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.
South African Feedlot Association March 12, 2009 Practical Application of Gene Markers and Feed Efficiency Data for Today’s Cattleman By Dr. Roger E. Hunsley
GENETIC MARKERS Genetic Markers are available for the following traits: • Marbling: QG1, QG2, QG3, QG4 • Tenderness: T1, T2, T3, T4 • Feed Efficiency: FE1, FE2, FE3, FE4 • Muscling (F94L)
GENETIC MARKERS Select a genomics company to test and verify your samples. Make certain that all procedures and genetic tests are committed to an extensive 3rd party verification before the tests are made available commercially.
Table 1 Carries two copies of the favorable form of the GeneSTAR marbling gene Carries one copy of the favorable form of the GeneSTAR marbling gene Carries zero copies of the favorable form of the GeneSTAR marbling gene
Table 2 Average Outcomes When Mating Different Combinations of Parents with Particular GeneSTAR Ratings * This mating design illustrates Mendelian heredity and the probability of results from mating a 0, 1 or 2 STAR Sire and Dam.
MARBLING • Marbling is the number one price determiner of all cattle harvested in the U.S. and around the world. • The ultimate value and final price of a beef carcass is based more significantly on marbling than any other trait.
Table 2. USDA Marbling Score and Quality Grade Score. Quality Grade Amt. of Marbling Numerical Score Prime+ Abundant 10.0-10.9 Primeº Moderately abundant 9.0-9.9 Prime- Slightly abundant 8.0-8.9 Choice+ Moderate 7.0-7.9 Choiceº Modest 6.0-6.9 Choice- Small 5.0-5.9 Select Slight 4.0-4.9 Standard+ Traces 3.0-3.9 Standard- Practically devoid 2.0-2.9 Utility Devoid 1.0-1.9
MARBLING* • Seventy-four 2003 – 2004 born steers that were basically unselected for DNA marbling markers were feedlotted and harvested. • 9% had USDA Choice marbling scores. * Purebred Brahman steers
MARBLING* • Ninety-eight 2005 – 2006 born steers that were the result of intense selection for QG1 and QG2 DNA marbling markers were feedlotted and harvested. • 30% had USDA Choice marbling scores. * Purebred Brahman steers
TENDERNESS • Consumer eating satisfaction is based mostly on the tenderness qualities of the product. • Consumers are willing to pay a premium for guaranteed tender steaks or other beef products. • Tender beef leads to more satisfactory eating experiences than any other trait.
Warner Bratzler = WB • Warner Bratzler (WB) is a mechanical Shear instrument that measures the force required to mechanically cut through a core of cooked steak.
Tenderness * • Ninety-eight 2005 – 2006 born steers that were the result of intense selection for T1, T2 and T3 DNA tenderness markers were feedlotted and harvested. • 92% had Warner-Braztler (WB) shear values in the 3.00 – 8.99 lb. range. * Purebred Brahman steers
Tenderness • The leading meat scientists consider any beef sample that requires over 11 lbs. of WB shear force to be unacceptable for tenderness.
Shear Values for Unselected and Selected GeneSTAR Values ¹ 4 Carcasses in the 2003-2004 birth year had shear values over 8.99 lbs. ² 1 Carcass in the 2004-2005 birth year had a shear value over 8.99 lbs. ³ None of the 2005-2006 birth year group had shear values over 8.99 lbs.
Effect of USDA Quality Grade on Tenderness • Recent Studies have documented that 10-15% of USDA Choice carcasses had unacceptable tenderness scores. • 25-35% of the USDA Select carcasses had unacceptable tenderness scores. • The result of the study indicates there is room for improvement of tenderness within all USDA Quality grades. • The value of having information about meat quality early in the animal’s life, rather than post-harvest, is priceless.
Results of Vassberg Brahman Test from BOVIGEN, August 24, 2007 156 Head Tested: 8 head were homozygous for QG1 and QG2 8 head had 5 STARs out of 6 possible STARs for tenderness 35% were 6 STARs or higher with the following breakdown: 6 STARs 40 head 7 STARs 10 head 8 STARs 3 head 9 STARs 1 head
Average Marbling Score by STAR There were no 8 STAR animals. Source: Bovigen, LLC
DNA MARKERS FORFEED EFFICIENCY • The 4 DNA markers for feed efficiency (NFI) have no genetic association to marbling, average daily gain, carcass weight and rump fat (P8).
Results of Vassberg Brahman Test Report from BOVIGENAugust 24, 2007 156 Head Tested: In the Feed Efficiency (NFI) analysis, 82% of the animals had all 8 of the markers resulting in the following breakdown: 6 STARs 1 Head 7 STARs 26 Head 8 STARs 129 Head
FEED EFFICIENCY • Pasture and feed costs account for nearly 70% of the total cost of producing beef. • Research has shown that NFI selection can reduce grass and feed intake by 15-20% while still maintaining the same production levels. • Today, this accounts for $150 to $250 savings in producing a beef animal.
NET FEED INTAKE (NFI) • Net Feed Intake (NFI) is equal to actual feed intake less feed intake for growth and metabolic (maintenance) requirements. • The heritability estimate for NFI is 0.40.
NET FEED INTAKE (NFI) • Efficient animals eat less than expected and have a negative or low NFI. • Inefficient animals eat more than expected and have a positive or high NFI.
NET FEED INTAKE (NFI) • Research has shown that selecting for NFI post-weaning and at maturity has a very high correlation of 0.90 to genetic improvement for efficiency in the cow herd through the daughters retained out of tested bulls.
The Effect of STARs on NFI and ADG(Involved 1,060 steers & heifers in finishing phase)
Feed Efficiency • Numerous studies have shown that low NFI animals consume an average of 3.3 to 5.5 lbs. less feed per day than high NFI animals with similar growth and carcass characteristics.
NFI as a Selection Tool • NFI is the best selection tool for genetic improvement for Feed Efficiency at the bull breeding level.
Selected Data* from NFI Brahman Bull Test (Kallion Farms) *Bulls with the highest and lowest feed to gain ratio in the test group of 64 bulls at the end of the 70 day test period
Selected Data* from NFI Brahman Bull Test (Kallion Farms) *The five lowest (most desirable) NFI bulls at the end of the 70 day test period
Selected Data* from NFI Brahman Bull Test (Kallion Farms) *The five highest (least desirable) NFI bulls at the end of the 70 day test period
Selected Data* from NFI Brahman Bull Test (Kallion Farms) *Two bulls with the same initial weight on test but two-thirds of a pound difference in ADG, nearly 5 pounds difference in dry matter intake and more than 7 pounds difference in NFI at the end of the 70 day test period
FEED EFFICIENCY • Kallion Farms has documented almost a $5,000 difference in the genetic expression for feed efficiency between two purebred Brahman sires. • With cattlemen feeling the effects of corn prices that have more than doubled in the past 12 months, feed efficiency has moved to the number one position in our selection program.
Feed Efficiency • Selection for low NFI can have a very substantial economic impact on the beef industry.
FEED EFFICIENCY • The purchase of a feed efficient bull will make a tremendous difference in your bottom line.
TEMPERAMENT • Numerous studies have documented that mild temperament cattle returned more dollars in the pasture or the feedlot than aggressive animals. • All Kallion Farms animals must pass a strict temperament evaluation to be offered for sale or used for breeding.
TEMPERAMENT • Suggest using a chute side score or a chute flight temperament evaluation such as: • T1 – Temperament Acceptable • T2 – Temperament Questionable • T3 – Temperament Bad - Cull
TEMPERAMENT MEASURES • Temperament Scoring System • Flight speeds measured at chute exit • Physiologic responses – Cortisol levels • Revealed eye white percentage using digital camera equipment. Range: 10 = good 60 = bad
ULTRASOUND Recent ultrasound results received 11/07/07 from the National CUP Lab & Technology Center on 82 purebred Brahman heifers off test were as follows: Average weight 789 pounds • Average backfat thickness 0.19 inches • Average ribeye area 9.7 sq. in. • Average ribeye area per cwt 1.23 sq. in. • Average intramuscular fat (IMF) 3.32%
ULTRASOUND • Recently a test group of 38 bulls yielded the following ultrasound results: 0.19 in. backfat thickness 10.5 sq. in. ribeye area 3.17 % intramuscular fat (IMF) • One bull had 5.07% IMF and another bull had 4.42% IMF.
ULTRASOUND • Recently a test group of 147 heifers yielded the following ultrasound results: 0.14 in. backfat thickness 7.97 sq. in. ribeye area 3.37 % intramuscular fat (IMF) • Twenty-one of the heifers had 4.0% IMF or higher with one heifer at 5.75% IMF.
Typical IMF % Adjusted to365 Days of Age in Beef Cattle • IMF% of 2.0-2.99 Acceptable (Low Select) • IMF% of 3.0-3.99 Highly Acceptable (High Select) • IMF% of 4.0-4.99 Rare & Outstanding (Low Choice) • IMF% 0f 5.0 or higher Rare (Average Choice or higher)
ULTRASOUND • Twelve percent of the total test group of 185 head had 4.0% IMF or higher which equates to Low Choice or higher marbling scores.
ULTRASOUND Ultrasound results received 02/21/09 from the National CUP Lab and Technology Center on 122 purebred Brahman heifers: Average Weight 649 pounds Average Backfat Thickness 0.10 inches Average Ribeye Area 7.87 sq. in. (51 sq. cm.) Average Ribeye Area per cwt 1.24 sq. in. Average Intramuscular Fat (IMF) 3.46%
ULTRASOUND Ultrasound results received 02/21/09 from the National CUP Lab and Technology Center on 122 purebred Brahman heifers: Twenty-four of the heifers had 4.0% IMF or higher with 3 heifers over 5.0% IMF. That’s 20% of the entire group with 4.0% or higher IMF ultrasound values.
ULTRASOUND FOR FERTILITY • Ovary and horn size are measured via ultrasound @ 10-14 months of age on all females. At the same time, the females are ultrasounded for REA, BF and % IMF.
ULTRASOUND FOR FERTILITY • 75 heifers between 12 and 22 months of age were ultrasounded for ovary and horn size (tract scores) on November 19, 2008. • 40% were rated excellent or mature Of these, 80% conceived on first service when exposed to natural service • 60% were rated poor or immature