In Inde dexes es to se o select lect Angus gus si sires es - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
in inde dexes es to se o select lect angus gus si sires
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

In Inde dexes es to se o select lect Angus gus si sires es - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 30, 2022 261 likes •605 views

In Inde dexes es to se o select lect Angus gus si sires es for or us use e on on dai airy y co cows ws Stephen Miller Angus Genetics Inc. Jason Archer AbacusBio Ltd Beef on dairy a growing market Understanding the US

slide-1
SLIDE 1

In Inde dexes es to se

  • select

lect Angus gus si sires es for

  • r us

use e on

  • n dai

airy y co cows ws

Stephen Miller – Angus Genetics Inc. Jason Archer – AbacusBio Ltd

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Beef on dairy – a growing market

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Understanding the US beef x dairy system and issues

Study tour in December

  • Packers
  • Feeders
  • Dairy operations
  • Calf ranches
  • USDA dairy genetic

evaluation scientists

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Key messages

Dairy sector

  • Calving ease a priority for dairy sector

Feed yard

  • Growth and conversion in feed yard is an issue for

Angus x Jersey

– Longer on feed, finished at lighter weights

  • Need to look like beef animals

– Tall and narrow don’t fit

Processor

  • Carcass length can be a problem in Angus x

Holstein

  • Sunken strips can be a problem – more-so in

Angus x Jersey

  • Quality grade is generally acceptable
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Wish-lists

  • Calving ease a priority
  • Avoid bulls which are too tall

(height penalty)

  • Extra muscle desirable

“Moderate framed, easy calving, muscular bull, with marbling prioritized over growth”

  • Calving ease a priority
  • Need additional growth
  • Need additional muscle
  • Height not an issue

“High growth, easy calving, very muscular bull, with growth prioritized over marbling”

slide-6
SLIDE 6

$Value – birth to carcase

$M $M $B $B Calving Ease ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐

slide-7
SLIDE 7

$Value – birth to carcase

$M $M $B $B $AxH $AxJ Calving Ease ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐

slide-8
SLIDE 8

$Value – birth to carcase

$M $M $B $B $AxH $AxJ Calving Ease ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐

Utilises economics from USA Net Merit assumptions

slide-9
SLIDE 9

$Value – birth to carcase

Growth from birth to slaughter

$M $M $B $B $AxH $AxJ Calving Ease ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐

slide-10
SLIDE 10

$Value – birth to carcase

Re-parameterized for dairy beef system

  • Slower growth
  • Poorer conversion
  • Less fat cover
  • Fed for longer
  • Slaughtered lighter

$M $M $B $B $AxH $AxJ Calving Ease ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐

slide-11
SLIDE 11

$Value – birth to carcase

$M $M $B $B $AxH $AxJ Calving Ease ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Growth to weaning ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Milk ✔︐ Mature weight ✔︐ Fertility ✔︐ Docility ✔︐ Foot score ✔︐ Post-weaning growth ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Post-weaning intake ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Carcase weight ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Yield Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Quality Grade ✔︐ ✔︐ ✔︐ Muscling ✔︐ ✔︐ Height ✔︐

New traits added to penalize bulls with poor muscling or excessively tall

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Determination of Muscling

  • 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Ultrasound RIB_EPD ScanWT EPD

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Determination of Muscling

  • 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Ultrasound RIB_EPD ScanWT EPD

These animals all have similar Weight EPD, but vastly different Ultrasound RIB-EYE Area EPD

slide-14
SLIDE 14

REA EPD and Muscling

  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 Muscling EPD REA EPD

Poor muscling will lead to increased percent Sunken Strips

Sunken Strip discount is $20/CWT Sunken Strip frequency 3X higher in AxJ vs. AxH Creates a non-linear economic emphasis

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Modelling thresholds

$V1 $V2 Threshold Rib Eye Area distribution of progeny

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Modelling thresholds

$V1 $V2 Threshold Rib Eye Area distribution of progeny

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Modelling thresholds

Threshold $V1 $V2 Rib Eye Area distribution of progeny

  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1

Rib Eye Area EPD

Penalty per carcase Proportion too flat

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Threshold Height distribution of progeny

Modelling thresholds

  • 1

1 2

Height Penalty Applied Yearling Height EPD

$V1 $V2

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Two Indexes in the end Coming later this summer

0.95 Correlation

  • n Current

Sires $AxJ Angus on Jersey Value $AxH Angus on Holstein Value

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Correlation to $B is moderate Result: significant re-ranking

0.95 Correlation

  • n Current

Sires $AxJ Angus on Jersey Value $AxH Angus on Holstein Value

.72 .67 $B

slide-21
SLIDE 21

The dairy cow is to the beef industry what the laying hen is to the broiler industry

Need to put a little meat on them bones

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Rib-eye is to the dairy indexes what carcass weight was to $B

Correlations rrelations $B $B $AxH xH $AxJ CW EPD 0.74 0.41 0.54 REA EPD 0.54 0.73 0.81

Correlation across ~10,000 current sires

slide-23
SLIDE 23

$B and YH EPD are positively correlated (0.47)

50 100 150 200 250

  • 1.5
  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 $B YH EPD

Correlation between YH EPD and $B is 0.47 Top 1% Thresh hold for YH

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Can you see the rising fish?

50 100 150 200 250

  • 1.5
  • 1
  • 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

$B YH EPD

slide-25
SLIDE 25

$AxH Turns the fish from rising to level

Correlation between YH EPD and $AxH is Zero

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Comparing Emphasis

$AxH

$B

Calving Ease Growth Marbling Yield Efficiency Muscling Height

$AxJ

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Poorest 10 CED from top 100 on $Value

$B $B $AxH $Ax AxJ

  • 11

3

  • 4
  • 9

3

  • 7

3 1

  • 5

4 1

  • 4

4 2

  • 2

5 2

  • 1

5 3

  • 1

6 3 1 6 4 1 6 4

These bottom 5%

  • f the breed

for CED don’t make the top 100

  • n AxJ or

AxH

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Highest 10 YH from top 100 on $Value

$B $B $AxH xH 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.4 1 1.3 1 1.3 0.9 1.3 0.9

Top1% of the breed for YH is 1.3. Far fewer of those in Top 10 on $AxH.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Far Fewer Top $AxH bulls in Top 1% for YH

9,690 Current Sires 163 > 1.3 YH EPD 124 over 150 $B 15 over 150 $AxH

slide-30
SLIDE 30

More ways to fail

Poor Calving Ease Poor Muscling Too much height Longer Feeding Period Bulls that tick all the “wrong boxes” will compound discounts and have a seriously negative $AxH or $AxJ

  • 200 AxH or AxJ is possible.
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Average of Top 100 Current Sires on each index

Average EPD of Top 100 bulls on each index Compare within not between indexes

  • 50

50 100 150 200 250 Top 100 $B Top 100 $AxH Top 100 $AxJ

slide-32
SLIDE 32

In a Nut Shell

  • Growth – Similar to $B – Highest in $AxJ
  • More CED
  • Muscle – more in $AxH and most in $AxJ
  • Height – High YH EPD penalized in $AxH
  • Similar CW
  • Similar MARB in $AxH, less in $AxJ
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Qu Questions/D tions/Discu iscussion ssion

Stephen Miller, Ph.D. Genetic Research Director smiller@angus.org 816-383-5157