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

Genetic Selection Tools and Designing Breeding Programs Kajal Devani MSc Stephen Scott MSc Director of Breed Development Executive Director

An Invitation To Angus Central Convention : J une 5 - 7, 2015 Commercial Day : Friday 5, 2015 J ust East of Balzac, AB in Rocky View County O fficially opened December 11, 2013

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

2013 Registrations Red Angus 17,598 (33% ) Black Angus 35,563 (67% ) Total 53,162

2013 Registrations Total: 12,787 Registrations 81% of Reg. animals recorded on Performance Program (THE)

Registrations by Region 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 BC AB SK MB O N Q C MAR

Registrations by Region 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 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 1957 1957 2003 Today Day 43 Day 71 Day 85 Day 57 (Havenstein et al ., 2003)

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 on 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 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

The DN A Link

Incorporating Genomics Dr. Anderson, Zoetis

Genomic Blending Matt Spangler, 2011

Average Average Progeny Trait EPD Change Accuracy Equivalents (+/-) CED 3 21 .31 BW .8 .35 11 W W 3 .29 19 YW 5 .32 22 DMI .03 .26 10 YH .13 9 .35 SC .23 11 .36 Doc 5 .30 10 Milk 2 .20 15 MW 11 .25 7 CW 5 .19 6 Marb .12 16 .31 RE .10 9 .25 Fat .01 .25 11 Dr. Kent Andersen, Zoetis (2013) 23

Results BW W YW MILK SC Marb REA FA CW EPD W T T 1 2 3 GE-EPD 1 2 3

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 � 1 st Run GE: W hen GE’s became available Kevin pulled hair on these bulls, they were around a year old � 2 nd 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

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 Calving Calving Birth Weaning Yearling Total Scrotal Rib Eye Carcass Trait Milk Ease Ease Marbling Fat Weight Weight Weight Maternal Circ. Area Weight Direct Maternal Producer Percentile 43 45 45 49 27 N/A 50 50 50 53 30 28 Ranking Producer Average 2.4 36 80 19 48 N/A 3.6 6.1 0.22 21 0.39 0.005 EPDs 2.7 45 78 19 42 0.71 3.0 6.2 0.22 22 0.31 0.009 Breed Average EPDs 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 A Bull B W W Avg. = 43 Bull C

W hat’s the Dollar Difference Bull A will add 24lb on average per calf, 4800lb Cows = 36 over 200 cows, that = 13,200 extra dollars Bull A = 60 Bull B will add 9lb on average per calf, 1800lb over Bull B = 45 200 cows, that = 4,950 extra dollars Bull C = 38 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 only, 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.

Hereford Residual Feed Intake Trials 1.2 Difference between yearly feed cost between 1 these two bulls: $40.49 0.8 (1.7lbDM/day*$0.065/lb DM*365) 0.6 Zero is Breed 0.4 Average 0.2 RFI 0 -0.2 -0.4 Most Feed Efficient Least Feed Efficient Bull -0.6 Bull = 0.935 lb DM / day; = -0.772 lb DM/day; Acc: 0.588 -0.8 -1

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.