Designing Breeding Programs Kajal Devani MSc Stephen Scott MSc - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Genetic Selection Tools and Designing Breeding Programs

Kajal Devani MSc Director of Breed Development Stephen Scott MSc Executive Director

An Invitation To

Angus Central

O fficially opened December 11, 2013 J ust East of Balzac, AB in Rocky View County

Convention : J une 5 - 7, 2015 Commercial Day : Friday 5, 2015

An Invitation To

Bonanza 2015

Fredericton, N B

Bonanza : J uly 28 – Aug 1, 2015 CHA AGM: Friday J uly 31, 2015

Fredericton, N B

Red Angus 17,598 (33% ) Black Angus 35,563 (67% ) Total 53,162

2013 Registrations

Total: 12,787 Registrations

81%

• f Reg. animals

recorded on Performance Program (THE)

2013 Registrations

Registrations by Region

5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 BC AB SK MB O N Q C MAR

Registrations by Region

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 BC AB SK MB O N Q C MAR

Industry O pportunities: Q uantity and Q uality

• 10.5 Billion by 2050 – with less resources
• Lower Production Costs
• Increase Q uality

Increased Production

(Havenstein et al., 2003)

1957 Today

Day 43 Day 57 Day 71 Day 85 2003 1957

Canadian Angus Performance Program

W hole Herd or Total Herd Enrolment - Performance Programs

EPDs

Phenotype = Environment + Genetic Merit Genetic Merit = Phenotype – Environment

In Other Words

Sire A W W EPD +60 Sire B W W EPD +40 +20lb 20lb x 40 calves @ $1.42 = $ 1136

W hat Don’t EPDs Tell You

Is Bigger Better?

Sire A MILK EPD +18 Sire B MILK EPD +32 +14lb 14lb x 40 calves @ $1.42 = $ 975 Extra Feed = ? ? ?

Milking Your Profits

• It takes four times the amount of feed to add a pound of

weaning weight on a calf through milk, than it would through creep feeding.

• After a certain threshold, it takes more and more milk to put
• n pounds of weight (Lewis et al., 1990).
• High milk cows in decreased feed environments = decrease

milk production level below that of low milk cows, lower body condition scores, longer calving intervals, later calving dates, and lower calving percentages than low milk cows (Van O ijen et al., 1993).

W hich Bull Should I Buy?

Accuracy

• Parental Average (P)
• Interim (P+)
• National EPD
• Accuracy on Sales Catalogues

Accuracy BW W W YW Milk CED Marb RE Fat

0.95 0.13 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.9 0.26 1.2 1.7 1 0.8 0.03 0.03 0.004 0.8 0.53 2.3 3.4 1.9 1.6 0.06 0.06 0.009 0.7 0.79 3.5 5.1 2.9 2.4 0.09 0.1 0.013 0.6 1.05 4.6 6.8 3.9 3.2 0.12 0.13 0.017 0.5 1.31 5.8 8.5 4.9 3.9 0.15 0.16 0.022 0.4 1.58 7 10.2 5.8 4.7 0.18 0.19 0.026 0.3 1.84 8.1 11.9 6.8 5.4 0.21 0.23 0.03 0.2 2.1 9.3 13.6 7.8 6.2 0.24 0.26 0.035 0.1 2.36 10.4 15.3 8.7 7.2 0.26 0.29 0.039

Accuracy

The DN A Link

Incorporating Genomics

• Dr. Anderson, Zoetis

Genomic Blending

Matt Spangler, 2011

Trait Average EPD Change (+/-) Average Accuracy Progeny Equivalents

CED 3 .31 21 BW .8 .35 11 W W 3 .29 19 YW 5 .32 22 DMI .03 .26 10 YH .13 .35 9 SC .23 .36 11 Doc 5 .30 10 Milk 2 .20 15 MW 11 .25 7 CW 5 .19 6 Marb .12 .31 16 RE .10 .25 9 Fat .01 .25 11

• Dr. Kent Andersen, Zoetis (2013)

23

Results

BW W W YW MILK SC Marb REA FA T CW T

EPD GE-EPD

1 2 3 1 2 3

Courtesy of Kevin Schultz, Sandhill Farms

Sandhill Farms Example

Large, progressive Hereford Herd in KS Kevin Schultz spoke at our AGM on using

Genomic Technologies

• Follows the BW EPD of 6 bulls that they used in their

program in the same year through 4 EPD runs

Traditional:

the bulls traditional EPDs at 4 months of age

1st Run GE:

W hen GE’s became available Kevin pulled hair on these bulls, they were around a year old

2nd Run GE:

The GE prediction Equations went through a modification to have more predictive power

Current GE:

The 6 bulls now all have calves on the ground and go through a new EPD run

To s

ee Kevin’s whole pres entation on us ing GE-EPDs vis it Hereford.ca, under the HOM E tab click on M EDIA

Courtesy of Kevin Schultz, Sandhill Farms

Breeding Programs and Tools

1. W hat’s your GOAL for your operation? 2. List your animals 3. W hat’s your herd average 4. W hat do your cows look like? 5. Assess strengths and weaknesses Structural traits to maintain or change Performance traits to maintain or change 6. Decide how much you need to change what you don’t like 7. Choose bulls that help you maintain what you like about your cows and help change what you don’t

Cow Herd Average

Trait

Birth Weight Weaning Weight Yearling Weight Milk Total Maternal Scrotal Circ. Calving Ease Direct Calving Ease Maternal Rib Eye Area Carcass Weight Marbling Fat

Producer Percentile Ranking

43 45 45 49 27 N/A 50 50 50 53 30 28

Producer Average EPDs

2.4 36 80 19 48 N/A 3.6 6.1 0.22 21 0.39 0.005

Breed Average EPDs

2.7 45 78 19 42 0.71 3.0 6.2 0.22 22 0.31 0.009

9lb, on average, lighter than breed average for weaning weight. How much does that cost you? 200 calves x 9lb lighter at weaning = 1800lb $2.75 x 1800 = $4950

Selecting The Right Bull

Bull B Bull A Bull C

W W Avg. = 43

W hat’s the Dollar Difference

Cows = 36 Bull A = 60 Bull B = 45 Bull C = 38 Bull A will add 24lb on average per calf, 4800lb

• ver 200 cows, that = 13,200 extra dollars

Bull B will add 9lb on average per calf, 1800lb over 200 cows, that = 4,950 extra dollars Bull C will add 2lb on average per calf, 400lb over 200 cows, that = 1,100 extra dollars

O ther things to consider

Is the biggest the best? W ill Bull A be too big for your cows? W ill you lose money on compromised

calving ease?

W ill you have to feed extra? Are all three bulls equal for all other

traits and for conformation?

Available Mating Tools

EPD Inquiry

Mating Predictor

Mating Predictor Inbreeding Coefficient

O ngoing Research

What we don’t want to do is select for growth

• nly, at the

expense of fertility and longevity. We need cows to stay in the herd and produce live calves.

Variation in Discovery Population

Residual Feed Intake

Residual feed intake = feed consumed - calculated feed requirements based on body weight and ADG during a standardized test period. RFI = variation in feed intake that remains after the requirements for maintenance and growth have been

• met. Efficient animals eat less than

expected and have a negative or low RFI, while inefficient animals eat more than expected and have a positive or high RFI.

• 1
• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Hereford Residual Feed Intake Trials

RFI

Most Feed Efficient Bull = -0.772 lb DM/day;

Least Feed Efficient Bull = 0.935 lb DM / day; Acc: 0.588

Difference between yearly feed cost between these two bulls: $40.49 (1.7lbDM/day*$0.065/lb DM*365) Zero is Breed Average

Profit = Production + Cost

• 50 years of bigger cows that eat more by selecting for the output of ADG.
• Selection for factors that could lower costs within the production cycle
• Measuring and selecting for the inputs and not just the outputs = continue

generating income + enhance sustainability and save costs.