Featured Post

Dr. Jamie Courter is your Mizzou Beef Genetics Extension Specialist

Image
By Jared E. Decker Many of you have probably noticed that things have been a lot less active on the A Steak in Genomics™   blog, but you probably haven't known why. In January 2021, I was named the Wurdack Chair in Animal Genomics at Mizzou, and I now focus on research, with a little bit of teaching. I no longer have an extension appointment. But, with exciting news, the blog is about to become a lot more active! Jamie Courter began as the new MU Extension state beef genetics specialist in the Division of Animal Sciences on September 1, 2023. I have known Jamie for several years, meeting her at BIF when she was a Masters student. I have been impressed by Jamie in my interactions with her since that time.  Dr. Courter and I have been working closely together the last 6 weeks, and I am excited to work together to serve the beef industry for years to come! Jamie holds a bachelor’s degree in animal science from North Carolina State University and earned a master's degree in animal
1 comment

Improving Feed Efficiency: Feed Efficiency Project Releases Decision Support Tool

The Beef Feed Efficiency Project has released a new decision support tool. The tool is an Excel spreadsheet in which producers can enter data on a group of cattle with growth and feed intake data. Click here to download the Excel file.

The spreadsheet is pre-loaded with some example data. Depending on how you define efficiency, the animals rank quite differently. Let's consider the example data in the "Many Wts +fatRFI" tab. (See the "notes" tab for further explanation about the traits reported or this factsheet released by the project.)

If we look at Feed:Gain ratio (F:G) Ear Tag 3 is top ranking animal.

Ear Tag
ADG
Met.Mid Wt.
DMI
Fat
F:G
3
5.24
207
21.0
0.30
4.01
5
5.06
205
23.0
0.25
4.54
1
4.62
179
22.0
0.20
4.76
6
4.52
213
23.0
0.23
5.09
4
4.81
203
26.0
0.15
5.40
7
4.30
208
24.0
0.30
5.59
8
3.16
190
23.0
0.31
7.27
2
3.29
159
24.0
0.25
7.30

But, these rankings are strongly driven by average daily gain (ADG).

We could also rank the animals by Adjusted Feed:Gain ratio (Adj. F:G).

Ear Tag
ADG
Met.Mid Wt.
DMI
Fat
Adj. F:G
3
5.24
207
21.0
0.30
3.79
5
5.06
205
23.0
0.25
4.33
6
4.52
213
23.0
0.23
4.67
4
4.81
203
26.0
0.15
5.20
1
4.62
179
22.0
0.20
5.21
7
4.30
208
24.0
0.30
5.26
8
3.16
190
23.0
0.31
7.46
2
3.29
159
24.0
0.25
8.98

These rankings are very similar, except that Ear Tag 1 dropped from 3rd to 5th. This adjustment accounts for the size differences between animals. Ear Tag 1 was smaller compared with 6 and 4 during the test, thus it required less feed.

If we rank by residual average daily gain (RG), again Ear Tag 3 and 5 top the list. But, Ear Tag 7 and 2 move up on the list because they gained more weight than we would have predicted based on their feed intake, body weight, and fat thickness.

Ear Tag
ADG
Met.Mid Wt.
DMI
Fat
RG
3
5.24
207
21.0
0.30
0.39
5
5.06
205
23.0
0.25
0.37
7
4.30
208
24.0
0.30
0.24
2
3.29
159
24.0
0.25
0.15
4
4.81
203
26.0
0.15
0.11
1
4.62
179
22.0
0.20
-0.07
6
4.52
213
23.0
0.23
-0.59
8
3.16
190
23.0
0.31
-0.60


If we rank by residual feed intake (RFI) now Eag Tag 6 is top ranking.

Ear Tag
ADG
Met.Mid Wt.
DMI
Fat
RFI
6
4.52
213
23.0
0.23
-1.2
1
4.62
179
22.0
0.20
-1.2
8
3.16
190
23.0
0.31
-0.6
3
5.24
207
21.0
0.30
-0.2
5
5.06
205
23.0
0.25
0.5
2
3.29
159
24.0
0.25
0.7
4
4.81
203
26.0
0.15
0.9
7
4.30
208
24.0
0.30
1.2

The animals at the top of the list ate less than we would have predicted based on their ADG, body size, and fat thickness. An issue with selecting on RFI is that under-performing animals can rank well for RFI. An example of this is Ear Tag 8 which ranks third for RFI but only gained 3.16 pounds per day.


point of view
"point of view" by Chris Blakeley 
Depending on whether we look relative to feed intake or growth, we get different answers. The rankings depend on our point of view. So which measure should we use? 

Theory and profit motivations point us to the economic index. In this index feed intake and growth are weighted by their economic importance. So, rather than a breeder arbitrarily deciding which trait is most important, we let the market and profit dictate the weighting of each trait. The index in the decision tool is based on the work of Rolfe et al. 2011.

Ear Tag
ADG
Met.Mid Wt.
DMI
Fat
FE Index
3
5.24
207
21.0
0.30
-$114.66
5
5.06
205
23.0
0.25
-$23.14
1
4.62
179
22.0
0.20
$41.69
6
4.52
213
23.0
0.23
$51.46
4
4.81
203
26.0
0.15
$111.09
7
4.30
208
24.0
0.30
$122.41
8
3.16
190
23.0
0.31
$282.59
2
3.29
159
24.0
0.25
$328.56

Watch for more updates from the Beef Feed Efficiency Project as they work to improve the genetic prediction of efficiency.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Show-Me-Select Board Approves Genomic Testing Requirement for Natural Service Sires

Image
All bulls purchased after February 1st, 2019 for use as natural service sires in the Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program ™  must be DNA tested to have genomic-enhanced EPDs. All bulls used as natural service sires after February 1st, 2020 must have genomic-enhanced EPDs, regardless of when they were purchased. Seedstock producers classifying bulls as Show-Me-Select qualified in sale books must have genomic-enhanced EPDs on those lots. Bulls purchased prior to February 1st, 2019 will be grandfathered into the program, as is the common practice with all natural service sires. However, this grandfather grace period will end February 1st, 2020. At that time for a bull to qualify for use in the program, it must have genomic-enhanced EPDs. Why the change? The Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program has the goal of producing premium heifers that perform predictably as 2 year olds. The program has a history of requiring Show-Me-Select producers to go beyond typical cat
Read more

New Show-Me-Select Sire EPD Requirements Announced

Image
At the January 4th Show-Me-Select Board of Directors meeting, new service sire EPD requirements were approved. All sires, artificial insemination and natural service, must meet minimum Calving Ease Direct (CED) EPD requirements. In addition to yearly updates, two changes were made. First, no Birth Weight EPD requirement will be published. All commonly used breeds now have CED EPDs available. Second, all breeds in the International Genetic Solutions (IGS) genetic evaluation are now set to a common requirement. In the summer of 2018, breeds within the International Genetic Solutions switched to a single-step BOLT multi-breed genetic evaluation. The EPDs for animals in the IGS genetic evaluation are directly comparable across breeds. In 2017, the Red Angus requirement for CED was a CED of 8, which represents the 30th percentile. Less than 5% percent of heifers breed to a bull with a CED EPD of 8 or larger had calving difficulty. We feel that this require is meeting the need to re
Read more

Bob Hough Comments on Changes at Breed Associations

Bob Hough recently posted the following comment on Facebook (posted with his permission): Early in my career at a breed association, the much beloved American Angus breed executive told me that the secret to success running a breed association was to have a top junior program, keep the books straight, and make sure the numbers (EPDs) don't change. This philosophy meant Angus valued stability in their genetic predictions over keeping them up-to-date with the latest science. The Angus Association also marketed extremely effectively the infallibility of their EPDs because of the size of their database. I will start with the later. Yes, a database needs certain critical mass to make sure the animals are tied, but that can be achieved in a modest size database. After that, data quality far and away outweighs data quantity in assuring the most precise and reliable EPDs possible. On the former point, Angus breeders are simply not use to change. This is not the case in most breed associ
Read more