Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine. August 2016

Similar documents
Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine August 2010

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine October 2011

Beef Sire Selection for Cattle Genetic Improvement Program (Updated February 19, 2014)

Overview. 50,000 Markers on a Chip. Definitions. Problem: Whole Genome Selection Project Involving 2,000 Industry A.I. Sires

Goal Oriented Use of Genetic Prediction

Using EPDs in a Commercial Herd

Understanding and Utilizing EPDs to Select Bulls

Choices in Breeding Programs to Fit Your Environment

November Carcass EPD Comparisons Across Breeds. Calendar. Dan Drake, Livestock Farm Advisor

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine June 2016

Understanding Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) Scott P. Greiner, Extension Animal Scientist, Virginia Tech

Management Decisions. Management Decisions. Tradition. Legacy. ReproGene /3/2018. Jared Decker, University of Missouri 1

Creating Premium Beef Maximizing Dairy Profit

Selecting and Sourcing Replacement Heifers

SELECTION FOR IMPROVED FEED EFFICIENCY: A GENOMICS APPROACH. Matt Spangler, Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine March 2016

Got Milk? An Economic Look at Cow Size and Milk. July 13 th, 2015

REPLACEMENT HEIFER DEVELOPMENT & NUTRITION

4-H LIVESTOCK REcoRD BooK BEEF -SWINE-SHEEP

MCA/MSU Bull Evaluation Program 2016 Buyer Survey and Impact Report

Heifer Management. by Brian Freking Beef Progress Report-1

Matching Cow Type to the Nutritional Environment

B eef Cattle Management Update

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist

Selecting the Right Genetics (Matching Cows to your Environment) David W. Schafer Arizona Beef Day July 29, 2009

Crossbreeding-One of the Tools to Increase Profitability

WHETHER dealing with a commercial

EPD Info 1/5. Guide to the American Gelbvieh Association Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)

Crossbreeding-One of the Tools to Increase Profitability

GENETIC IMPROVEMENT FOR FORAGE USE GENETIC IMPROVEMENT PRINCIPLES FOR THE COWHERD 1/2/2014. Qualifications. Matt Spangler University of Nebraska

Understanding and Using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)

CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS FOR ARIZONA RANGELANDS

Selection and Development of Heifers

My project is (check project taken) SHEEP 0 Market Lamb 0 Ewe Flock

Performance Testing Bulls on the Farm

Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D.

FACTORS INFLUENCING PROFITABILITY OF FEEDLOT STEERS

EFFICIENCY OF THE COW HERD: BULL SELECTION AND GENETICS

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine February 2011

Overview. Initial Research. Overview. Initial Research. Initial Research. Adapting Angus Cattle to Subtropical Climates 10/28/2015

How to select, grow, and manage replacement heifers W.A. Zollinger and J.B. Carr

Economic and Environmental Repercussions of Changing Bull Genetics

Crossbreeding Systems for Arizona Rangelands

2013 TJSSA State Futurity Junior Cattleman s Quiz

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine May 2012

Crossbreeding Systems in Beef Cattle 1

publication

Todd Thri(, University of Florida

Using Live Animal Carcass Ultrasound Information in Beef Cattle Selection

Management and Supplementation Strategies to Improve Reproduction of Beef Cattle on Fescue. John B. Hall Extension Beef Specialist Virginia Tech

Effective Use Of EPDs. Presented to: Minnesota Beef Producers Presented by: Kris A. Ringwall, Ph. D. NDSU Extension Beef Specialist

Mike Davis, The Ohio State University 6/19/14

Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

Measuring Cow Efficiency in the Herd. Ryon S. Walker Livestock Consultant Noble Research Institute

Pregnancy Rates. Jack C. Whittier Colorado State University. !I am not an economist and I do not. ! Biology and interactions

COW HERD REPLACEMENT. John Dhuyvetter NCREC NDSU Extension

Value-Based Marketing for Feeder Cattle. By Tom Brink, Top Dollar Angus, Inc.

Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine September 2014

Agricultural Science Past Exam Questions Animal Production Higher Level

Developing Accurate Parentage Markers for Cattle: From BSE Traceback to 50k SNP Chips. Gary Bennett

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues 1

ONTHLY BEEF MANAGEMENT CALENDAR & WORKBOOK

Genetic variance and covariance and breed differences for feed intake and average daily gain to improve feed efficiency in growing cattle

Indiana Beef Evaluation and Economics Feeding Program

We are in the bull business

Comparison of Weaning System on Cow-Calf Performance and Intake

2015 Producer Survey Results

Section 5: Production Management

Crossbreeding for the Commercial Beef Producer Alison Van Eenennaam, University of California, Davis

What s new in beef cattle genetics

EPDs and Reasonable Expectations in Commercial Crossbred Operations

Jane Parish Extension Beef Cattle Specialist, Mississippi State University

Breed effects and genetic parameter estimates for calving difficulty and birth weight in a multibreed population 1

2018 ICBF and Sheep Ireland Genetics Conference 20 th Anniversary. Dorian Garrick

Effects of a High-linoleic Sunflower Seed Supplement on Performance and Reproduction of Primiparous Beef Cows and their Calves

Details. Note: This lesson plan addresses cow/calf operations. See following lesson plans for stockers and dairy operations.

More cattle are being marketed on carcass. Selection for Carcass Merit. Texas Adapted Genetic Strategies for Beef Cattle IX: Genetics of Carcass Merit

Robert S. Wells, Ph.D., PAS Livestock Consultant

National Beef Quality Audit

REPRODUCTION PERFORMANCE FOR COWS SIRED BY HIGH AND LOW MILK EPD ANGUS AND POLLED HEREFORD BULLS - A PRELIMINARY REPORT

Animal Science Update November 2014 University of Tennessee Extension

Integrating the Use of Spring- and Fall-Calving Beef Cows in a Year-round Grazing System (A Progress Report)

Beef cattle genetic evaluation in Australia ~ BREEDPLAN. Robert Banks AGBU

Understanding EPDs and Accuracies

Mark McCully Nov. 4, 2014

CHARACTERIZATION OF HEREFORD AND TWO-BREED ROTATIONAL CROSSES OF HEREFORD W ANGUS AND SIMMENTAL CAllLE: CALF PRODUCTION THROUGH WEANING

Beef Cattle Management Update

Relationship of Cow Size, Cow Requirements, and Production Issues

56% 64% of farms are owned by the same family for 3 generations

Relationship of Cow Size, Cow Requirements, and Production Issues

JUNIOR DIVISION Breeding Heifers

Carlisle County ANR Newsletter September, 2017

Mississippi Beef Cattle Management Calendar

ebeef was developed as part of USDA NIFA grants # # # Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education

A Refresher Course on Finishing Cattle in Tennessee. Genetics, Quality and Efficient Production for Marketing

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXI December 1, 2 and , Casper, WY. Integrating Information into Selection. Loren Berger.

Reproductive Management of Commercial Beef Cows. Ted G. Dyer, Extension Animal Scientist

Improving Genetics in the Suckler Herd by Noirin McHugh & Mark McGee

Management Basics for Beef Markets. Bethany Funnell, DVM Purdue College of Veterinary Medicine

Stockpiled Bermudagrass Protocol 300 Day Grazing Emphasis Program

Transcription:

Virginia Cooperative Extension Animal & Poultry Sciences 366 Litton Reaves (0306) Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 540/231-9159 Fax: 540/231-3010 E-mail: sgreiner@vt.edu www.apsc.vt.edu Livestock Update Beef - Horse - Poultry - Sheep - Swine August 2016 This LIVESTOCK UPDATE contains timely subject matter on beef cattle, horses, poultry, sheep, swine, and related junior work. Use this material as you see fit for local newspapers, radio programs, newsletters, and for the formulation of recommendations. IN THIS ISSUE: Dates to Remember... 2 August Herd Advisor... 3 Sheep Field Day, Annual VA Performance Tested Ram Lamb & Replacement Ewe Sale... 6 17 th Annual Virginia Tech Sheep Center Production Sale... 7 2016 Virginia Tech Southwest AREC Forage Based Ram Test, 5 th Annual Field Day & Ram Sale... 8 2016 Across-Breed EPD Table... 9... Scott P. Greiner, Extension Project Leader Department of Animal & Poultry Sciences Invent the Future V I R G I N I A P O L Y T E C H N I C I N S T I T U T E A N D S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y Extension is a joint program of Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and state and local governments. Virginia Cooperative Extension programs and employment are open to all, regardless of age, color, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, veteran status, or any other basis protected by law. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

Dates to Remember August 27 th -Sheep Field Day, 41 st Annual Virginia Performance Tested Ram Lamb Sale and Replacement Ewe Sale; 10:30AM-Field Day and 1:00PM- Ram & Ewe Sale; Shenandoah Valley Research and Extension Center, 2763 Raphine Rd., Raphine, VA. Contact: Dr. Scott Greiner, Virginia Tech 540-231-9159, sgreiner@vt.edu; website: www.vtsheep.apsc.vt.edu September 3 rd - 17 th Annual Virginia Tech Sheep Center Production Sale. 10:00AM Alphin Stuart Livestock Arena, Blacksburg,Virginia. Contact: Dr. Scott Greiner, Virginia Tech, 540-231-9159, sgreiner@vt.edu or Dave Linker, dlinker@vt.edu or Phil Keffer, pkeffer@vt.edu at the Copenhaver Sheep Center, 540-231-6988. 23 rd - 2016 Virginia Tech Southwest AREC Forage Based Ram Test, 5 th Annual Field Day & Ram Sale. VA Tech Southwest AREC, 12326 VPI Farm Rd. Glade Spring, VA 24340. Contact: Lee Wright, Virginia Tech SW AREC, lrite@vt.edu, 276-944-2200 or Dr. Scott Greiner, sgreiner@vt.edu, 540-231-9159. Website: www.vtsheep.apsc.vt.edu 2

August Herd Management Advisor Scott P. Greiner Extension Beef Specialist, Virginia Tech Summer throughout the region has brought its share of hot weather, and typical spotty rainfall. A priority this month needs to be preparation and fertilization for stockpiling of tall fescue. This would include removal of existing forage through grazing or clipping, fertilization with a minimum of 45 lb. N/acre, and resting for as long as possible. The additional forage growth accumulated through stockpiling is great way to reduce winter hay feeding and provide superior nutrition. Another forage-related item is to evaluate current pasture conditions for spring born calves. The primary determinant of calf performance during the last 30-60 days prior to weaning is pasture quality. Moving the herd to better grass or allowing calves access to creep feed or creep grazing are also options. Typical feed to gain conversions of creep diets usually are around 8 lb feed/ lb of gain, so cost of feed and value of added gain need to be evaluated before committing to this management strategy. Beyond the potential value of additional weight gain, training calves to eat feed pays dividends later if calves are retained and preconditioned at home prior to marketing. While high levels of creep intake might be economical, moderate levels of intake are more desirable due to enhanced efficiency of gain and avoiding calves becoming too fleshy which may impact feeder calf price. After calves begin eating 2-3 lbs/hd/d, intake can be moderated through the inclusion of 2-3% white salt in the creep diet. Likewise, fall-calving cows will benefit from a higher plane of nutrition provided by higher quality forage at calving time. Spring Calving Herds (January-March) General End breeding season early in month (if not already completed). Make plans for marketing of calf crop. Plan early to time weaning, vaccination program, and weaning management in concert with marketing plans. Calculate break-evens on various marketing options and consider risk management strategies. Begin planning for winter by evaluating feed and forage supplies and options. Nutrition and Forages Continue to manage first-calf heifers separately; give them best forage Continue to feed high Se trace mineral salt. A forage analysis can reveal what other minerals should be supplemented. Continue to manage growth of warm season grass pastures by rotational grazing Store your high quality hay in the dry. Collect and submit forage samples for nutrient analysis Reserve high quality hay and a pasture area for calves post-weaning Herd Health Continue parasite and fly control program for herd. Monitor fly numbers to insure tags are still effective. 3

Finalize vaccination and preconditioning protocol for calf crop. Administer preweaning vaccinations. Reproduction Make plans to pregnancy check heifers as soon as possible after bull removal. This will allow options in marketing open heifers. Remove bulls after 60 days for controlled calving season Schedule pregnancy check of cow herd with veterinarian Genetics Collect 205-day weights on calf crop at appropriate time (AHIR age range 120-280 days), along with cow weights, hip heights and body condition scores (cow mature size data taken within 45 days of calf weaning measure). Fall Calving Herds (September-November) General Prepare for calving season by checking inventory and securing necessary supplies (ob equipment, tube feeder, colostrum supplement, ear tags, animal health products, calving book, etc.) Begin planning for winter by evaluating feed and forage supplies and options. Nutrition and Forages Continue to feed high Se trace mineral salt. Body condition score bred females. Plan nutrition and grazing program based on BCS. This is the most efficient period to put weight and condition on thinner cows prior to calving Evaluate growth and development of replacement heifers. Adjust nutrition and management to achieve 65% of mature weight by breeding season. Low levels of protein supplementation can be effective in stimulating performance if forage has become mature. Reserve high quality hay and a pasture area for cows post-weaning. Manage growth of warm season grass pastures by rotational grazing Store your high quality hay in the dry. Collect and submit forage samples for nutrient analysis. Herd Health Administer mid-summer deworming on replacement heifers and pregnant heifers Continue parasite and fly control program for herd. 4

Genetics Identify replacement heifers. Utilize available tools including genetics, dam performance, individual performance, and phenotype. Restrict replacement heifer pool to those born in defined calving season. Evaluate bull battery and begin planning for the breeding season by evaluating herd goals and objectives. 5

6

7

8

2016 ACROSS-BREED EPD TABLE A table of adjustment factors used to estimate across-breed expected progeny differences (AB-EPDs) for eighteen breeds was released at the Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting in Manhattan, KS on June 16 (see Table 1). Across-breed adjustment factors have been calculated for growth traits and maternal milk since 1993. Adjustment factors for carcass traits have been calculated since 2009 and carcass weight was added in 2015; to be included, breeds must have carcass data in the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) database and report their carcass EPDs on an actual carcass basis using an age-adjusted endpoint. Bulls of different breeds can be compared on the same EPD scale by adding the appropriate adjustment factor to the EPDs produced in the most recent genetic evaluations for each of the eighteen breeds. The AB-EPDs are most useful to commercial producers purchasing bulls of more than one breed to use in cross-breeding programs. For example, in terminal cross-breeding systems, AB-EPDs can be used to identify bulls in different breeds with high growth potential or favorable carcass characteristics. As an example, suppose a Charolais bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 25.0 lb and a Hereford bull has a weaning weight EPD of + 55.0 lb. The across-breed adjustment factors for weaning weight (see Table 1) are 34.6 lb for Charolais and -7.8 lb for Hereford. The AB-EPD is 25.0 lb + 34.6 lb = 59.6 lb for the Charolais bull and 55.0 7.8 = 47.2 lb for the Hereford bull. The expected weaning weight difference when both are mated to cows of another breed (e.g., Angus) would be 59.6 lb 47.2 lb = 12.4 lb. Most breed associations publish EPDs at least on an annual basis. These EPDs predict differences expected in performance of future progeny of two or more bulls within the same breed for traits including birth weight, weaning weight, yearling weight, and maternal milking ability (as reflected in progeny weaning weights). Normally, the EPDs of bulls from different breeds cannot be compared because most breed associations compute their EPDs in separate analyses and each breed has a different base point. The across-breed adjustment factors allow producers to compare the EPDs for animals from different breeds for these traits; these factors reflect both the current breed difference (for animals born in 2014) and differences in the breed base point. They 9

should only be used with EPDs current as of June 2016 because of potential changes in EPD calculations from year-to-year. It is important to note that the table factors (Table 1) do not represent a direct comparison among the different breeds because of base differences between the breeds. They should only be used to compare the EPDs (AB-EPDs) of animals in different breeds. To reduce confusion, breed of sire means (i.e., when sires from two different breeds are mated to cows of a third, unrelated breed) for animals born in 2014 under conditions similar to USMARC are presented in Table 2. The adjustment factors in Table 1 were updated using EPDs from the most recent national cattle evaluations conducted by each of the eighteen breed associations (current as of March 2016). The breed differences used to calculate the factors are based on comparisons of progeny of sires from each of these breeds in the Germplasm Evaluation Program at USMARC in Clay Center, Nebraska. These analyses were conducted by USMARC geneticists Larry Kuehn (email: Larry.Kuehn@ars.usda.gov; ph: 402-762- 4352) and Mark Thallman (email: Mark.Thallman@ars.usda.gov; ph: 402-762-4261). 10

TABLE 1: ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO ADD TO EPDs OF EIGHTEEN DIFFERENT BREEDS TO ESTIMATE ACROSS BREED EPD Breed Birth Wt. (lb) Weaning Wt. (lb) Yearling Wt. (lb) Maternal Milk (lb) Marbling Score a Ribeye Area (in 2 ) Fat Thickness (in) Carcass Wt.(lb) Angus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.0 Hereford 2.3-7.8-28.6-17.3-0.31-0.07-0.056-59.0 Red Angus 2.5-31.4-34.6 3.3-0.27 0.01-0.016-9.0 Shorthorn 4.7-36.6-17.3 4.1-0.14 0.37-0.105-7.1 South Devon 3.3-11.4-27.1 3.9-0.08 0.29-0.133-24.8 Beefmaster 4.7 17.9 0.5 5.9 Brahman 10.3 45.1 6.6 23.8-0.78-0.05-0.145-27.8 Brangus 3.3 12.0 4.0 6.3 Santa Gertrudis 5.7 36.3 43.0 17.0-0.54-0.09-0.080 2.2 Braunvieh 1.9-25.5-50.0-0.8-0.70 0.78-0.092 Charolais 8.0 34.6 40.4 8.2-0.33 1.01-0.208 13.0 Chiangus 3.2-27.0-40.5-1.7-0.34 0.34-0.093-18.1 Gelbvieh 2.8-22.6-29.3 2.3-0.27 0.75-15.0 Limousin 2.3-18.2-41.3-13.7-0.43 1.01-0.132-12.0 Maine-Anjou 4.2-30.5-38.7-6.2-0.57 0.97-0.187-15.9 Salers 1.8-7.3-25.7 5.9-0.09 0.94-0.196-23.5 Simmental 3.2-9.4-12.1 4.4-0.34 0.49-0.129 4.4 Tarentaise 3.4 25.1 5.6 24.2 a Marbling score units: 4.00 = Sl 00 ; 5.00 = Sm 00 11

TABLE 2: BREED OF SIRE MEANS FOR 2014 BORN ANIMALS UNDER CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO USMARC Breed Birth Wt. (lb) Weaning Wt. (lb) Yearling Wt. (lb) Maternal Milk (lb) Marbling Score a Ribeye Area (in 2 ) Fat Thickness (in) Carcass Wt.(lb) Angus 86.3 570.7 1057.4 555.7 5.88 13.57 0.677 913.7 Hereford 90.6 560.1 1016.1 535.7 5.07 13.28 0.607 882.7 Red Angus 86.2 545.4 1019.8 555.9 5.47 13.19 0.637 891.7 Shorthorn 92.1 538.1 1015.1 554.8 5.20 13.35 0.522 885.2 South Devon 90.6 552.0 1021.0 561.7 5.61 13.56 0.537 884.2 Beefmaster 90.3 560.6 1011.9 547.6 Brahman 97.1 580.8 998.6 562.1 4.51 13.01 0.515 854.4 Brangus 89.6 556.1 1016.7 548.5 Santa Gertrudis 90.9 559.8 1014.6 550.2 4.73 13.00 0.582 886.2 Braunvieh 89.7 538.6 984.4 566.5 5.14 14.17 0.478 Charolais 93.5 581.0 1055.5 549.6 5.00 14.38 0.457 910.5 Chiangus 90.5 536.0 989.0 546.3 5.05 13.70 0.507 873.5 Gelbvieh 88.3 562.8 1033.9 561.8 5.10 14.24 893.4 Limousin 88.6 564.2 1017.4 545.7 4.85 14.54 0.488 895.1 Maine-Anjou 90.9 536.5 990.3 545.5 4.77 14.22 0.433 873.8 Salers 88.6 553.4 1019.0 557.6 5.40 14.00 0.464 877.8 Simmental 90.1 573.7 1046.8 558.7 5.09 14.33 0.475 912.8 Tarentaise 89.7 562.4 1002.8 557.6 a Marbling score units: 4.00 = Sl 00 ; 5.00 = Sm 00