UF Station Report S

Similar documents
Using EPDs in a Commercial Herd

Multibreed herd, growth, feed efficiency, ultrasound, carcass, genetic-genomic research

Welcome to Igenity Brangus and the Power of Confident Selection

Understanding and Using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs)

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

BREEDPLAN EBVs The Traits Explained

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

TECHNICAL BULLETIN December 2017

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

WHETHER dealing with a commercial

Selection and Development of Heifers

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

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

Matching Cow Type to the Nutritional Environment

BLUP and Genomic Selection

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

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

Genomic-polygenic evaluation of multibreed Angus-Brahman cattle for postweaning

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

THE 30-DAY GAME CHANGER: IMPROVING REPRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY AND PROFITABILITY OF BEEF HERDS. G. Cliff Lamb

Benchmark Angus. Engineering Superior Beef

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

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

Jesse D. Savell University of Florida

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

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

Using Live Animal Carcass Ultrasound Information in Beef Cattle Selection

Heifer Development Goals

COW CALF BREEDING AND GENETICS. Dhuyvetter

Breeding for Profit from Beef Production ( )

Heifer Management to Make Successful Cows

1999 American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting

Nichols Farms. Angus 8/12. Private Treaty Bull Sale 64 Years of. Superior Beef Genetics

Beef Cattle Handbook

The powerful new genomic selection tool. Built By Angus Genetics Inc.

Can Selection Indexes Improve Profitability in Beef Cattle

A Basic Guide to. BREEDPLAN EBVs BREEDPLAN

IMPACT OF SEED STOCK SELECTION ON THE ECONOMICS OF A COW-CALF OPERATION

Local Genetic Adaptation in Beef Cattle Jared Decker Assistant Professor Beef Genetics Specialist Computational Genomics

Performance Testing Bulls on the Farm

Productive Longevity in Beef Cows. Jim Sanders, Animal Science Dept., Texas A&M University

Crossbreeding Systems in Beef Cattle 1

29 th Annual BIC Bull Sale

UNDERSTANDING & USING GENEMAX FOCUS TM

Development of an Economic Breeding Index EBI for Ireland. Ross Evans (ICBF)

Long Calving Seasons. Problems and Solutions

Heterosis and Breed Effects for Beef Traits of Brahman Purebred and Crossbred Steers

Crossbreeding in Beef Cattle

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXI December 1, 2 and 3, 2009, Casper, WY SELECTING FOR EFFICIENCY

2

The Data Which Breeders May Collect For BREEDPLAN Analysis Includes: Flight time (from bail head to light beam)

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XVIII December 9, 10, 11, 2003, Mitchell Nebraska

CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS FOR ARIZONA RANGELANDS

Tennessee Beef Cattle Improvement Initiative

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXI December 1, 2 and 3, 2009 Casper, Wyoming

Bred to Solve Problems, Not Create Them

TECHNICAL BULLETIN GENEMAX FOCUS - EVALUATION OF GROWTH & GRADE FOR COMMERCIAL USERS OF ANGUS GENETICS. November 2016

Experiences in the use of genomics in ruminants in Uruguay

DAYS TO CALVING IN ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED CATTLE

Australian Hereford Selection Indexes

Breed Utilization and Production Efficiency

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXI December 1, 2 and , Casper, WY

ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT TRAITS AND SELECTION INDICES

Residual Feed Intake: Sustainability and Meat Quality

Beef Cattle Research Update

The Value of Improving the Performance of your Cow-Calf Operation

A COMPARISON OF BEEF CATTLE BREEDING METHODS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. D.G. Landblom and J.L. Nelson

Janssen Re d An g u s

Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XXIV November 17, 18 and 19, 2015, Loveland, Colorado HOW TO USE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE GENOMIC PREDICTIONS

Effect of Angus and Charolais Sires with Early vs Normal Weaned Calves on Feedlot Performance and Carcass Characteristics

Influence of Cow BCS and Late Gestation Supplementation: Effects on Cow and Calf Performance 1

Australian Red Angus Selection Indexes

publication

ORGANIZATION OF ON-FARM BREEDING PLANS FOR BEEF CATTLE R.G. BEILHARZ* Summary

Residual feed intake and greenhouse gas emissions in beef cattle

The new infrastructure for cattle and sheep breeding in Ireland.

Canfax Research Services A Division of the Canadian Cattlemen s Association

Nichols Farms. Angus. Private Treaty Bull Sale 65 Years of. Superior Beef Genetics 4/25/18

Production Records for Cow/Calf Producers Sandy Johnson, Beef specialist Bob Weaber, Cow/calf specialist

Prediction of Carcass Traits Using Live Animal Ultrasound

Carcass Video Images in Genetic Evaluation and Breeding Program in Ireland

Guidelines For Uniform Beef Improvement Programs

Wagyu 101. Michael Scott Certified Executive Chef Academy of Chefs Corporate Chef for Rosewood Ranches Texas Raised Wagyu Beef

Placing: 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th

Applications of Genomic Technology to Cattle Breeding and Management

REPRODUCTION AND BREEDING Effects of Body Condition and Energy Intake on Reproduction of Beef Cows

University of Florida Presentation. By: Jerry Bohn

Nutrient Profiling - Metabolic Imprinting of Beef Calves

2/22/2012. Impact of Genomics on Dairy Cattle Breeding. Basics of the DNA molecule. Genomic data revolutionize dairy cattle breeding

Fertility Factors Fertility Research: Genetic Factors that Affect Fertility By Heather Smith-Thomas

Prevalence of Shiga-Toxin Producing Escherichia Coli in Two Cohorts of Beef Cattle is Associated with Diversity of Microflora and Animal Age

Commentary: Increasing Productivity, Meat Yield, and Beef Quality through Genetic Selection, Management, and Technology

CULLING: REPLACEMENT HEIFER STRATEGIES

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

Delivering Valued Genomic Products to Livestock Customers

Beef genetics for accelerated economic growth

Transcription:

UF Station Report S-1064 2015-2016 M. A. Elzo 1, D. D. Johnson 1, R. Mateescu 1, D. O. Rae 2, T. Scheffler 1, J. Scheffler 1, K. C. Jeong 1, C. D. Nelson 1, J. M. Gonzalez 3, J. G. Wasdin 1, M. D. Driver 1, and J. D. Driver 1 1 Department of Animal Sciences, UF/IFAS, Gainesville, FL 2 Dept. Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College Vet. Medicine, UF, Gainesville, FL 3 Animal Sciences and Industry, KSU, Manhattan, KS

Research Areas Objective 2: Meta-analyses of economically important traits of cow productivity and fertility to assess breed and production system combinations Objective 4: Investigation of early cow-life performance (First four parities) affecting lifetime production in Brahman and Brahman-Angus cows

Activities Objective 2 Suggested Data Collection (1)Breed of cow, (2) Sire ID/sire breed and dam ID/dam breed of cow, (3) cow birth date, (4) Mating information (natural or artificial insemination; single or multiple sires; number of cows per bull; season or insemination date(s), (5) Predominant forage in pastures (fescue 0 = no; 1 = yes), (6) Sire/sire breed of calf, (7) Cow:bull ratio, (8) Body condition score (date and stage of production), (9) Palpation status (0 = nonpregnant; 1= pregnant), (10) Calving status (0 = no; 1 = yes), (11) Weaning status ( 0= no; 1 = yes), (12) Calving date (calving season, spring or fall), (13) Calving difficulty (1 = normal; 2 = easy pull; 3 = hard pull; 4 = caesarian section; 5 = abnormal presentation, note the abnormal presentation of calf), (14) Calf vigor issues (1 = normal; 2 = weak but nursed without assistance; 3 = weak and assisted to nurse; add any notes), (15) Calf birth weight, (16) Calf weaning date, (17) Calf weaning weight, (18) Cow temperament at calving, (19) Date of death and reason/notes for cow or her calf, and (20) Date of culling and reason/notes for cow and/or her calf leaving herd. Objective 4 Additional Data Collection (1) Udder scores, (2) Ultrasound ribeye area, fat, percent intramuscular fat between 365 and 467 days of age, (3) Carcass and meat quality traits.

Activities Data Collection Multibreed Angus-Brahman (MAB; 270 cows) and Brahman herds (BRA; 60 cows) 1) Objectives 2 and 4 suggested phenotypic data 2) Expected breed composition of all MAB animals (calves, sires, dams) 3) Pedigree file (MAB + BRA) 4) Accumulated phenotypic data file (MAB + BRA; 1987 Present; Unequal number of years of data per trait) 5) Genotypic data files (3k, 150k, 250k) Tissue Sample Collection 1) Blood samples from all calves and natural service sires (-80 Celsius) 2) Hair samples from all calves and natural service sires (room temperature) 3) Semen from all AI sires (-80 Celsius)

Research 1) Genomic-polygenic analysis of heifers from the MAB and Brahman herds for yearling weight, reproductive tract score, age at first calving, and first calving interval 2) Genomic-polygenic analysis of animals from the MAB and Brahman herds for yearling weight direct and maternal, ultrasound ribeye area, ultrasound backfat, and ultrasound marbling 3) Genomic-polygenic analysis of animals from the MAB and Brahman herds for birth weight direct and maternal, weaning weight direct and maternal, postweaning gain direct, ultrasound ribeye area, ultrasound backfat, and ultrasound marbling 4) Genomic-polygenic analysis of animals from the MAB and Brahman herds for 9 Ultrasound and Carcass traits [UYW, UREA, UBF, UMAR, SLW, HCW, REA, FAT, and MAR] 5) FORTRAN software for editing of phenotypes, genotypes, and pedigree data and construction of input data files for imputation (Findhap2, 3, 4; FImpute) and for genomicpolygenic evaluation (BLUPF90, GS3, QXPAK) 6) SAS programs for editing, statistical description, and mixed model analysis of feed intake, growth, ultrasound, carcass, and meat palatability traits in the MAB and Brahman populations

Genomic-polygenic analysis of heifers from the MAB and Brahman herds for yearling weight, reproductive tract score, age at first calving, and first calving interval UF Multibreed Angus-Brahman & Brahman Herds [1,758 calves, 125 sires, 701 dams] BLUPF90 Genomic-polygenic (GPM) and Polygenic models (PM) Similar estimates of genetic parameters (GPM somewhat higher than PM) Similar rankings (rank correlations = 0.91 to 0.95) In general, Brahman had Lower EBV for Yearling Wt Lower EBV for Reproductive Tract Score Higher EBV for Age at First Calving Lower EBV for First Calving Interval Than Angus Heifers with higher Brahman percentages tended to be lighter and less mature as yearlings, older at first calving, and have shorter FCI than heifers with higher Angus percentages (Perhaps due to estrous synchronization, AI, and 60 d NS period)

Genomic-polygenic analysis of animals from the MAB and Brahman herds for BW and WW Direct and Maternal, GW Direct, and Ultrasound Ribeye area, Backfat, and Marbling UF Multibreed Angus-Brahman & Brahman Herds [1,758 calves, 125 sires, 701 dams] Genomic-polygenic (GPM) and Polygenic models (PM) Similar estimates of genetic parameters (GPM h 2 somewhat higher than PM h 2 ) Heritabilities BWD = 0.19; WWD = 0.61; GWD = 0.31; BWM = 0.12; WWM =0.13 UREA = 0.50; UFAT = 0.04; UMAR = 0.05 Additive Genetic Correlations BWD positively correlated with WWD (med high) BWD, WWD negatively correlated with BWM, WWM, GWD (med high) BWD, WWD, GWD positively correlated with UREA and UFAT (med high) BWD, WWD, GWD negatively correlated with UMAR (med) BWM, WWM negatively correlated with UREA and UFAT (low med) BWM, WWM positively correlated with UMAR (low) UREA positively correlated with UFAT (med high) UREA, UFAT negatively correlated with UMAR (med high)

GPEBV Direct Growth Traits

GPEBV Maternal Growth Traits

GPEBV Direct Ultrasound Traits

Genomic-polygenic analysis of animals from the MAB and Brahman herds for 9 Ultrasound and Carcass traits [UYW, UREA, UBF, UMAR, SLW, HCW, REA, FAT, and MAR] UF Multibreed Angus-Brahman & Brahman Herds [1,758 calves, 125 sires, 701 dams] Genomic-polygenic (GPM) and Polygenic models (PM) Similar estimates of genetic parameters (GPM h 2 somewhat higher than PM h 2 ) Heritabilities UYW = 0.23; UREA = 0.35; UFAT = 0.04; UMAR = 0.08 SLW = 0.44; HCW = 0.55; REA = 0.55; FAT =0.18; MAR = 0.31 Additive Genetic Correlations UYW, UREA positively correlated with all traits, except UMAR (med high) UFAT positively correlated with all traits (low high) UMAR negatively correlated with all traits except FAT, MAR (low high) UYW, UREA, UFAT positively correlated with SLW and all carcass traits (med high) SLW and all carcass traits positively correlated with each other (low high)

GPEBV Ultrasound and Carcass Traits 15 0.25 0.6 EBV Ultr Ribeye Area, cm2 10 5 0-5 -10-15 y = 0.0036x - 0.0047 EBV Ultr Backfat, cm 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00-0.05-0.10-0.15-0.20-0.25 y = -0.0002x + 0.0052 EBV Ultr Intramusc Fat, % 0.4 0.2 0.0-0.2-0.4-0.6 y = -0.0007x + 0.0099 20 0.50 150.0 EBV Ribeye Area, cm2 15 10 5 0-5 -10-15 -20 y = 0.001x + 0.0949 EBV Backfat, cm 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00-0.10-0.20-0.30-0.40-0.50 y = -0.0013x + 0.0261 EBV Marbling, units 100.0 50.0 0.0-50.0-100.0-150.0 y = -0.3381x + 6.4279

GPEBV Ultrasound Traits 15 0.25 0.6 EBV Ultr Ribeye Area, cm2 10 5 0-5 -10-15 y = 0.0036x - 0.0047 EBV Ultr Backfat, cm 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00-0.05-0.10-0.15-0.20-0.25 y = -0.0002x + 0.0052 EBV Ultr Intramusc Fat, % 0.4 0.2 0.0-0.2-0.4-0.6 y = -0.0007x + 0.0099 0.015 Mean EBV UFAT, cm 0.010 0.005 0.000-0.005-0.010-0.015 y = 0.0001x + 0.0017

GPEBV Carcass Traits 20 0.50 150.0 EBV Ribeye Area, cm2 15 10 5 0-5 -10-15 -20 y = 0.001x + 0.0949 EBV Backfat, cm 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00-0.10-0.20-0.30-0.40-0.50 y = -0.0013x + 0.0261 EBV Marbling, units 100.0 50.0 0.0-50.0-100.0-150.0 y = -0.3381x + 6.4279

GPEBV and PEBV Ultrasound and Carcass Traits 15 0.70 150.0 GPEBV Ribeye Area, cm2 10 5 0-5 -10 y = 1.2577x + 0.0383-15 -10-5 0 5 10 15 GPEBV Ultr Ribeye Area, cm2 GPEBV Backfat, cm 0.50 0.30 0.10-0.10-0.30 y = 2.8302x - 0.0009-0.50-0.10-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 GPEBV Marbling, units 100.0 50.0 0.0-50.0-100.0 y = 138.67x + 0.7957-150.0-0.600-0.400-0.200 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 GPEBV Ultr Backfat, cm GPEBV Ultr Marbling, units 15 0.70 150.0 PEBV Ribeye Area, cm2 10 5 0-5 -10 y = 1.4903x - 0.0467-15 -10-5 0 5 10 PEBV Ultr Ribeye Area, cm2 PEBV Backfat, cm 0.50 0.30 0.10-0.10-0.30 y = 3.6684x + 0.0012-0.50-0.10-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 PEBV Marbling, units 100.0 50.0 0.0-50.0-100.0 y = 132.97x + 0.0319-150.0-0.400-0.300-0.200-0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 PEBV Ultr Backfat, cm PEBV Ultr Marbling, units

Additional Research Projects Involving the Multibreed Angus-Brahman and Brahman Herds Identification of genetic markers associated with meat quality traits to improve prediction for tenderness in beef cattle (R. Mateescu) Muscle metabolic phenotypes and their association with meat quality traits (T. Scheffler, J. Scheffler, J. M. Gonzalez) Animal and microbiological factors affecting the prevalence of Shiga Toxin Producing E. coli (STEC) and Cefotaxime Resistance (CefR) (K. C. Jeong) Influence and regulation of vitamin D on the immune system, health, and growth of beef calves (C. Nelson)