slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 18

ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 208 Views
  • Uploaded on

ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004. L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff. MARC-ARS-USDA Lincoln and Clay Center, NE. Beef Improvement Federation 38 th Annual Meeting Choctaw, MS April 18-21, 2006. Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004' - dakota


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006

ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004

L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff

MARC-ARS-USDA

Lincoln and Clay Center, NE

Beef Improvement Federation 38th Annual Meeting

Choctaw, MS

April 18-21, 2006

mean epds birth year 2004 spring 2006 evaluations

Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK

MEAN EPDs (Birth Year 2004, Spring 2006 Evaluations)

Angus +2.3 +38.5 +71.5 +19.0

Hereford +3.7 +37.0 +63.0 +14.0

Red Angus +0.4 +29.0 +51.0 +15.0

Shorthorn +1.8 +13.0 +21.0 +2.4

S. Devon +0.2 +19.1 +26.4 +7.1

Brahman +1.8 +14.1 +23.1 +6.1

Limousin +2.1 +36.3 +68.2 +18.3

Simmental +1.8 +34.1 +59.5 +5.4

Charolais +1.3 +20.0 +35.2 +6.2

Gelbvieh +1.9 +41.0 +73.0 +18.0

Maine Anjou +2.5 +39.6 +78.2 +18.4

Salers +1.1 +15.5 +25.8 +8.7

Tarentaise -1.5 +4.0 +11.0 +1.0

Braunvieh +1.1 +7.0 +8.0 0.0

Brangus +2.0 +22.7 +37.8 +9.9

Beefmaster +0.4 +7.0 +12.0 +2.0

(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)

slide3

SIRE BREEDS WITH EPDs IN GERMPLASM EVALUATION PROGRAM

CYCLE

I II III IV V VI VII VIII

Breed 70-72 73-74 75-76 84-90 92-94 97-98 99-00 01-02

Angus X X X X X X X X

Hereford X X X X X X X X

Red Angus X

Shorthorn X

S. Devon X

Brahman X X

Limousin X X

Simmental X X

Charolais X X X

Gelbvieh X X X

Maine Anjou X

Salers X

Tarentaise X

BraunviehX

BrangusX

BeefmasterX

marc sires and progeny by breed wn wt

Maternal Grand

Sires Progeny Grand Sires Daughters progeny

MARC Sires and Progeny by Breed (Wn. Wt.)

Hereford 112 1712 108 7142890

Angus 106 1315 104 541 2152

Shorthorn 25 170 22 69 251

S. Devon 15 134 14 69 347

Brahman 40 509 40 216 880

Simmental 47 564 47 239 1129

Limousin 40 533 40 240 1112

Charolais 74 600 68 235 1029

Ma. Anjou 18 197 17 86 485

Gelbvieh 48 559 46 232 989

Tarentaise 7 191 6 78 341

Salers 27 176 25 89 351

Red Angus 21 199 21 89 330

Braunvieh 7 183 7 92 502

Brangus 21 208 19 43 99

Beefmaster 22 215 20 51 113

regression of performance on epd s at marc lb lb van vleck and cundiff 2006
REGRESSION OF PERFORMANCE ON EPD’S AT MARC (LB/LB), (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)

Pooled over all breeds

ObservedExpected

Birth weight 1.02 + .05 1.00

Wean weight .89 + .05 1.00

Yearling weight 1.14 + .05 1.00

Maternal weaning weight .57 + .04 .50

Milk 1.13 + .06 1.00

Data for 2006 analysis for weaning wt included 16 sire breeds, 630 sires, and 7,465 progeny.

estimating ab epd factors for weaning weight van vleck and cundiff 2006
ESTIMATING AB-EPD FACTORS FOR WEANING WEIGHT(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)

Breed Avg. EPD Adj. Avg. 2004 EPD (i) AB-EPB

Breed solution Breed MARC Avg. Dev. Dev. Factor

(n sires) MARC (i) 2004 bulls (Mi)a Angus Angus (Ai)b

Angus (106) 504 38.5 23.5 517 .0 .0 .0

Hereford (112) 501 37.0 23.5 513 - 4.0 - 1.5 - 2.5

Red Angus (21) 505 29.0 27.6 506 - 11.1 - 9.5 -1.6

Charolais (74) 527 20.0 8.4 538 20.3 -18.5 38.8

Limousin (40) 503 36.3 20.8 517 - .4 - 2.2 1.8

Gelbvieh (48) 518 41.0 32.3 526 8.7 2.5 6.2

Simmental (47) 526 34.1 23.8 536 18.2 - 4.4 22.6

aMi = MARC (i) + b[EPD(i)2004 – EPD(i)MARC], where b = 0.89.

bAi = (Mi – MAngus) – (EPD(i)2004 – EPD (Angus)2004).

breeds means and deviations from angus spring 2006

Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK

BREEDS MEANS AND DEVIATIONS FROM ANGUS (SPRING, 2006)

Angus 85 (0.0) 517 ( 0.0) 903 ( 0.0) 0.0

Hereford 89 (4.3) 513 (- 4.0) 879 (- 24.2) - 23.3

Red Angus 86 (1.1) 506 (-11.1) 882 (- 21.3) - 12.1

Shorthorn 91 (6.6) 522 ( 5.1) 897 ( - 5.9) -1.6

S. Devon 89 (4.0) 521 ( 3.2) 899 ( - 3.8) - 6.6

Brahman 97 (12.0) 529 (11.5) 849 (- 53.6) 13.6

Limousin 89 (3.9) 517 (- 0.4) 878 (- 24.8) - 17.1

Simmental 90 (5.3) 536 (18.2) 912 ( 8.8) - 1.7

Charolais 94 (9.0) 538 (20.3) 920 ( 16.8) - 11.4

Gelbvieh 89 (4.3) 526 ( 8.7) 882 (- 21.1) 3.6

Maine Anjou 91 (6.5) 512 (- 5.1) 866 (- 36.7) - 7.8

Salers 88 (3.0) 523 ( 6.0) 899 ( - 3.6) - .1

Tarentaise 87 (2.3) 515 (- 2.8) 854 (- 49.0) 0.6

Braunvieh 89 (4.8) 516 (- 1.6) 851 (- 51.6) 5.1

Brangus 89 (4.9) 521 ( 4.1) 890 (- 12.6) - 11.7

Beefmaster 92 (7.3) 524 ( 7.0) 881 (- 22.2) - 24.1

(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)

slide8

MEAN ANNUAL CHANGE FOR GROWTH TRAIT

EPDs IN SEVEN PROMINENT BEEF BREEDS (lb/yr)

Breed (range in yrs) BW WW YW Milk

Angus (1979-2004) .104 1.49 2.84 0.75

Hereford (1979-2004) .152 0.93 1.90 0.51

Red Angus (1979-2005) .077 0.93 1.81 0.51

Mean .111 1.12 2.18 0.59

Simmental (1985-2004) -.049 0.53 1.10 -.07

Gelbvieh (1984-2004) -0.077 0.24 0.79 0.04

Charolais (1990-2005) 0.007 0.93 1.70 0.40

Limousin (1985-2005) 0.053 0.88 1.61 0.26

Mean -.017 0.64 1.30 0.16

adjustment factors to add to epds of seventeen breeds to estimate ab epds spring 2006
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO ADD TO EPDs OF SEVENTEEN BREEDS TO ESTIMATE AB-EPDs (SPRING, 2006)

Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK

Angus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hereford 2.9 -2.5 - 15.7 -18.3

Red Angus 3.0 - 1.6 - 0.8 - 8.1

Shorthorn 7.1 30.6 44.6 15.0

S. Devon 6.1 22.6 41.3 5.3

Brahman 12.5 35.9 - 5.2 26.5

Limousin 4.1 1.8 - 21.5 -16.4

Simmental 5.8 22.6 20.8 11.9

Charolais 10.0 38.8 53.1 1.3

Gelbvieh 4.7 6.2 - 22.6 4.6

Maine Anjou 6.3 -6.2 - 43.4 - 7.2

Salers 4.2 29.0 42.1 11.2

Tarentaise 3.1 31.7 11.5 18.6

Braunvieh 6.0 29.9 11.9 24.1

Brangus 5.2 19.9 21.1 - 2.6

Beefmaster 9.2 38.5 37.3 - 7.1

(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)

using epds and ab epds
Using EPDs and AB-EPDs

BW WW YW MILK

Angus AB - Factors .0 0 0 0

GDAR EPDs 2.9 43 84 15

Traveler044 AB-EPDs 2.9 43 84 15

Simmental AB-Factors 5.8 22.6 20.8 11.9

Black Irish EPDs -1.8 29.7 60.9 1.5

Kansas AB-EPDs 4.0 52.3 81.7 13.4

TOSU OrlandoEPDs 2.4 55.6 94.9 -.6

F004 AB-EPDs 8.2 78.2 115.7 11.3

ab epds
AB-EPDs
  • Within breed EPDs are accurate predictors of purebred and crossbred performance.
  • AB-EPDs are most useful for selecting bulls of two or more breeds for use in crossbreeding.
  • Uniformity in AB-EPDs should be emphasized for rotational crossing.
  • Divergence in AB-EPDs should be emphasized in selection of bulls for terminal crossing or calving ease in first calf heifers.
slide13

EPDs FOR CARCASS TRAITS BASED ON CARCASS (C),

ULTRASOUND (U), OR COMBINED C&U ESTIMATES

Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye area

Breed C U C&U C U C&U C U C&U

Angus X X X X X X

Shorthorn X X X

Charolais X X X

Gelbvieh X X X

Limousin X X X

Hereford X X X

Brangus X X X

Red Angus X X X

South Devon X X X

Chianina X X X

Salers X X X

Simmental X X X

slide14

Carcass traits (Regression by Breed)

Breed No. Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye

Angus 504 0.86  0.16 1.39  0.27 1.84  0.30

Shorthorn 96 1.96  0.44 2.29  0.64 1.55  0.75

Limousin 255 1.93  0.57 1.70  0.52 1.25  0.30

Gellbvieh 283 1.86  0.39 2.19  0.55 1.77  0.31

Red Angus 90 – – 3.35  1.02 – –

All 1228 1.16  0.14 1.72  0.21 1.62  0.17

slide15

Ultrasound (Regression by Breed)

Breed No. Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye

Hereford 401 1.12  0.42 0.80  0.58 0.64  0.47

Angus 493 0.78  0.19 2.91  0.45 0.95  0.25

Simmental 264 0.45  0.31 0.26  0.75 1.47  0.43

Limousin 255 2.35  0.57 3.13  0.99 1.10  0.27

Brangus 104 3.41  0.74 0.04  2.46 0.85  0.47

All 1517 0.95  0.15 2.41  0.31 1.01  0.15

slide16

Ultrasound & Carcass (Regression by Breed)

Breed No. Marbling Fat Thickness Ribeye

South Devon 34 3.13  1.31 -9.43  4.65 1.29  2.99

Charolais 99 0.48  0.61 1.56  1.17 1.96  0.59

Maine Anjou 94 0.94  1.11 2.35  1.88 -2.47  1.77

Salers 84 0.29  0.27 0.73  2.10 3.39  1.79

Red Angus 90 1.05  0.31 – – 1.94  0.62

All 401 0.62  0.19 1.31  0.89 1.79  0.40

slide17

Subcommittee to Develop

Uniform Guidelines for Carcass Trait EPD

Standards for reporting carcass EPD

(slaughter steer basis, endpoint)

Two-trait analyses with carcass and ultrasound records

Basis for BIF Guidelines revision