Matching Beef Genetics with Production EnvironmentT. G. Jenkins and C. L. Ferrell

USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research CenterClay Center NE

CYCLING

BREEDING

PREGNANT

CALVING

COW HER

D

CULLS

CALVES

REPLACEMENT HEIFERS

STOCKERS

FEEDER CATTLE

MARKET CATTLE

LiveweightGridNiche

$

$

Effect of Biologicaltype X Dam Diet X Calf Energy Density on Postweaing ADG

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Calf Low Calf Medium Calf High

Energy density of postweaning diet

ADG, lbs

LM

H

L

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

L

L

LL

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

M

H

Large size-High milk

Moderate size-Moderate milk

Large size-Moderate milk

An Approach to “Matching Beef Cattle Genetics”:1) Identify the product to be merchandised.

2) Identify the most limiting environmental feature (constraint or bottleneck)

3) Identify phenotype(s) that directly or indirectly provide an advantage

4) Define an objective measure of the identified phenotype(s) to overcome the constraint

5) Identify breed(s) or animals with phenotypes that overcome the constraint

6) Determine if trait is under genetic control7) Design and implement a breeding program to increase the frequency of the desired

genotypes in the inventory 8) Utilize and Sustain genetic diversity

Utilizing Genetic Diversity to Meet Environmental Challenges

Cross Breeding Systems

Mating Systems

Rotation

Composite

Specialized dam and sire lines

terminal sire systems?

Utilizing breed diversity, heterosis effects, and complementarity

Cundiff et al, 1986

Mating Systems to Match Beef Cattle Genetics to Environment

GeneralGeneral Paternal PaternalItemItem Purpose Purpose MaternalMaternal (Terminal Sire)(Terminal Sire)

ReproductionReproduction FertilityFertility + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ SurvivalSurvival + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +GrowthGrowth Birth weightBirth weight - - - - 00 Weaning weightWeaning weight + + + + + + + + + + Yearling weightYearling weight + + 0 0 + + + + Mature sizeMature size 0 0 0 0 + +

Local EnvironmentLocal EnvironmentAdaptationAdaptation ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++Adaptability Adaptability +++ +++

Population type

SIRE BREEDS USED TO PRODUCE FI CROSSES WITH ANGUS AND HEREFORD DAMS IN THE GERMPLASM EVALUATION

PROGRAM AT MARCa

Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII 70-72 73-74 75-76 86-90 92-94 97-98 99-00 01-02

Hereford Hereford Hereford Hereford Hereford Hereford Hereford HerefordAngus Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus AngusJersey Red Poll Brahman Longhorn Tuli Wagyu Red Angus BeefmasterS. Devon Braunvieh Sahiwal Salers Boran Norweg. Red Limousin BrangusLimousin Gelbvieh Pinzgauer Galloway Belg. Blue Sw. Red&Wh. Charolais BonsmaraSimmental Maine Anj. Tarentaise Nellore Brahman Friesian Simmental RomosinuanoCharolais Chianina Shorthorn Piedmontese Gelbvieh

PiedmonteseCharolaisGelbviehPinzgauer

Sire breeds mated to Angus and Hereford females, Composite MARC III (1/4 Angus, Hereford, Red Poll and Pinzgauer) cows were also included in Cycles V, VI, and VII. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/npa/marc)

Losing Genetic Diversity?

Sire breed deviations from Hereford-Angus crosses for height, weight, and Sire breed deviations from Hereford-Angus crosses for height, weight, and weight adjusted for condition score of Fweight adjusted for condition score of F

11 cows cows aa

CowCow CowCow CowCow

BreedBreed

HeightHeightinin

Weight Weight lblb

Adj. WeightAdj. Weightlblb

CycleCycle I & II VII I & II VII I & II VII

HAxHAx 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0

SimmentalSimmental 6.3 1.0 +23 +19 +29 + 27

GelbviehGelbvieh 6.0 0.1 +23 -76 +34 - 55

LimousinLimousin 5.0 1.0 +11 + 5 +15 + 15

CharolaisCharolais

Cont. avg. Cont. avg.

6.2 0.9

+5.9 0.8

+ 51 + 17

+27 - 9

+ 53 + 18

+33 + 1

aa Data for Cycles I and II are averaged over cow ages 2 – 8 yr of ageData for Cycles I and II are averaged over cow ages 2 – 8 yr of age

(Arango et al.,2004). Data for cycle VII are for 5-yr-old cows.(Arango et al.,2004). Data for cycle VII are for 5-yr-old cows. Cundiff(2005)

Utilizing Genetic Diversity to Meet Environmental Challenges

Within breed improvement

Single trait selection

Selection index

Utilizing within breed diversity

Pollott and Greff, 2004, JAS 82:2840

Genotype x Environment Interaction: Breeding values for 12 Rams Across Fecal Egg Count Environments

Need for Diversity: Nutritional GEI

Nutritional Effect on Weight Maintenance for

Diverse Breeds

60

65

70

75

80

85

<3 3.0-5.0 5.0-6.5 7.0+

Weight maintained/ unit DMI, lb/lb

Angus

Hereford

Red Poll

Simmental

Charolais

Gelbvieh

Body condition scores

Affect of Previous Energy Environment on Weight Maintenance

50

60

70

80

90

100

Medium-Medium Medium-High Medium-Low

Energy availability

Weight maintenance lb/lb

Relationship Between Genetic Potential for Peak Milk Yield and Maintenance

0.02

0.022

0.024

0.026

0.028

0.03

0.032

0.034

15 20 25 30 35

Pounds of milk

Maintenance requirement

Effect of Energy Availability on Post-Partum Interval

2030405060708090

100110120130140150160

<3.0 3.0-5.0 5.0-6.5 7.0+

Body Condition Scores

Day

s

Moderate size-moderate milk

Large size-moderate milk

Moderate size-high milk

Large size-high milk

0

10

20

30

40

50

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Dry Matter Intake (kg/yr)

Eff

icie

ncy

(g

/kg

DM

)

Red Poll Pinzgauer Charolais

Angus Gelbvieh Limousin

Hereford Braunvieh Simmental

Charolais

Pinzgauer

Limousin

Simmental

Braunvieh

Gelbvieh

Red Poll

Angus

Hereford

Red Poll

Angus

Pinzgauer

Braunvieh

Limousin

Hereford

Charolais

Gelbvieh

Simmental

Jenkins and Ferrell.

1994. JAS 72:2787

Cow Efficiency of Breeds fed at Differing Levels of Dry Matter

Marketing Options:Marketing Options:

WeaningWeaning

BackgroundBackground

StockStock

FinishFinish

Live weightLive weight

CarcassCarcass

GridGrid

Characteristics Affecting Production Efficiency

Ability to cycle, conceive, gestation length, stayability post-partum interval, fecundity

calf survival, calving ease, soundness, adaptation, longevity

measures of weight, growth rate, component parts

appetite, foraging ability, selectivity, energetic efficiency , energy partitioning

yield at time of peak lactation, total yield, persistency

FertilityMilk

Survival

Nutrition

Growth

Breed Data BaseBreed Data Base

Angus Jersey SalersAngus Jersey Salers

Brahman Limousin ShorthornBrahman Limousin Shorthorn

Braunvieh Longhorn Simmental Braunvieh Longhorn Simmental

Charolais Maine Anjou South DevonCharolais Maine Anjou South Devon

Chianina Nellore TarentaiseChianina Nellore Tarentaise

Galloway Pinzgauer Generic IGalloway Pinzgauer Generic I

Gelbvieh Red Poll Generic IIGelbvieh Red Poll Generic II

Hereford Sahiwal Generic IIIHereford Sahiwal Generic III

Generic IVGeneric IV

Use of DECI requires producers to have:

1. Financial and production records.

Revenue

Costs

2. Feed resources (Quality, amount, when presented to animal)

Grazing

Harvested

Purchased

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Dry matter availability, lbs/d

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

TDN of forage

Forage Environment

Daily Dry Matter and TDN Availability

Genetic Potentials of Adjusted Cows Genetic Potentials Birth Mature Condition Milk Weight, lb Weight, lb Score* Peak, lb/d

Adjusted

91.0

1390

7.0

23.0

*Body condition score at 25% empty body fat

Genetic Potentials Birth Mature Condition Milk Weight, Weight, Score* Peak, Biological Type lb lb lb/d

Adjusted Enhanced

91

91

1390

1600

7.0

7.0

23.0

29.0

*Body condition score at 25% empty body fat

Production Parameters to Identify Energy requirements of Cow Herd

Body condition scores

Cow age Calving Breeding Weaning

Cow 5+ 5.0 4.8 4.1

Cow 4 6.0 5.4 5.2

Cow 3 6.1 5.9 5.7

Cow 2 6.1 6.3 6.1

/4.6 /4.5 /4.0

/5.6 /5.2 /5.0

/5.6 /5.6 /5.6

/6.2 /6.0 /6.1

Comparision of Annual Dry Matter of Replacement Heifers Differing

in Genetic Potential for Mature Size and Peak Milk Yield from Their Weaning Until Second Breeding Season

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

concentrate Low quaility hay High quality hay Pasture

Feed resource

Pounds of dry matter annualy

AdjustedEnhanced

Comparison of Annual Dry Matter Requirements of Mature Cows

Differing in Genetic Potential for Mature Weight and Peak Milk Yield

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Low quality hay High quality hay Pasture

Feed resource

Pounds of drymatter

AdjustedEnhanced

Mature Condition Conception Average Weight, Score* rate weaningTypes lb % weight, lb

Adjusted 1145 5.0 86 450

Enhanced 1414 4.6 87 507

Nine point condition score, at calving

Predicted Performance of Two Types

Production Summary

Predicted Production Inventory Number Weaning Calves Weight Type Weaned Sold, lb

Adjusted 150 Enhanced 120

141 113

63,558 57,279

*Body condition score 9 point scale

Altering the production environment to sustain genetic improvement

Per cow milk yields have more than doubled in the last 40 years, due largely (55%) to genetics. During the same time interval noticeable trends in a reduction to reproduce, increase in the incidence of health problems, and reduced herd life longevity have occurred.

Dr. Toni Oltenacu, Professor, Cornell University

“…. thus environmental conditions existing at any given time will lead the natural selection of genes giving rise to characters in harmony with the environment concerned”Hammond, 1947

Altering the production environment to sustain genetic improvement

Greatest production problem facing cooperate swine producers is sow longevity. Changes in production environment and management protocol (e.g., all in all out management system) has increased the incidence of failure to return to estrus among sows resulting in an industry average of 3 parities per gilt identified for replacement.

Dr. Tom Wise, Research Physiologist, MARC

ConclusionsConclusions

Need to define environment including merchandising Need to define environment including merchandising

Diverse production environments exists for beef animals Diverse production environments exists for beef animals

Adaptation vs. AdaptabilityAdaptation vs. AdaptabilityExpected to produce within static environment: adaptationExpected to produce within static environment: adaptationExpected to produce across different environment: adaptabilityExpected to produce across different environment: adaptability

Genetic variation within a today’s cattle population allows both to be metGenetic variation within a today’s cattle population allows both to be met

A single phenotype does not perform in all production environments A single phenotype does not perform in all production environments

Mating systems provide greatest opportunity to utilize both adaptation Mating systems provide greatest opportunity to utilize both adaptation and adaptabilityand adaptability

The most effective use of genetic diversityThe most effective use of genetic diversity

Within environments genetic improvement programs can be implementedWithin environments genetic improvement programs can be implemented

Increasing genetic potential is warrented if cost:benefit ratio associated Increasing genetic potential is warrented if cost:benefit ratio associated with environmental modifications are favorable with environmental modifications are favorable

Consider long term costs to the production environmentConsider long term costs to the production environment

Chic-Filet, 2005