationRETURNS TO MARKET TIMING AND SORTING OF FED CATTLE. Stephen R. Koontz, Dana L. Hoag, Jodine L. Walker, and John R. Brethour *
Introduction RETURNS TO MARKET TIMING AND SORTING OF FED CATTLE Stephen R. Koontz, Dana L. Hoag, Jodine L. Walker, and John R. Brethour * This research examines the returns to a cattle feeding operation
More informationEFFECT OF SIRE BREED ON STEER PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, BOXED BEEF YIELDS AND MEAT TENDERNESS
EFFECT OF SIRE BREED ON STEER PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, BOXED BEEF YIELDS AND MEAT TENDERNESS B. A. Gardner 1, J. L. Nelson 1, S. L. Northcutt 2, H. G. Dolezal 3, D. R. Gill 4 and C. A. Strasia
More informationUse of Real Time Ultrasound in % IMF Prediction for Swine
Use of Real Time Ultrasound in % IMF Prediction for Swine Doyle E. Wilson, Ph.D Biotronics, Inc., Ames, IA 50010 www.biotronics inc.com contact@biotronics inc.com November 27, 2007 Introduction For the
More informationThe role and power of ultrasound in predicting marbling
The role and power of ultrasound in predicting marbling Wayne Upton 1 and Matt Wolcott 2 1 Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit. University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351. Phone: 02 6773 3141; Email:
More informationEffects of Backgrounding and Growing Programs on Beef Carcass Quality and Yield
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Papers and Publications in Animal Science Animal Science Department 1999 Effects of Backgrounding and Growing Programs
More informationKey words: Hereford, Simmental, marbling, shear, palatability, growth performance, carcass
Effects of breed and dietary energy content within breed on growth performance, carcass and chemical composition and beef quality in Hereford and Simmental steers I. B. Mandell 1, E. A. Gullett 2, J. W.
More informationCollecting Abattoir Carcase Information
Collecting Abattoir Carcase Information Abattoir carcase information, along with live animal ultrasound scanning measurements and genomic information, is used to calculate Carcase EBVs within BREEDPLAN.
More informationRelationship between Attributes of Beef Cattle Raised Using Ultrasound Technology and Prices received at the Packers: A Hedonic Price Analysis
Relationship between Attributes of Beef Cattle Raised Using Ultrasound Technology and Prices received at the Packers: A Hedonic Price Analysis Arbindra Rimal, Tommy Perkins, and Joe C. Paschal May 2003
More informationComparison of calf-fed vs. yearling-fed management for the estimation of carcass trait genetic parameters in Simmental cattle
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations 2006 Comparison of calf-fed vs. yearling-fed management for the estimation of carcass trait genetic parameters
More informationHeterosis and Breed Effects for Beef Traits of Brahman Purebred and Crossbred Steers
Heterosis and Breed Effects for Beef Traits of Brahman Purebred and Crossbred Steers D. G. Riley 1, C. C. Chase, Jr. 1, S. W. Coleman 1, W. A. Phillips 2, M. F. Miller 3, J. C. Brooks 3, D. D. Johnson
More informationUse of Linear and Non-linear Growth Curves to Describe Body Weight Changes of Young Angus Bulls and Heifers
Animal Industry Report AS 650 ASL R1869 2004 Use of Linear and Non-linear Growth Curves to Describe Body Weight Changes of Young Angus Bulls and Heifers Abebe T. Hassen Iowa State University Doyle E. Wilson
More informationRelationship of USDA marbling groups with palatability of beef longissimus muscle
Relationship of USDA marbling groups with palatability of beef longissimus muscle A. J. Garmyn, G. G. Hilton, J. B. Morgan, and D. L. VanOverbeke STORY IN BRIEF The objective of this study was to evaluate
More informationOptimizing Traditional and Marker Assisted Evaluation in Beef Cattle
Optimizing Traditional and Marker Assisted Evaluation in Beef Cattle D. H. Denny Crews, Jr., 1,2,3 Stephen S. Moore, 2 and R. Mark Enns 3 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge,
More informationJesse D. Savell University of Florida
EFFECT OF PHENOTYPIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PRECONDITIONING GAIN ON FEEDLOT PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF BEEF CATTLE Jesse D. Savell University of Florida Introduction Preconditioning Prepare
More informationAdditive Genetic Parameters for Postweaning Growth, Feed Intake, and Ultrasound Traits in Angus-Brahman Multibreed Cattle
Additive Genetic Parameters for Postweaning Growth, Feed Intake, and Ultrasound Traits in Angus-Brahman Multibreed Cattle M. A. Elzo 1, D. D. Johnson 1, G. C. Lamb 2, T. D. Maddock 2, R. O. Myer 2, D.
More informationMaking Beef Out of Dairy
Making Beef Out of Dairy Dairy beef cross cattle have become an increasingly popular option for dairy farmers looking to capture additional market value on calves that aren t needed for the dairy herd.
More informationUnderstanding and Using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)
Agriculture and Natural Resources FSA3068 Understanding and Using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Brett Barham Associate Professor Animal Science Arkansas Is Our Campus Visit our web site at: http://www.uaex.edu
More informationEconomic evaluations of beef bulls in an integrated supply chain 1
Economic evaluations of beef bulls in an integrated supply chain 1 C. Van Groningen, 2 C. J. B. Devitt,* 3 J. W. Wilton,* 4 and J. A. L. Cranfield *Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock Animal and
More informationUnderstanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech
publication 400-804 Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech Expected progeny differences (EPDs) provide estimates of the genetic value
More informationThe use of real-time ultrasound and live animal measurements to predict carcass composition in beef cattle
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations 1997 The use of real-time ultrasound and live animal measurements to predict carcass composition in beef
More informationSUFFOLK VS CANADIAN ARCOTT
SUFFOLK VS CANADIAN ARCOTT AS TERMINAL SIRE A 100 TO 1 FIGHT? MIREILLE THÉRIAULT 1 ET FRANÇOIS CASTONGUAY 1 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, Lennoxville.
More informationIndiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program
2000-2001 Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program IBEEF Description IBEEF is a steer and heifer feedout program that provides Indiana producers with a way to place cattle on feed and gather
More informationGoal Oriented Use of Genetic Prediction
Goal Oriented Use of Genetic Prediction Mark Johnson Inheritance of Quantitative Traits P = G + E Phenotype = Genotype + Environment Genotype Additive due to individual genes Non-additive due to combinations
More informationFactors affecting carcass value and profitability in early-weaned Simmental steers: II. Days on feed endpoints and sorting strategies
Factors affecting carcass value and profitability in early-weaned Simmental steers: II. Days on feed endpoints and sorting strategies N. A. Pyatt,* L. L. Berger,* 1 D. B. Faulkner,* P. M. Walker, and S.
More informationgepds for commercial beef cattle John Basarab, John Crowley & Donagh Berry Livestock Gentec Conference, October 2016 Edmonton, Canada
gepds for commercial beef cattle John Basarab, John Crowley & Donagh Berry Livestock Gentec Conference, 18-19 October 2016 Edmonton, Canada Improving feed efficiency, product quality, profitability, environmental
More informationEffect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics
Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics L.J. McBeth, M.L. Looper, C.R. Krehbiel, D.L. Step, and R.L. Ball Story In Brief
More informationAn evaluation of equipment and procedures for the prediction of intramuscular fat in live swine
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College 2010 An evaluation of equipment and procedures for the prediction of intramuscular fat in live swine Kyle Joseph Schulte Iowa State University Follow
More informationAn evaluation of equipment and procedures for the prediction of intramuscular fat in live swine
Graduate Theses and Dissertations Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations 2010 An evaluation of equipment and procedures for the prediction of intramuscular fat in live swine Kyle Joseph
More informationTraits of Cattle That Hit the Quality Target Gary D. Fike Feedlot Specialist Certified Angus Beef LLC
Traits of Cattle That Hit the Quality Target Gary D. Fike Feedlot Specialist Certified Angus Beef LLC Overview Acceptance rates for cattle qualifying for the Certified Angus Beef (CAB ) brand have been
More informationECONOMICS OF USING DNA MARKERS FOR SORTING FEEDLOT CATTLE Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.
ECONOMICS OF USING DNA MARKERS FOR SORTING FEEDLOT CATTLE Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology and Genomics University of California, Davis alvaneenennaam@ucdavis.edu
More informationCanadian Hereford Association
Canadian Hereford Association Pan American Hereford Cattle Evaluation Fall 2017 EPD Averages, Tools and Trends Includes: Introduction to Genomically Enhanced EPD Post-Weaning Gain EPD Residual Feed Intake
More informationFACTORS INFLUENCING PROFITABILITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS
FACTORS INFLUENCING PROFITABILITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS B.A. Gardner 1, S.L. Northcutt 2, H.G. Dolezal 3, D.R. Gill 4, F.K. Ray 3, J.B. Morgan 2 and C.W. Shearhart 5 Story In Brief The impact of live and carcass
More informationPerformance and carcass characteristics of different cattle types A preliminary report
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports Volume 0 Issue 1 Cattleman's Day (1993-2014) Article 1404 1972 Performance and carcass characteristics of different cattle types A preliminary report
More informationMCA/MSU Bull Evaluation Program 2016 Buyer Survey and Impact Report
MCA/MSU Bull Evaluation Program 2016 Buyer Survey and Impact Report Daniel D. Buskirk*, Kevin S. Gould, and Daniel L. Grooms *Department of Animal Science Michigan State University Extension Department
More informationUsing EPDs in a Commercial Herd
Using EPDs in a Commercial Herd R. R. Schalles and K. O. Zoellner Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506 Today, beef cattle producers have the best tools
More informationBeef production, supply and quality from farm to fork in Europe
INNOVATION IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION: FROM IDEAS TO PRACTICE Beef production, supply and quality from farm to fork in Europe Kees de Roest and Claudio Montanari EAAP, 1 September 2015 Research Center for
More informationComparison of three models to estimate breeding values for percentage of loin intramuscular fat in Duroc swine 1
Comparison of three models to estimate breeding values for percentage of loin intramuscular fat in Duroc swine 1 D. W. Newcom 2, T. J. Baas 3, K. J. Stalder, and C. R. Schwab Department of Animal Science,
More informationEffect of Selected Characteristics on the Sale Price of Feeder Cattle in Eastern Oklahoma: 1997 & 1999 Summary
2000 Animal Science Research Report Pages 14-19 Effect of Selected Characteristics on the Sale of Feeder Cattle in Eastern Oklahoma: 1997 & 1999 Summary S.C. Smith, D.R. Gill, T.R. Evicks and J. Prawl
More informationEffective Use Of EPDs. Presented to: Minnesota Beef Producers Presented by: Kris A. Ringwall, Ph. D. NDSU Extension Beef Specialist
Presented to: Minnesota Beef Producers Presented by: Kris A. Ringwall, Ph. D. NDSU Extension Beef Specialist February 10-11, 2016 2 Background EPDs have been available for more than 30 years. The use of
More informationEffect of Backgrounding System on Performance and Profitability of Yearling Beef Steers
Effect of Backgrounding System on Performance and Profitability of Yearling Beef Steers Cody A. Welchons Robby G. Bondurant Fred H. Hilscher Andrea K. Watson Galen E. Erickson Jim C. MacDonald Summary
More informationShahid Mahmood, Walter T. Dixon, Heather L. Bruce Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science University of Alberta, Canada
Effect of cattle production practices on the incidence of dark cutting beef Shahid Mahmood, Walter T. Dixon, Heather L. Bruce Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, Canada September
More informationPERFORMANCE OF NURSING CALVES FED SUPPLEMENT WITH VARYING PROTEIN LEVELS. D. B. Faulkner and F. A. Ireland
PERFORMANCE OF NURSING CALVES FED SUPPLEMENT WITH VARYING PROTEIN LEVELS SUMMARY D. B. Faulkner and F. A. Ireland Nursing steer calves on fescue pasture were used to determine the effects of supplemental
More informationBehavioral Associations during a Novel Object Test and Performance of Barrows Divergently Selected for ResidualFeed Intake
Animal Industry Report AS 664 ASL R3266 2018 Behavioral Associations during a Novel Object Test and Performance of Barrows Divergently Selected for ResidualFeed Intake Samaneh Azarpajouh Iowa State University,
More informationCreating Premium Beef Maximizing Dairy Profit
Creating Premium Beef Maximizing Dairy Profit Tim Timmons Marketing Manager ABS Global QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD BE ASKING Do I need all of my replacements? Do all of my heifers pay off their rearing costs?
More informationEFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS. Story in Brief
EFFECT OF SLAUGHTER DATE ON PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS QUALITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS M.T. Van Koevering1, DR Gi112,F.N. Owens2, H.G. Dolezal3 and C.A. Strasia4 Story in Brief Two hundred and fifty-six (256) crossbred
More informationThe Growth Performance of Two Lines of Pig Reared under Two Differing Environmental Conditions
The Growth Performance of Two Lines of Pig Reared under Two Differing Environmental Conditions D. N. Hamilton*, M. Ellis* 1, B. F. Wolter*, F. K. McKeith and E. R. Wilson * Department of Animal Sciences,
More informationPerformance and Economic Analysis of Calf-Fed and Yearling Systems for Fall-Born Calves
Performance and Economic Analysis of Calf-Fed and Yearling Systems for Fall-Born Calves M.D. Hudson, S.J. Winterholler, C.J. Richards, C.R. Krehbiel and D.L. Lalman Story in Brief In a two-year study,
More informationSHORT COMMUNICATION: The Pre-transport management of antemortem stress in cattle: Impact on carcass yield
SHORT COMMUNICATION: The Pre-transport management of antemortem stress in cattle: Impact on carcass yield B. Grumpelt 1, W. Hoffer 2, O. Curie 3, O. Jones 3, K. Jones 3, D. Kimmel 1, B. McDonald 3, R.
More informationADJUSTMENT OF POSTWEANING FEED:GAIN RATIOS OF ANGUS BULLS FOR DIFFERENCES IN MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 1'2'3
ADJUSTMENT OF POSTWEANING FEED:GAIN RATIOS OF ANGUS BULLS FOR DIFFERENCES IN MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 1'2'3 M. E. Davis 4, G. R. Wilson 4, W. R. Harvey a and T. B. Turner 4 The Ohio State University, Columbus
More informationUtah State University Ranch to Rail Summary Report
1998-99 Utah State University Ranch to Rail Summary Report Utah State University Extension s Ranch to Rail program is designed to give cattle producers information on post-weaning feedlot performance and
More informationUnderstanding and Utilizing EPDs to Select Bulls
Understanding and Utilizing EPDs to Select Bulls 57 th Annual Florida Beef Cattle Short Course May 1, 2008 Gainesville, FL Jane Parish Extension Beef Cattle Specialist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Factors Mississippi
More informationOverview. 50,000 Markers on a Chip. Definitions. Problem: Whole Genome Selection Project Involving 2,000 Industry A.I. Sires
Whole Genome Selection Project Involving 2,000 Industry A.I. Sires Mark Thallman, Mark Allan, Larry Kuehn, John Keele, Warren Snelling, Gary Bennett Introduction Overview 2,000 Bull Project Training Data
More information2015 Producer Survey Results
2015 Producer Survey Results 2015 CSA Survey Responders by Province 11% 4% 6% 17% 15% 47% 53 Surveys Returned BC 3 AB 25 SK 8 MB 9 ON 6 Maritimes 2 BC AB SK MB ON Maritimes Percentage 35 1) How many cows
More informationEPD Info 1/5. Guide to the American Gelbvieh Association Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)
EPD Info gelbvieh.org/genetic-technology/epd-info/ Guide to the American Gelbvieh Association Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Expected progeny differences (EPDs) can be used to predict the average
More informationBEEF South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 2. South Dakota State University, Rapid City, SD 3
BEEF 205-09 Effects of zilpaterol hydrochloride supplementation on growth performance, carcass characteristics and production economics of steers differing in breed composition J.O. Fulton, K.C. Olson
More informationSeptember Implications of Postweaning Nutrition on Carcass Characteristics and Feed Costs. Calendar. Dan Drake, Livestock Farm Advisor
SISKIYOU STOCKMAN What s New in the Top of the State. A report for Siskiyou Livestock Producers put out by the Farm Advisors Office, Cooperative Extension of the University of California, located at 1655
More informationCHOOSING A BREEDING BULL
CHOOSING A BREEDING BULL By: Roger Bergeron, M.Sc., Agr. and Linda Larocque, Agr. Outaouais, November 5th 2014 1 CHOOSING A BREEDING BULL The goal: Not give you a recipe But explain to you the principles
More informationEFFICIENCY OF THE COW HERD: BULL SELECTION AND GENETICS
EFFICIENCY OF THE COW HERD: BULL SELECTION AND GENETICS Oregon State University/Beef Industry Tour Corvallis, Oregon Thursday, October 25, 2018 Overview Introduction/importance of sire selection Selection
More informationMore cattle are being marketed on carcass. Selection for Carcass Merit. Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle IX: Genetics of Carcass Merit
E-165 8/09 Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle IX: Selection for Carcass Merit Stephen P. Hammack* More cattle are being marketed on carcass merit. This has prompted greater interest in breeding
More informationWAGYU BREEDOBJECT $INDEXES TECHNICAL UPDATE
WAGYU BREEDOBJECT $INDEXES TECHNICAL UPDATE AUTHORS Dr Matthew McDonagh and Carel Teseling Australian Wagyu Association Suite 6, 146 Marsh St, Armidale NSW 2350 Dr Brad Walmsley Animal Genetics and Breeding
More informationComparison of carcass composition, performance, and tissue deposition rates among breeds of swine
Retrospective Theses and Dissertations 2008 Comparison of carcass composition, performance, and tissue deposition rates among breeds of swine Bryce David Martin Iowa State University Follow this and additional
More informationIndiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program
2003-2004 Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program IBEEF Description IBEEF is a steer and heifer feedout program that provides Indiana producers with a way to place cattle on feed and gather
More informationDevelopment and implementation of genomic methods in beef cattle genetic improvement in Australia. Rob Banks (AGBU) Alex McDonald (ABRI)
Development and implementation of genomic methods in beef cattle genetic improvement in Australia Rob Banks (AGBU) Alex McDonald (ABRI) Background: Commercial population 12m cows Stud sector c. 0.25m cows
More informationNet feed efficiency and its Relationship to Carcass Quality of Fed Cattle, and Wintering Ability of Cows
Net feed efficiency and its Relationship to Carcass Quality of Fed Cattle, and Wintering Ability of Cows J.A. Basarab, P.Ag., Ph.D. New Technologies to Improve Feed Efficiency, Disease Detection and Traceability
More informationCan We Select for RFI in Heifers?
Can We Select for RFI in Heifers? L. Kriese-Anderson, Associate Professor 1 1 Extension Animal Scientist, Auburn University, Auburn AL Introduction Cow efficiency has been an important topic of conversation
More informationIndiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program
2002-2003 Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program IBEEF Description IBEEF is a steer and heifer feedout program that provides Indiana producers with a way to place cattle on feed and gather
More informationUse of ultrasound scanning and body condition score to evaluate composition traits in mature beef cows
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln,
More informationThe Data Which Breeders May Collect For BREEDPLAN Analysis Includes: Flight time (from bail head to light beam)
The Data Which Breeders May Collect For BREEDPLAN Analysis Includes: Bull in Date Birth Date Birth Weight Calving Ease Calf Weights from 150days to 600days+ Scrotal Size Docility Scores Flight time (from
More informationRanch to Rail Summary Report
1999-2000 Ranch to Rail Summary Report Utah State University Extension s Ranch to Rail program is designed to give cattle producers information on postweaning feedlot performance and carcass data enabling
More informationBeef Carcass Grading and Evaluation
1 of 6 11/9/2009 11:37 AM University of Missouri Extension G2220, Reviewed October 1993 Beef Carcass Grading and Evaluation David R. Jones and William C. Stringer Food Science and Nutrition Department
More informationHETEROSIS AND ADDITIVE BREED EFFECTS ON FEEDLOT AND CARCASS TRAITS FROM CROSSING ANGUS AND BROWN SWISS
HETEROSIS AND ADDITIVE BREED EFFECTS ON FEEDLOT AND CARCASS TRAITS FROM CROSSING ANGUS AND BROWN SWISS By TIMOTHY THAD MARSHALL A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
More informationCollecting Feed Intake Information for BREEDPLAN for Post Weaning and Finishing Tests
Collecting Feed Intake Information for BREEDPLAN for Post Weaning and Finishing Tests Feed intake information is used to calculate Net Feed Intake EBVs within BREEDPLAN. This fact sheet outlines the requirements
More informationAn evaluation of the USDA standards for feeder cattle frame size and muscle thickness
An evaluation of the USDA standards for feeder cattle frame size and muscle thickness A. D. Grona, J. D. Tatum 1, K. E. Belk, G. C. Smith, and F. L. Williams 2 Colorado State University, Department of
More informationValue of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn
AS 653 ASL R2184 2007 Value of Modified Wet Distillers Grains in Cattle Diets without Corn Allen H. Trenkle Iowa State University Recommended Citation Trenkle, Allen H. (2007) "Value of Modified Wet Distillers
More informationReduced age at slaughter in youthful beef cattle: Effects on carcass merit traits
Reduced age at slaughter in youthful beef cattle: Effects on carcass merit traits Ó. López-Campos 1, J. A. Basarab 2, V. S. Baron 1, J. L. Aalhus 1, and M. Juárez 1 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
More informationAngus BREEDPLAN GETTING STARTED
Angus BREEDPLAN GETTING STARTED What is Angus BREEDPLAN? Angus BREEDPLAN is the genetic evaluation program adopted by Angus Australia for Angus and Angus infused beef cattle. Angus BREEDPLAN uses Best
More informationTECHNICAL SUMMARY April 2010
TECHNICAL SUMMARY April 2010 High-Density (HD) 50K MVPs The beef industry s first commercially available Molecular Value Predictions from a High-Density panel with more than 50,000 markers. Key Points
More informationAn evaluation of genetic trends over 10 year period from data collected from the ABBA carcass evaluation program. Background
An evaluation of genetic trends over 10 year period from data collected from the ABBA carcass evaluation program A.M. Royer 1, C.Shivers 2, D. Riley 3, M. Elzo 4, J. Paschal 5, D.E. Franke 1, and M.D.
More informationLive Animal Ultrasound Information as a Decision Tool in Replacement Beef Heifer Programs
Live Animal Ultrasound Information as a Decision Tool in Replacement Beef Heifer Programs Selected Paper presented at the Southern Section Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL
More informationPregnancies for Profit. Beef x Dairy Sires
Pregnancies for Profit Beef x Dairy Sires What The Numbers Mean Bottomline Profit. GENEX understands that in a changing industry, producers need to maximize profitability from all parts of the operation.
More informationDo EPDs Work? 6/2/17. Tom Brink, Red Angus Association of America BIF Symposium, Athens, Ga. 1. Field Testing $Beef in Purebred Angus Cattle
and the Need for More Demonstration Projects of Similar Kind Do EPDs Work? Not everyone is convinced. Tom Brink, Red Angus Association of Other studies completed on carcass traits, milk, and weaning weight
More informationDevelopments in the Genetic Improvement of a Large Commercial Population in the New Zealand Sheep Industry
Developments in the Genetic Improvement of a Large Commercial Population in the New Zealand Sheep Industry G B Nicoll Landcorp Farming Ltd Rotorua, New Zealand Landcorp Farming Ltd State Owned Enterprise.
More informationBeef Sire Selection for Cattle Genetic Improvement Program (Updated February 19, 2014)
Beef Sire Selection for Cattle Genetic Improvement Program (Updated February 19, 2014) Introduction The overall goal of the beef operation should be to increase net income. Net income is a balance between
More informationFUNDAMENTALS. Feeder Calf Grading. Jason Duggin and Lawton Stewart, Beef Extension Specialists.
Feeder Calf Grading FUNDAMENTALS Jason Duggin and Lawton Stewart, Beef Extension Specialists. Feeder calf grades are national standards that offer more consistent communication between the producer and
More information