Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada The Genetics of Feed Efficiency in Cattle Dr. D.H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Research Scientist,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
MEAT GOAT SIRE EVALUATION TEST USING THE GROWSAFE 4000 SYSTEM David Seymour WVU Extension Agent – Pendleton County
Advertisements

West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.
WHOLE BODY ANIMAL GROWTH ANSC 590 ANIMAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
“Knowing the Growth Efficiency Potential in the Lamb Crop ” Dr. Jeff Held South Dakota State University.
Residual Feed Intake and the Cow Herd A. M. Meyer 1 *, R. L. Kallenbach 2, M. S. Kerley 1 University of Missouri, Columbia 1 Division of Animal Sciences.
Carcass EPD: Where are we, and where are we going? Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.
Applying feed intake monitoring systems into producer testing programs Dr. Daryl R. Strohbehn Extension Beef Specialist Iowa Beef ISU.
Use of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) in Dairy Sire Selection Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.
Heat Stress in Dairy Cattle Akrum Hamdy Akrum Hamdy.
Applied Beef Cattle Breeding and Selection Composite Populations Larry V. Cundiff ARS-USDA-U.S. Meat Animal Research Center 2008 Beef Cattle Production.
 Draw growth curves  Explain different changes in body measurements  Explain different changes is body components  Explain different changes in carcass.
Improvement of Beef Cow Biological Efficiency
Economic Feasibility of Adopting Genomic Selection in Beef Cattle Kenneth Poon & Getu Hailu University of Guelph CAES 2010, Niagara Falls June 18 th, 2010.
BEEF CATTLE FEED EFFICIENCY: OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT Dan Faulkner Department of Animal Sciences.
BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.
Principles of Livestock Judging University of Florida H/FFA Livestock Judging Clinic Full presentation online at
Daryl Strohbehn, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor Iowa State University Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Ext. Cow-Calf Specialist Kansas State University.
Exploring the Beef Industry
Genetics of feed efficiency in dairy and beef cattle
D. H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Colorado State University BIF SubCommittee Chair.
Van Eenennaam 11/17/2010 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology.
Jared E. Decker 1.
Breed and Trait Selection Considerations Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.
Economically Relevant Traits Mark Enns Colorado State University.
Straightbreeding – A simple way to reduce your bottomline D. A. Daley California State University, Chico NCBCEC Brown Bagger Session October 17, 2012.
Dr. George R. Wiggans, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA
Livestock and Poultry Evaluation Animal Science II.
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.
Breeding cattle for a more efficient and sustainable milk and meat production Oscar González-Recio, J. Pryce, M.E. Goddard, B. Hayes EURO FOOD
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.
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.
Heterosis-Ignored or Forgotten? (or did we ever believe in it to start with?) D. A. Daley California State University, Chico.
Nutrition and Reproduction in Beef Cows Cattlemen’s College January 29, 2003 David Lalman Oklahoma State University.
1 Scientific Farm Animal Production, 10 th ed Field and Taylor Copyright ©2012, 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All.
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education “Economic value of genomic information: Sire and commercial heifer selection" Van Eenennaam 10/19/2011.
B66 Heritability, EPDs & Performance Data. Infovets Educational Resources – – Slide 2 Heritability  Heritability is the measurement.
Identifying Genetic Antagonisms Megan Rolf Oklahoma State University.
SUMMER SUPPLEMENTATION: PLANT AND ANIMAL RESPONSE – A KANSAS PERSPECTIVE Lyle Lomas and Joe Moyer KSU SE Agricultural Research Center Parsons.
 Objective 7.03: Apply the Use of Production Records.
Genetic Evaluation of Carcass Data Using Age, Weight, Fat, or Marbling Endpoints 2003 BIF Selection Decisions Committee May 29, 2003 Janice M. Rumph Montana.
Genetic Evaluations & Decision Support to Improve Feed Efficiency Dorian Garrick Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University.
Fitting Together the Pieces of the Feed Efficiency Puzzle: IGF-I as a biomarker or indicator trait for RFI Gordon Carstens Texas A&M University NBCEC Working.
How Does Additional Information Impact Accuracy? Dan W. Moser Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Multiple Trait Selection for Maternal Productivity D. H. Crews, Jr., P. B. Mwansa.
PBG 650 Advanced Plant Breeding
Genetics for Producing Profitable and Sustainable Grass-Fed Beef Dr. Scott M. Barao Executive Director The Jorgensen Family Foundation Hedgeapple Farm.
Breeding Objectives for Terminal Sires Michael MacNeil USDA ARS Miles City, MT.
Selection & Judging of Beef Cattle
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.
Advanced Animal Breeding
Gene350 Animal Genetics Lecture August 2009.
Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Division of Animal Sciences University of Missouri-Columbia
Gene350 Animal Genetics Lecture September 2009.
Bull Selection: Beef Kay Farmer Madison County High School edited by Billy Moss and Rachel Postin July 2001.
Fundamentals of the Eurostar evaluations
Exploring the Beef Industry
Introduction to Evaluation
Work Toward Genetic Improvement of Disposition in Beef Cattle
WHAT ARE EPD’s?.
Selection Tools for Beef Cattle Improvement
Genetic evaluation of an index of birth weight and yearling weight
Definition of EBVs of Economically Relevant Traits in Sheep Production
History of Selection From Phenotypes to Economic Indexes
Body Condition Scoring Beef Cows. Body condition score is an indicator of stored energy reserves Fat tissue Protein tissue (muscle and organs)
Developing Heifers Earl H. Ward.
Expected Progeny Difference EPD
Wading through the confusion of EPDs and genomics
Presentation transcript:

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada The Genetics of Feed Efficiency in Cattle Dr. D.H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Research Scientist, Beef Quantitative Genomics National Study Leader, Livestock Genetics & Genomics AAFC Research Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Many Measures of Efficiency Probably two dozen measures of efficiency have been described in beef cattle Feed conversion ratio is a gross measure of efficiency –Genetic trend has been positive along with growth Rg (FCR, growth): to –Related to increased mature weights and therefore, maintenance energy requirements –Lends poorly to selection Most selection pressure on growth rate

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Reducing Inputs Very little genetic improvement has been aimed at reducing input costs: –Feed costs are the largest non-fixed cost of beef production –>70% of total variable costs Daily feed intake (dDMI) is heritable (h 2 = 0.34 based on 23 studies [Koots et al., 1994a]) and therefore likely to respond to selection Trait Rg (dDMI)Reference WT Koots et al. (1994b) WT MKTWT 0.92 BWT0.77

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Reducing Inputs: Feed Efficiency Gross efficiency (Archer et al., 1999; gain/feed) and feed conversion ratio (FCR, feed/gain) have been discussed for more than 30 years, along with at least 20 other so-called efficiency measurements Most have at least moderate heritability (> ) and strong genetic correlation with growth ΔG FCR | WWT = (Rg FCR,WWT ) (h 2 WWT ) (i WWT ) (σ g(FCR) ) = kgd -1 /gen

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Selection: FCR Adding feed conversion ratio to breeding objectives would have the following implications: –Additional ΔG for growth; the most immediate concern is that with mature size (Rg FCR,MWT > 0.50) –Disproportionate selection on dDMI versus ADG. Gunsett (1984) discussed the problems associated with selection for ratio traits –Negative genetic trend in FCR does not translate to incremental improvement in feed efficiency Changes in FCR can be made without changing efficiency (+ ADG) Selection response is usually unpredictable (Gunsett, 1984)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada RFI Definition Residual feed intake (syn. net feed efficiency) is defined as the difference between actual feed intake and that predicted by regression accounting for requirements of production and body weight maintenance –dDMI = CG + ADG + BWT + “other production” + RFI –Regression can be either phenotypic or genetic –“Forced” independence with growth rate, stage of production and weight alleviates problems with correlated response –RFI phenotypes are independent of age, stage of production, and previous plane of nutrition

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Figures courtesy J. A. Basarab

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada An Expensive Phenotype Cost of data collection is high –$ per head for equipment alone Intensive d test period –Limited numbers of animals with phenotypes Technology is still developing –Reduction in altered feeding behavior: Individual intake on group-fed cattle Commercial test facilities largely unavailable

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Potential Returns Most agree RFI is moderately heritable (0.30 to 0.40) Can force independence with any production trait –Typical RFI generally uncorrelated with body composition Preliminary research reports –Uncorrelated with mature size –Highly positive genetic correlation with mature cow efficiency –No evidence of antagonism with reproductive merit Phenotypic and genetic variance –5-7 lb per day phenotypic difference among yearling bulls –Similar variability among crossbred steers during finishing

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Differences in RFI groups Crews et al., 2003 Intake per d, lb <0.001 Total 84-d intake, lb <0.001 Feeding Events per d <0.001 Carcass fat, in <0.110 Lean Yield, % >0.240 Marbling score Select 80Select 75>0.640 RFI < 0.00 RFI > 0.00 Efficient Inefficient P-value Total 84-d gain, lb264270>0.470

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Potential Industry Impact Our results show that the more efficient half of steers gained the same amount of weight, produced carcasses with the same yield and quality grades with the same amount of time on feed but consumed 390 pounds less feed than the less efficient half. In a region with 2+ million head processed per year, that 780 million pounds of feed costs almost $40 million.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada RFI Genetic Variability Several studies have estimated genetic variance and heritability for RFI Var(G) h2h2 Reference 0.28 Koch et al. (1963) 0.14 Fan et al. (1995)* 0.44 Arthur et al. (1997) Arthur et al. (2001a) Arthur et al. (2001b) Crews et al. (2003a,b)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada RFI Adjusted for Body Composition Trait % of DFI varianceRank Correlation, RFI-1 MWT + ADG Gain in Empty Body Fat Gain in Empty Body Water Basarab et al. (2003) Adding gain in RTU rib fat and(or) RTU intramuscular fat provided similarly small increases in model R 2

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada RFI Genetic Correlations Trait Rg(RFIp)Reference Feed Conversion Ratio0.70Herd and Bishop (2000) Arthur et al. (2001a,b) Feed Conversion Ratio 0.85 Feed Intake 0.64 Feed Intake 0.79 Back Fat 0.17 Live weight0.32 Arthur et al. (2001b) ADG 0.10 Carcass REA-0.17Schenkel et al. (2004) Crews et al. (2003a) Carcass marbling score -0.44

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Phenotypic Regression RFI and Production RFI is defined as the component of feed intake that is phenotypically independent of production Recent studies have shown significant non-zero genetic correlation of RFIp with production, body weight, etc. RFIp usually contains a genetic component due to production The phenotypic variance of RFIp is completely described by –Heritability of feed intake and production –Genetic and environmental correlations of feed intake with production –(Kennedy et al., 1993)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Repeatability of RFIp Archer et al. (2002) measured intake and derived RFIp on heifers postweaning and then on open cows following weaning of their second calf dDMI, ADG, MWT, FCR and RFI considered different traits between cows and heifers to estimate genetic correlations Rg > 0.85 strongly indicates genetic equivalence: Trait Rg (cow x heifer) DFI 0.94 ADG 0.72 MWT 0.82 FCR 0.20 RFIp 0.98

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada RFI and Multiple Trait Selection Single trait selection is not advisable Few attempts have been made to incorporate RFI into selection schemes An example multiple trait index was developed by Crews et al. (2006)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Index Values b = SYM = I = (RFI) (ADG) – 0.09 (YWT) ~ N ( 100, ; range: 80.1 – 115.7)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Correlations of Index Value with Component Traits RFI dDMI ADG Bull TraitP - value  (I) YWT YSC

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Summary RFI may be a candidate for genetic evaluation and improvement systems Independence with growth, body weight, and any identifiable source of dDMI covariance can be forced Heritability is at least as high as early growth but genetic variance is limited –Probably enough to make substantial economic improvement Multiple trait selection schemes still required

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Summary “Genetic improvement in efficiency of feed utilization is higher-hanging fruit” John Pollak, BIF 2002

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada Thank you