 Docility EPD: A Tool for Temperament Devori W. Beckman Iowa State University.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Organic Beef Production – Sire breed comparison Richard Fallon, Brendan Swan & Elaine Leavy Organic Production Research Conference 2nd December 2008.

Advertisements

West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.

Matt Spangler University of Nebraska- Lincoln DEVELOPMENT OF GENOMIC EPD: EXPANDING TO MULTIPLE BREEDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS.

Multiple Breed Evaluation Can MBE enhance crossbreeding? John Pollak Cornell University Director, NBCEC.

Selection Decisions Using Economically Relevant Traits: The Pathway to Indexes B. L. Golden 1 California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Develop 50K prediction equation suitable for estimation of Molecular Breeding Values (MBV) for Limousin and LimFlex (hybrid) animals Use 50K imputed genotypes.

1 Investigating Opportunities Available in Genetic Selection for Healthy Beef J R Tait and James Reecy Iowa State University.

Making the Web equal Profit Surfing for Genetics Dorian Garrick & Mark Enns Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University.

Colorado Agriscience Curriculum

Training, Validation, and Target Populations Training, Validation, and Target Populations Mark Thallman, Kristina Weber, Larry Kuehn, Warren Snelling,

Daryl Strohbehn, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor Iowa State University Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Ext. Cow-Calf Specialist Kansas State University.

Click each slide to move forward through the presentation.

D. H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Colorado State University BIF SubCommittee Chair.

Systems of Crossbreeding – Experiences in Research & Do’s and Don’ts R. Mark Enns Colorado State University.

Van Eenennaam 11/17/2010 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology.

Jared E. Decker 1.

Economically Relevant Traits Mark Enns Colorado State University.

Using EPDs in Selection Stolen and edited by: Brandon Freel and Daniel Powell Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.

Designing Genetics and Selection for Seedstock Breeders, Commercial Cattlemen and Show Ring Enthusiasts ASA Fall Focus 2015: Confidence Builds Success.

WHAT ARE EPD’S?. What is an EPD? E-xpected P-rogeny D-ifference A measure of the degree of difference between the progeny of the bull and the progeny.

The Brown Bagger Beef Cattle Adaptability Current Tools of Assessment John L. Evans Oklahoma State University 1.

Brown Bagger – Beef Cattle Genetics: Fine Tuning Selection Decisions 1 How Do I Decide What Traits are Important? Carcass/Ultrasound EPDs Bob Weaber GRA-Cornell.

1 Multi-Breed Evaluation For Growth Traits J. Keith Bertrand University of Georgia, Athens.

Multi-breed Evaluation J. Keith Bertrand University of Georgia, Athens.

Characterizing Change in the Beef Industry Justin W. Waggoner, Ph.D. Beef Systems Specialist Kansas State University Garden City, KS.

Brown Bagger – Beef Cattle Genetics: Fine Tuning Selection Decisions 1 How do I decide what traits are important ? Selection Indices Dorian Garrick Department.

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education “Economic value of genomic information: Sire and commercial heifer selection" Van Eenennaam 10/19/2011.

Ottensmeier Angus A DECADE OF EXCELLENT ANGUS CATTLE.

Identifying Genetic Antagonisms Megan Rolf Oklahoma State University.

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,

Selection of Breeding Program An S 426 Fall 2007.

Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Associate Professor/Cow-Calf Extension Specialist Kansas State University

Evaluating Longevity: 10 Years of Using Stayability EPD Larry Keenan Research & Special Projects Coordinator, RAAA.

Genetic Evaluation of Carcass Data Using Age, Weight, Fat, or Marbling Endpoints 2003 BIF Selection Decisions Committee May 29, 2003 Janice M. Rumph Montana.

NBCEC Brown Bagger: Economic Selection Index Wade Shafer American Simmental Association.

How Does Additional Information Impact Accuracy? Dan W. Moser Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan

EPD’s: What They Are and How to Use Them. Introduction EPDs = Expected Progeny Differences Progeny = Offspring, usually the offspring of the sire Differences.

The Five P’s of Marketing Product Packaging Place Price Promotion “The Purple Cow”

Breeding Objectives for Terminal Sires Michael MacNeil USDA ARS Miles City, MT.

What is an EPD? Expected Progeny Difference

2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

Relationships between Carcass Quality and Temperament in Beef Cattle Rhonda C. Vann MAFES-Brown Loam Experiment Station- Raymond, MS.

Feed Efficiency Genetic Projects. Terms Gain/Feed = Feed Efficiency FE Feed/Gain = Feed Conversion FC: -FE Residual Feed Intake RFI Net Feed Intake NFI:-RFI.

National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium Brown Bagger Seminar Carcass EPDs Integrating Carcass and Ultrasound October 22, 2008 Sally L. Northcutt Genetic.

C.P. Van Tassell 1, * G.R. Wiggans 1, J.C. Philpot 1, and I. Misztal Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Sally L. Northcutt American Angus Association Selection Tools Beef Improvement Federation April 20, 2006.

MARTIN-LUTHER-UNIVERSITY HALLE-WITTENBERG Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Group Animal Breeding Genetic evaluations for birth weight:

Using EPDs in Selection Edited by: Jessica Hawley & Brandon Freel Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.

Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Division of Animal Sciences University of Missouri-Columbia

Effects of Two Measures of Disposition on Post-weaning Gain of Beef Calves R. L. Weaber, Ph.D. F. E. Creason.

Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle Dr. Fred Rayfield Livestock Specialist Georgia Agricultural Education To accompany lesson.

Bull Selection: Beef Kay Farmer Madison County High School edited by Billy Moss and Rachel Postin July 2001.

Across Breed EPD and multi-breed genetic evaluation developments

Sustainable Agriculture

AAA Reproductive Database

Selection and Judging of Beef Cattle

Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle

Using EPDs in Selection

Work Toward Genetic Improvement of Disposition in Beef Cattle

Update on Multi-Breed Genetic Evaluation

WHAT ARE EPD’s?.

Selection Tools for Beef Cattle Improvement

Teat and Udder Score EPDs

CGs to EPDs 2006 BIF Symposium Sponsored by Ultrasound Guidelines Council Dr. Lisa A. Kriese-Anderson Auburn University.

Genetic evaluation of an index of birth weight and yearling weight

Update on Structure EPD Development R. L. Weaber, J. Bormann, N

Use of a threshold animal model to estimate calving ease and stillbirth (co)variance components for US Holsteins.

Figure 1 Within-groups sum of squares vs number of clusters Within-groups sum of squares vs number of clusters to determine the number needed for k-means.

Expected Progeny Difference EPD

Have we seen any progress in breeds selecting for temperament?

Presentation transcript:

 Docility EPD: A Tool for Temperament Devori W. Beckman Iowa State University

What is Docility?  Temperament – reaction of beef cattle to handling by humans (Burrow, 1997)  Why Measure Docility?  Ease of Handling  ADG  Carcass Quality  RFI

Measuring Docility  Flight Speed/Time, Exit Velocity  Pen Score, Docility Test, Separation Test  Chute/Crush Score

Scoring System BIF Guidelines (2002)

Docility EPD: Breed Associations  North American Limousin Foundation (NALF)  1 st Genetic Evaluation in 1998  Scores allocated at weaning  Threshold (1, 2, 3-6); h 2 = 0.40  American Angus Association (AAA)  Genetic Evaluation Spring 2008  Scores allocated at yearling  Threshold (1, 2, 3, 4-6); h 2 = 0.37 Kuehn et al. (1998); Hyde (2003); Northcutt (2007)

Docility EPD: Sire Comparison Example

Genetic Parameter Estimates For Docility In Limousin Cattle 1. Maternal (M) Effects on Docility 2. Sire by Herd (SH) Effects 3. Further Investigation of M and SH Effects

Recent Work: Maternal Effects Beckman et al. (2007)

Recent Work: Sire × Herd Notter et al. (1992); CSU - Unpublished Data

Objective  Do Maternal or SH effects appropriately describe docility, or are they artifacts of the nature of this data.

Previous Models Assumed Homogeneity Beckman et al. (2007)

Additional Data Filtration

Assessment of Heterogeneity WCGWCG AODAOD DirectDirect MaternalMaternal SHSH ResidualResidual  Step 1: Mixed Model (BASE) Analysis

Assessment of Heterogeneity  Step 2: Fixed Model

Results: Fixed Model Beckman and Garrick (2007)

Variance Component Estimation  Mixed Model (RESID) Analysis |ê| = Xb + Z D u D + Z M u M + Z SH u SH + e

Results: Variance Components Beckman and Garrick (2007)

Results: Variance Due to Herd

Conclusions 1. Maternal and SH Interaction Effects were Artifacts of the Data 2. Most of Heterogeneity Due to Herd Effects

Implications  Accuracy of Genetic Evaluation  Total Herd Reporting Garrick and Van Vleck (1987)

What’s Next?  Further Investigation of Heterogeneity  Clustering of Herds

Acknowledgements  North American Limousin Foundation  American Angus Association  Colorado State University  Iowa State University

Image from schooldiscovery.com