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
MEAN EPDs (Birth Year 2004, Spring 2006 Evaluations) Breed BWT WNWTYRWTMILK Angus Hereford Red Angus Shorthorn S. Devon Brahman Limousin Simmental Charolais Gelbvieh Maine Anjou Salers Tarentaise Braunvieh Brangus Beefmaster (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
CYCLE IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIII Breed AngusXXXXXXXX HerefordXXXXXXXX Red AngusX ShorthornX S. DevonX BrahmanXX LimousinXX SimmentalXX CharolaisXXX GelbviehXXX Maine AnjouX SalersX TarentaiseX BraunviehX BrangusX BeefmasterX SIRE BREEDS WITH EPDs IN GERMPLASM EVALUATION PROGRAM
MARC Sires and Progeny by Breed (Wn. Wt.) Maternal Grand Sires Progeny Grand Sires Daughters progeny Hereford Angus Shorthorn S. Devon Brahman Simmental Limousin Charolais Ma. Anjou Gelbvieh Tarentaise Salers Red Angus Braunvieh Brangus Beefmaster
REGRESSION OF PERFORMANCE ON EPD’S AT MARC (LB/LB), (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006) Pooled over all breeds Pooled over all breeds Observed Expected Observed Expected Birth weight Wean weight Yearling weight Maternal weaning weight Milk 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) Breed Avg. EPD Adj. Avg EPD (i) AB-EPB Breedsolution Breed MARC Avg. Dev. Dev. Factor (n sires)MARC (i) 2004 bulls (Mi) a Angus Angus (A i ) b Angus (106) Hereford (112) Red Angus (21) Charolais (74) Limousin (40) Gelbvieh (48) Simmental (47) a M i = MARC (i) + b[EPD(i) 2004 – EPD(i) MARC ], where b = b A i = (M i – M Angus ) – (EPD(i) 2004 – EPD (Angus)2004 ).
BREEDS MEANS AND DEVIATIONS FROM ANGUS (SPRING, 2006) Breed BWT WNWTYRWTMILK Angus85 (0.0)517 ( 0.0)903 ( 0.0)0.0 Hereford89 (4.3)513 (- 4.0)879 (- 24.2) Red Angus86 (1.1)506 (-11.1)882 (- 21.3) Shorthorn91 (6.6)522 ( 5.1)897 ( - 5.9)-1.6 S. Devon89 (4.0)521 ( 3.2)899 ( - 3.8)- 6.6 Brahman97 (12.0)529 (11.5)849 (- 53.6)13.6 Limousin89 (3.9)517 (- 0.4)878 (- 24.8) Simmental90 (5.3)536 (18.2)912 ( 8.8)- 1.7 Charolais 94 (9.0)538 (20.3)920 ( 16.8) Gelbvieh89 (4.3)526 ( 8.7) 882 (- 21.1)3.6 Maine Anjou91 (6.5)512 (- 5.1)866 (- 36.7)- 7.8 Salers88 (3.0)523 ( 6.0)899 ( - 3.6)-.1 Tarentaise87 (2.3)515 (- 2.8) 854 (- 49.0)0.6 Braunvieh89 (4.8)516 (- 1.6)851 (- 51.6)5.1 Brangus89 (4.9)521 ( 4.1)890 (- 12.6) Beefmaster92 (7.3)524 ( 7.0)881 (- 22.2) (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
Breed (range in yrs)BWWWYWMilk Angus ( ) Hereford ( ) Red Angus ( ) Mean Simmental ( ) Gelbvieh ( ) Charolais ( ) Limousin ( ) Mean MEAN ANNUAL CHANGE FOR GROWTH TRAIT EPDs IN SEVEN PROMINENT BEEF BREEDS (lb/yr)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO ADD TO EPDs OF SEVENTEEN BREEDS TO ESTIMATE AB-EPDs (SPRING, 2006) Breed BWT WNWTYRWTMILK Angus Hereford Red Angus Shorthorn S. Devon Brahman Limousin Simmental Charolais Gelbvieh Maine Anjou Salers Tarentaise Braunvieh Brangus Beefmaster (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
Using EPDs and AB-EPDs BW WWYW MILK AngusAB - Factors.0000 GDAR EPDs Traveler 044 AB-EPDs SimmentalAB-Factors Black Irish EPDs Kansas AB-EPDs TOSU Orlando EPDs F004 AB-EPDs
AB-EPDs Within breed EPDs are accurate predictors of purebred and crossbred performance.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.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.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.Divergence in AB-EPDs should be emphasized in selection of bulls for terminal crossing or calving ease in first calf heifers.
Considerations for Across-Breed Factors for Carcass Traits Cundiff and Van Vleck BIF 2006
EPDs FOR CARCASS TRAITS BASED ON CARCASS (C), ULTRASOUND (U), OR COMBINED C&U ESTIMATES Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye area BreedCUC&U CUC&U CUC&U AngusXXXXXX ShorthornXXX Charolais XXX GelbviehXXX LimousinXXX HerefordXXX BrangusXXX Red AngusXXX South DevonXXX ChianinaXXX SalersXXX SimmentalXX X
Carcass traits (Regression by Breed) BreedNo.MarblingFat thicknessRibeye Angus 0.30 Shorthorn 0.75 Limousin 0.30 Gellbvieh 0.31 Red Angus90 – –3.35 1.02 – – All 0.17
Ultrasound (Regression by Breed) BreedNo.MarblingFat thicknessRibeye Hereford 0.47 Angus 0.25 Simmental 0.43 Limousin 0.27 Brangus 0.47 All 0.15
Ultrasound & Carcass (Regression by Breed) BreedNo.MarblingFat ThicknessRibeye South Devon 2.99 Charolais 0.59 Maine Anjou 1.77 Salers 1.79 Red Angus 0.31 – – 1.94 0.62 All 0.40
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