1. Matching Beef Genetics with Production Environment T. G. Jenkins and C. L. Ferrell USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center NE

2. CYCLING BREEDING PREGNANT CALVING COW HER D CULLS CALVESREPLACEMENT HEIFERS STOCKERSFEEDER CATTLE MARKET CATTLE Liveweight Grid Niche $ $

7. L M H L M M M M M M M L L L L L L L H H H H H H H M H Large size-High milk Moderate size-Moderate milk Large size-Moderate milk

8. An Approach to “Matching Beef Cattle Genetics”: 1) Identify the product to be merchandised. 2) Identify the most limiting environmental feature (constraint or bottleneck) 3) Identify phenotype(s) that directly or indirectly provide an advantage 4) Define an objective measure of the identified phenotype(s) to overcome the constraint 5) Identify breed(s) or animals with phenotypes that overcome the constraint 6) Determine if trait is under genetic control 7) Design and implement a breeding program to increase the frequency of the desired genotypes in the inventory 8) Utilize and Sustain genetic diversity

9. Utilizing Genetic Diversity to Meet Environmental Challenges Cross Breeding Systems Mating Systems Rotation Composite Specialized dam and sire lines terminal sire systems? Utilizing breed diversity, heterosis effects, and complementarity

10. Cundiff et al, 1986 Mating Systems to Match Beef Cattle Genetics to Environment

11. General Paternal Item PurposeMaternal(Terminal Sire) Reproduction Fertility + + + + + + ++ Fertility + + + + + + ++ Survival + + + + + + + + Survival + + + + + + + +Growth Birth weight - -0 Birth weight - -0 Weaning weight + + + + + Weaning weight + + + + + Yearling weight + 0 + + Yearling weight + 0 + + Mature size 0 0 + Mature size 0 0 + Local Environment Adaptation ++++ ++++ Adaptability +++ Population type

12. SIRE BREEDS USED TO PRODUCE F I CROSSES WITH ANGUS AND HEREFORD DAMS IN THE GERMPLASM EVALUATION PROGRAM AT MARC a Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III Cycle IV Cycle V Cycle VI Cycle VII Cycle VIII 70-72 73-74 75-76 86-90 92-94 97-98 99-00 01-02 HerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHerefordHereford AngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngusAngus JerseyRed PollBrahmanLonghornTuliWagyuRed AngusBeefmaster S. DevonBraunviehSahiwalSalersBoranNorweg. RedLimousinBrangus LimousinGelbviehPinzgauerGallowayBelg. Blue Sw. Red&Wh.CharolaisBonsmara SimmentalMaine Anj.TarentaiseNelloreBrahmanFriesianSimmentalRomosinuano CharolaisChianinaShorthornPiedmonteseGelbvieh Piedmontese Charolais Gelbvieh Pinzgauer Sire breeds mated to Angus and Hereford females, Composite MARC III (1/4 Angus, Hereford, Red Poll and Pinzgauer) cows were also included in Cycles V, VI, and VII. (http://www.ars.usda.gov/npa/marc)http://www.ars.usda.gov/npa/marc

13. Losing Genetic Diversity?

14. Sire breed deviations from Hereford-Angus crosses for height, weight, and weight adjusted for condition score of F 1 cows a CowCowCow BreedHeightinWeightlb Adj. Weight lb CycleI & II VII HAx 0.0 0.0 0 0 Simmental 6.3 1.0 +23 +19 +29 + 27 Gelbvieh 6.0 0.1 +23 -76 +34 - 55 Limousin 5.0 1.0 +11 + 5 +15 + 15 Charolais Cont. avg. 6.2 0.9 +5.9 0.8 + 51 + 17 +27 - 9 + 53 + 18 +33 + 1 a Data for Cycles I and II are averaged over cow ages 2 – 8 yr of age (Arango et al.,2004). Data for cycle VII are for 5-yr-old cows. (Arango et al.,2004). Data for cycle VII are for 5-yr-old cows. Cundiff(2005)

15. Utilizing Genetic Diversity to Meet Environmental Challenges Within breed improvement Single trait selection Selection index Utilizing within breed diversity

16. Pollott and Greff, 2004, JAS 82:2840 Genotype x Environment Interaction: Breeding values for 12 Rams Across Fecal Egg Count Environments

17. Need for Diversity: Nutritional GEI

18. Angus Hereford Red Poll Simmental Charolais Gelbvieh Body condition scores

21. Moderate size-moderate milk Large size-moderate milk Moderate size-high milk Large size-high milk

22. Cow Efficiency of Breeds fed at Differing Levels of Dry Matter

24. Marketing Options: Weaning Background BackgroundStockFinish Live weight CarcassGrid

25. Characteristics Affecting Production Efficiency Ability to cycle, conceive, gestation length, stayability post-partum interval, fecundity calf survival, calving ease, soundness, adaptation, longevity measures of weight, growth rate, component parts appetite, foraging ability, selectivity, energetic efficiency, energy partitioning yield at time of peak lactation, total yield, persistency Fertility Milk Survival Nutrition Growth

26. Breed Data Base Angus Jersey Salers Angus Jersey Salers Brahman Limousin Shorthorn Brahman Limousin Shorthorn Braunvieh Longhorn Simmental Braunvieh Longhorn Simmental Charolais Maine Anjou South Devon Charolais Maine Anjou South Devon Chianina Nellore Tarentaise Chianina Nellore Tarentaise Galloway Pinzgauer Generic I Galloway Pinzgauer Generic I Gelbvieh Red Poll Generic II Gelbvieh Red Poll Generic II Hereford Sahiwal Generic III Hereford Sahiwal Generic III Generic IV Generic IV

27. Use of DECI requires producers to have: 1. Financial and production records. Revenue Costs 2. Feed resources (Quality, amount, when presented to animal) Grazing Harvested Purchased

28. Forage Environment Daily Dry Matter and TDN Availability

29. Genetic Potentials of Adjusted Cows Genetic Potentials Birth Mature Condition Milk Weight, lb Weight, lb Score* Peak, lb/d Adjusted 91.0 1390 7.0 23.0 *Body condition score at 25% empty body fat

30. Genetic Potentials Birth Mature Condition Milk Weight, Weight, Score* Peak, Biological Type lb lb lb/d Adjusted Enhanced 91 1390 1600 7.0 23.0 29.0 *Body condition score at 25% empty body fat

31. Production Parameters to Identify Energy requirements of Cow Herd Body condition scores Cow ageCalving BreedingWeaning Cow 5+ 5.0 4.8 4.1 Cow 4 6.0 5.4 5.2 Cow 3 6.1 5.9 5.7 Cow 2 6.1 6.3 6.1 /4.6 /4.5 /4.0 /5.6 /5.2 /5.0 /5.6 /5.6 /5.6 /6.2 /6.0 /6.1

32. Adjusted Enhanced

33. Adjusted Enhanced

34. Mature Condition Conception Average Weight, Score* rate weaning Types lb % weight, lb Adjusted 1145 5.0 86 450 Enhanced 1414 4.6 87 507 Nine point condition score, at calving Predicted Performance of Two Types

35. Production Summary Predicted Production Inventory Number Weaning Calves Weight Type Weaned Sold, lb Adjusted 150 Enhanced 120 141 113 63,558 57,279 *Body condition score 9 point scale

36. Altering the production environment to sustain genetic improvement Per cow milk yields have more than doubled in the last 40 years, due largely (55%) to genetics. During the same time interval noticeable trends in a reduction to reproduce, increase in the incidence of health problems, and reduced herd life longevity have occurred. Dr. Toni Oltenacu, Professor, Cornell University “…. thus environmental conditions existing at any given time will lead the natural selection of genes giving rise to characters in harmony with the environment concerned” Hammond, 1947 Altering the production environment to sustain genetic improvement Greatest production problem facing cooperate swine producers is sow longevity. Changes in production environment and management protocol (e.g., all in all out management system) has increased the incidence of failure to return to estrus among sows resulting in an industry average of 3 parities per gilt identified for replacement. Dr. Tom Wise, Research Physiologist, MARC

37. Conclusions Need to define environment including merchandising Diverse production environments exists for beef animals Adaptation vs. Adaptability Expected to produce within static environment: adaptation Expected to produce across different environment: adaptability Genetic variation within a today’s cattle population allows both to be met A single phenotype does not perform in all production environments Mating systems provide greatest opportunity to utilize both adaptation and adaptability The most effective use of genetic diversity Within environments genetic improvement programs can be implemented Increasing genetic potential is warrented if cost:benefit ratio associated with environmental modifications are favorable Consider long term costs to the production environment

38. Chic-Filet, 2005