http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mrolf&feedformat=atomBIF Guidelines Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T09:27:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.2http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Birth_Weight&diff=2514Birth Weight2022-05-19T20:54:02Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Calf birth weight is a good [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]] for calving difficulty. If calving difficulty is a problem in the herd, and [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]] are not available, selection of breeding animals for lighter birth weight may be an effective strategy to improve [[Calving Difficulty | direct calving ease]]. However, single-trait selection for lighter birth weight or shorter gestation intervals may reduce calf viability <ref>W. L. Reynolds, T. M. DeRouen, S. Moin, K. L. Koonce, Factors Influencing Gestation Length, Birth Weight and Calf Survival of Angus, Zebu and Zebu Cross Beef Cattle, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 51, Issue 4, October 1980, Pages 860–867, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1980.514860x</ref><ref>G. E. Carstens, D. E. Johnson, M. D. Holland, K. G. Odde, Effects of Prepartum Protein Nutrition and Birth Weight on Basal Metabolism in Bovine Neonates, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 65, Issue 3, September 1987, Pages 745–751, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.653745x</ref> and growth rate from birth to maturity. <br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Obtaining an accurate measure of birth weight (in pounds of calf) using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]]. However, it is not always feasible to obtain birth weights this way. Digital scales for measuring calf birth weights can cost thousands of dollars. Even with good mechanical scales, trying to catch a calf when the mother is being protective, and then lifting that calf, are challenges for many producers and their ranch hands. There are reports of producers estimating the calf weights using visual inspection and this can be seen in many breed association birth weight data sets. Experience has shown these data are low accuracy, at best, and should not be submitted to breed associations, or used in selection decisions.<br />
<br />
While not ideal, a pragmatic alternative to actual birth weights appears to be [[Hoof Tape| using a calf hoof tape device]]. This method is superior to visually estimating birth weights or not weighing calves. <br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205 day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
Both sex of calf and [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] influence birth weight of the calf. BIF recommends the use of additive rather than multiplicative age of [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors because research indicates that they are more appropriate<ref>Rumpf, Janice M. and Van Vleck, L. Dale, "Age-of-dam adjustment factors for birth and weaning weight records of beef cattle: a<br />
review" (2004). Faculty Papers and Publications in Animal Science. 241.<br />
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscifacpub/241</ref>.<br />
<br />
Birth weight adjustments for the [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] can differ from one breed to another. Some breed associations have developed adjustments using their own data. All breed associations are encouraged to develop their own [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors for birth weight. In most cases, these age-of-dam adjustment factors differ by sex of calf.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
Adj. Birth Wt. = Birth Wt. + Age of dam Adj.<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Significant amounts of unfavorable [[Heterosis | heterosis]] have been observed in birth weight and should be accounted for if adjusting birth weights.<br />
<br />
It has been observed that there are significant amounts of birth weight observations that were not collected using an actual scale. Routinely beef breed associations receive birth weights that are collected using [[Hoof Tape | calf hoof tape]], are visually estimated, or are "standard" filled in values. Because of this, it is recommended that birth weights be adjusted for sex by age-of-dam and these factors not be fit in the genetic evaluation.<br />
<br />
===Contempory Grouping===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
<br />
# Breeder-Herd Code<br />
# Year<br />
# Season (January-June, July-December)<br />
# Sex (Bull, Heifer)<br />
# Birth Management Code<br />
# Service Type (Embryo Transfer Calves)<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
Birth weight EPDs are generally produced using a [[Multiple Trait Evaluation | multiple-trait animal model]] that includes [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]] and [[Yearling Weight | yearling weight]] (usually fit as [[Yearling Weight | post-weaning gain]]).<br />
<br />
While a maternal effect has been consistently observed on birth weight, it is always small with low heritability. Many analyses performed for EPD production ignore the maternal effect and produce only additive direct genetic effect EPDs for birth weight.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait and how the trait should be used and not used.<br />
--><br />
<br />
In all situations, birth weight should be considered as only an [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]]. In no situation is it an [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant trait]]. When ERT EPDs are available (i.e. calving ease), actual birth weights or birth weight EPDs should never be considered in a selection decision.<br />
<br />
===References===</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Birth_Weight&diff=2513Birth Weight2022-05-19T20:53:44Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Calf birth weight is a good [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]] for calving difficulty. If calving difficulty is a problem in the herd, and [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]] are not available, selection of breeding animals for lighter birth weight may be an effective strategy to improve [[Calving Difficulty | direct calving ease]]. However, single-trait selection for lighter birth weight or shorter gestation intervals may reduce calf viability <ref>W. L. Reynolds, T. M. DeRouen, S. Moin, K. L. Koonce, Factors Influencing Gestation Length, Birth Weight and Calf Survival of Angus, Zebu and Zebu Cross Beef Cattle, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 51, Issue 4, October 1980, Pages 860–867, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1980.514860x</ref><ref>G. E. Carstens, D. E. Johnson, M. D. Holland, K. G. Odde, Effects of Prepartum Protein Nutrition and Birth Weight on Basal Metabolism in Bovine Neonates, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 65, Issue 3, September 1987, Pages 745–751, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.653745x</ref> and growth rate from birth to maturity. <br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Obtaining an accurate measure of birth weight (in pounds of calf) using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]]. However, it is not always feasible to obtain birth weights this way. Digital scales for measuring calf birth weights can cost thousands of dollars. Even with good mechanical scales, trying to catch a calf when the mother is being protective, and then lifting that calf, are challenges for many producers and their ranch hands. There are reports of producers estimating the calf weights using visual inspection and this can be seen in many breed association birth weight data sets. Experience has shown these data are low accuracy, at best, and should not be submitted to breed associations, or used in selection decisions.<br />
<br />
While not ideal, a pragmatic alternative to actual birth weights appears to be [[Hoof Tape| using a calf hoof tape device]]. This method is superior to visually estimating birth weights or not weighing calves. ICAR also allows the use of [[Chest Circumference| chest circumference]] to predict birth weight. <br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205 day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
Both sex of calf and [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] influence birth weight of the calf. BIF recommends the use of additive rather than multiplicative age of [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors because research indicates that they are more appropriate<ref>Rumpf, Janice M. and Van Vleck, L. Dale, "Age-of-dam adjustment factors for birth and weaning weight records of beef cattle: a<br />
review" (2004). Faculty Papers and Publications in Animal Science. 241.<br />
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscifacpub/241</ref>.<br />
<br />
Birth weight adjustments for the [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] can differ from one breed to another. Some breed associations have developed adjustments using their own data. All breed associations are encouraged to develop their own [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors for birth weight. In most cases, these age-of-dam adjustment factors differ by sex of calf.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
Adj. Birth Wt. = Birth Wt. + Age of dam Adj.<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Significant amounts of unfavorable [[Heterosis | heterosis]] have been observed in birth weight and should be accounted for if adjusting birth weights.<br />
<br />
It has been observed that there are significant amounts of birth weight observations that were not collected using an actual scale. Routinely beef breed associations receive birth weights that are collected using [[Hoof Tape | calf hoof tape]], are visually estimated, or are "standard" filled in values. Because of this, it is recommended that birth weights be adjusted for sex by age-of-dam and these factors not be fit in the genetic evaluation.<br />
<br />
===Contempory Grouping===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
<br />
# Breeder-Herd Code<br />
# Year<br />
# Season (January-June, July-December)<br />
# Sex (Bull, Heifer)<br />
# Birth Management Code<br />
# Service Type (Embryo Transfer Calves)<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
Birth weight EPDs are generally produced using a [[Multiple Trait Evaluation | multiple-trait animal model]] that includes [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]] and [[Yearling Weight | yearling weight]] (usually fit as [[Yearling Weight | post-weaning gain]]).<br />
<br />
While a maternal effect has been consistently observed on birth weight, it is always small with low heritability. Many analyses performed for EPD production ignore the maternal effect and produce only additive direct genetic effect EPDs for birth weight.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait and how the trait should be used and not used.<br />
--><br />
<br />
In all situations, birth weight should be considered as only an [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]]. In no situation is it an [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant trait]]. When ERT EPDs are available (i.e. calving ease), actual birth weights or birth weight EPDs should never be considered in a selection decision.<br />
<br />
===References===</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Weaning_Weight&diff=2512Weaning Weight2022-05-19T20:53:05Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><!-- <br />
To use this, add &preload=Template:Trait to the URL after <br />
clicking on the Create button or redlink and reload the page <br />
--><br />
[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Weight on the date the calf is weaned. This is typically at about 200 days of age. The recommended maximum age at which a calf should be weaned in order to be used in a performance recording program (e.g. [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]) is 250 days, and the recommended minimum age is 160 days of age.<br />
<br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Weaning weight should be collected on a high quality digital or mechanical individual animal scale, and it should be recorded in pounds. <br />
<br />
The weight should never be estimated and should be recorded to the nearest whole pound if possible. If recording the weight to the nearest whole pound is not feasible, then it can be acceptable to record the weight to the nearest 2-pound increment. Weaning weight should never be recorded to the nearest five pound or other larger increment. Weaning weight should never be estimated by averaging a group weight. Scales should be regularly calibrated. <br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205-day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
When publishing weaning weights or performing a [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] on weaning weight, several non-genetic factors should be considered that influence weaning weight, in addition to the contemporary group. The effects of these factors should be adjusted out prior to publishing weaning weights or computing [[Ratio | weaning weight ratios]]. <br />
<br />
Obviously weaning weights are affected by the age of the animal, so an adjustment is made for animals all weighed on the same day but differing in age. The standard age for adjustment is 205 days, so the standard then for age-adjusted weaning weight is 205-day weight. To calculate this adjusted weight, the [[Average daily gain | ADG]] from birth to weaning is multiplied by 205, and then birth weight is added. This is shown in the following:<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
205-Day\,Weaning\,Wt\,=\,\frac{Weaning\,Wt\,-\,Birth\,Wt}{Age\,at\,Weaning\,in\,Days}\,\times\,205\,+\,Birth\,Wt<br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
Additionally, the [[Age of Dam | age of the dam]] of the calf as well as the sex of the calf will influence calf weaning weights. These adjustments are typically different for each breed and may change over time as genetic progress is made in growth to weaning.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
Weaning contemporary group is a group of calves that are of the same sex, are similar in age, and have been raised in the same management group (same location on the same feed and pasture, at the same time) and weaned and weighed on the same day. Contemporary groups should include as many cattle as can be accurately compared. However, if, for example, first-calf heifers are given preferential treatment (better feed) prior to weaning their calves, then these calves should be designated into a separate contemporary group than the calves from mature cows.<br />
<br />
Weights should be taken on the same day for an entire [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary group]]. Especially for large contemporary groups, water should be provided to calves penned-up prior to weighing so that there is no effect due to differences in dehydration between the first and last calves weighed. <br />
<br />
While the recommended age range for collecting weaning weight on calves is 160 to 250 days of age, some organizations may choose to allow weights outside of the age range by grouping the calves into a separate contemporary group (younger calves together and a separate group for the older calves).<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
The additive direct genetic effect on weaning weight is predicted by the Weaning Weight [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPD]]. It is a prediction of the average of the relative pounds of weaning an animal would pass on to its offspring through direct [[Glossary#A | additive genetic effects]].<br />
<br />
In addition to direct additive genetic effects, the Milk EPD component predicts daughters' additive genetic merit for maternal ability. It is the maternal additive genetic effect in relative pounds of weaning weight a sire's daughters will provide their calves independent of the direct genetic effect.<br />
<br />
Total maternal weaning EPDs are provided by many beef breed organizations and are the total additive genetic contribution to daughters' calves weaning weights. It is calculated as.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
Total\,Maternal\,Weaning\,EPD\,=\,\frac{1}{2}Weaning\,Direct\,EPD\,+\,Milk\,EPD <br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
<br />
Because dams wean multiple calves, an additional component due to the dam that is not genetic must be accounted for in [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation programs]]; this additional component is called the permanent environment due to the dam.<br />
<br />
Because the variance of weight traits can scale due to size (e.g., sex or breed differences), a procedure to account for [[Heterogeneous variance | heterogeneous variance]] should be considered.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait <br />
--><br />
Many commercial cattlemen sell their calves immediately after weaning. In these marketing programs weaning weight and its component EPDs (weaning and milk) are considered [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] because they are directly associated with the income and costs of production. <br />
<br />
For commercial producers who market calves at older ages, weaning weight and its component traits it is sensible to include weaning weight in selection decisions (i.e., [[Selection Index | a selection index]]) to account for costs to weaning and not revenue. This is because there are not [[Economically Relevant Traits | ERT]]) EPDs for pre-weaning feed consumption. <br />
<br />
Weaning weight's component traits often appear in so-called "All Purpose" [[Selection Index | indices]] and are most appropriate in maternal indices. The Milk EPD component of weaning weight can affect the income and costs for the commercial cattle producer. Milk EPD can be an indicator trait for the costs of producing milk and maintenance energy requirements of cows, as well as being associated with revenue from calf sale weight.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Chest_Circumference&diff=2511Chest Circumference2022-05-19T14:21:25Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>In certain beef cattle management systems, where live weight cannot be recorded directly, chest circumference of animals may be recorded as indicator trait for growth rate in beef performance recording.<br />
Chest girth can be recorded using a measuring tape; alternatively, it is possible to record chest girth using dedicated devices that can predict chest girth from the processing of digital images of the animal. Such devices must be composed by a digital - optical part that is in charge to take digital images of the animal and by a software that must interpret digital images and, using dedicated software, produce animal's chest girth estimate.<br />
The device precision in chest girth estimation must be periodically verified by field calibrations where the average difference between tape and predicted chest girth should not exceed 2,5% of tape chest girth.<br />
Live weight, a direct beef performance trait, can be estimated from chest circumference using a transformation formula that includes both:<br />
<br />
a. The age of the animal, and <br />
<br />
b. Its chest circumference.<br />
<br />
<br />
The age of the animal is calculated as the difference in days between date of recording and animal’s birth date. Transformation formulas may be specific to breed and sex.<br />
It is suggested that use be made of transformation formulas derived from sufficiently large datasets where both chest circumference and live weight were recorded on the same animal, and collected on animals at different ages. Where transformation formula derived from a multiple regression approach are used then the relative R2 should be at least 0.90. <br />
Where chest circumference data is used to estimate live weight, it is recommended: <br />
<br />
a. That the recorded trait of chest circumference is specified, and that the appropriate units (centimetres, inches, meters, etc.) are specified.<br />
<br />
b. That the actual chest circumference is recorded.<br />
<br />
c. That chest circumference is stored in the central database and used to estimate live weight using appropriate and approved conversion formulae.<br />
<br />
d. That estimated live weight derived from chest circumference together with original chest circumference be recorded together on the database.<br />
<br />
e. That a code be recorded on the database with the animal record to indicate the procedure used to estimate growth from the chest measurement.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Chest_Circumference&diff=2510Chest Circumference2022-05-19T14:21:00Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "In certain beef cattle management systems, where live weight cannot be recorded directly, chest circumference of animals may be recorded as indicator trait for growth rate in..."</p>
<hr />
<div>In certain beef cattle management systems, where live weight cannot be recorded directly, chest circumference of animals may be recorded as indicator trait for growth rate in beef performance recording.<br />
Chest girth can be recorded using a measuring tape; alternatively, it is possible to record chest girth using dedicated devices that can predict chest girth from the processing of digital images of the animal. Such devices must be composed by a digital - optical part that is in charge to take digital images of the animal and by a software that must interpret digital images and, using dedicated software, produce animal's chest girth estimate.<br />
The device precision in chest girth estimation must be periodically verified by field calibrations where the average difference between tape and predicted chest girth should not exceed 2,5% of tape chest girth.<br />
Live weight, a direct beef performance trait, can be estimated from chest circumference using a transformation formula that includes both:<br />
a. The age of the animal, and <br />
b. Its chest circumference.<br />
The age of the animal is calculated as the difference in days between date of recording and animal’s birth date. Transformation formulas may be specific to breed and sex.<br />
It is suggested that use be made of transformation formulas derived from sufficiently large datasets where both chest circumference and live weight were recorded on the same animal, and collected on animals at different ages. Where transformation formula derived from a multiple regression approach are used then the relative R2 should be at least 0.90. <br />
Where chest circumference data is used to estimate live weight, it is recommended: <br />
a. That the recorded trait of chest circumference is specified, and that the appropriate units (centimetres, inches, meters, etc.) are specified.<br />
b. That the actual chest circumference is recorded.<br />
c. That chest circumference is stored in the central database and used to estimate live weight using appropriate and approved conversion formulae.<br />
d. That estimated live weight derived from chest circumference together with original chest circumference be recorded together on the database.<br />
e. That a code be recorded on the database with the animal record to indicate the procedure used to estimate growth from the chest measurement.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Repeated_Pre-Weaning_Weights&diff=2509Repeated Pre-Weaning Weights2022-05-19T14:17:58Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The following formula refers to the case of two recordings (n = 2) of weight after birth. The procedure can be applied to any number n of recordings, noting that the reference age in this case should be comprised of the age intervals from two successive recordings, or, if this is not possible, should be closest to the last available record. The age range tolerance or limitation values should be specified by the recording organization, based on recording frequencies etc.<br />
let RA be reference age<br />
let RW be weight at reference age<br />
let DB be birth date<br />
let Dt-1 be recording date 1<br />
let Dt-2 be recording date 2<br />
let Wt-1 be recorded weight at date 1<br />
let Wt-2 be recorded weight at date 2<br />
let At-1 be age of animal at recording date 1 ( = Dt-1 - DB)<br />
let At-2 be age of animal at recording date 2 ( = Dt-2 - DB)<br />
If RA < At-1 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(At-1 -RA)} - Wt-1<br />
If At-1 < RA < At-2 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(RA - At-1)}+ Wt-1<br />
If RA > At-2 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(RA - At-2)} + Wt-2<br />
<br />
Where with the exception of birth weight, there is only one weight record available after birth:<br />
let AR be reference age<br />
let WR be weight at reference age<br />
let DB be birth date<br />
let Dt be recording date t<br />
let WB be birth weight<br />
let Wt be recorded weight at date t<br />
let At be age of animal at recording date ( = Dt - DB)<br />
If AR < At then <br />
WR = [(Wt - WB)/ At]*AR + WB<br />
If AR > At then <br />
WR = {[(Wt - WB)/ At]*(AR - At)]} + Wt</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Repeated_Pre-Weaning_Weights&diff=2508Repeated Pre-Weaning Weights2022-05-19T14:17:10Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "The following formula refers to the case of two recordings (n = 2) of weight after birth. The procedure can be applied to any number n of recordings, noting that the reference..."</p>
<hr />
<div>The following formula refers to the case of two recordings (n = 2) of weight after birth. The procedure can be applied to any number n of recordings, noting that the reference age in this case should be comprised of the age intervals from two successive recordings, or, if this is not possible, should be closest to the last available record. The age range tolerance or limitation values should be specified by the recording organization, based on recording frequencies etc.<br />
let RA be reference age<br />
let RW be weight at reference age<br />
let DB be birth date<br />
let Dt-1 be recording date 1<br />
let Dt-2 be recording date 2<br />
let Wt-1 be recorded weight at date 1<br />
let Wt-2 be recorded weight at date 2<br />
let At-1 be age of animal at recording date 1 ( = Dt-1 - DB)<br />
let At-2 be age of animal at recording date 2 ( = Dt-2 - DB)<br />
If RA < At-1 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(At-1 -RA)} - Wt-1<br />
If At-1 < RA < At-2 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(RA - At-1)}+ Wt-1<br />
If RA > At-2 then <br />
RW = {[(Wt-2 - Wt-1)/(At-2 - At-1)]*(RA - At-2)} + Wt-2</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Weaning_Weight&diff=2507Weaning Weight2022-05-19T14:16:15Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><!-- <br />
To use this, add &preload=Template:Trait to the URL after <br />
clicking on the Create button or redlink and reload the page <br />
--><br />
[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Weight on the date the calf is weaned. This is typically at about 200 days of age. The recommended maximum age at which a calf should be weaned in order to be used in a performance recording program (e.g. [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]) is 250 days, and the recommended minimum age is 160 days of age.<br />
<br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Weaning weight should be collected on a high quality digital or mechanical individual animal scale, and it should be recorded in pounds. <br />
<br />
The weight should never be estimated and should be recorded to the nearest whole pound if possible. If recording the weight to the nearest whole pound is not feasible, then it can be acceptable to record the weight to the nearest 2-pound increment. Weaning weight should never be recorded to the nearest five pound or other larger increment. Weaning weight should never be estimated by averaging a group weight. Scales should be regularly calibrated. ICAR guidelines require that scales used for weaning weight measurement are accurate to 2 kilograms, but also recommends that weights be recorded to the nearest pound or kilogram. While uncommon in the US, ICAR has also defined procedures to [[Repeated Pre-Weaning Weights| incorporate more than one weight between birth and weaning]].<br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205-day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
When publishing weaning weights or performing a [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] on weaning weight, several non-genetic factors should be considered that influence weaning weight, in addition to the contemporary group. The effects of these factors should be adjusted out prior to publishing weaning weights or computing [[Ratio | weaning weight ratios]]. <br />
<br />
Obviously weaning weights are affected by the age of the animal, so an adjustment is made for animals all weighed on the same day but differing in age. The standard age for adjustment is 205 days, so the standard then for age-adjusted weaning weight is 205-day weight. To calculate this adjusted weight, the [[Average daily gain | ADG]] from birth to weaning is multiplied by 205, and then birth weight is added. This is shown in the following:<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
205-Day\,Weaning\,Wt\,=\,\frac{Weaning\,Wt\,-\,Birth\,Wt}{Age\,at\,Weaning\,in\,Days}\,\times\,205\,+\,Birth\,Wt<br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
Additionally, the [[Age of Dam | age of the dam]] of the calf as well as the sex of the calf will influence calf weaning weights. These adjustments are typically different for each breed and may change over time as genetic progress is made in growth to weaning.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
Weaning contemporary group is a group of calves that are of the same sex, are similar in age, and have been raised in the same management group (same location on the same feed and pasture, at the same time) and weaned and weighed on the same day. Contemporary groups should include as many cattle as can be accurately compared. However, if, for example, first-calf heifers are given preferential treatment (better feed) prior to weaning their calves, then these calves should be designated into a separate contemporary group than the calves from mature cows.<br />
<br />
Weights should be taken on the same day for an entire [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary group]]. Especially for large contemporary groups, water should be provided to calves penned-up prior to weighing so that there is no effect due to differences in dehydration between the first and last calves weighed. <br />
<br />
While the recommended age range for collecting weaning weight on calves is 160 to 250 days of age, some organizations may choose to allow weights outside of the age range by grouping the calves into a separate contemporary group (younger calves together and a separate group for the older calves).<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
The additive direct genetic effect on weaning weight is predicted by the Weaning Weight [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPD]]. It is a prediction of the average of the relative pounds of weaning an animal would pass on to its offspring through direct [[Glossary#A | additive genetic effects]].<br />
<br />
In addition to direct additive genetic effects, the Milk EPD component predicts daughters' additive genetic merit for maternal ability. It is the maternal additive genetic effect in relative pounds of weaning weight a sire's daughters will provide their calves independent of the direct genetic effect.<br />
<br />
Total maternal weaning EPDs are provided by many beef breed organizations and are the total additive genetic contribution to daughters' calves weaning weights. It is calculated as.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
Total\,Maternal\,Weaning\,EPD\,=\,\frac{1}{2}Weaning\,Direct\,EPD\,+\,Milk\,EPD <br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
<br />
Because dams wean multiple calves, an additional component due to the dam that is not genetic must be accounted for in [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation programs]]; this additional component is called the permanent environment due to the dam.<br />
<br />
Because the variance of weight traits can scale due to size (e.g., sex or breed differences), a procedure to account for [[Heterogeneous variance | heterogeneous variance]] should be considered.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait <br />
--><br />
Many commercial cattlemen sell their calves immediately after weaning. In these marketing programs weaning weight and its component EPDs (weaning and milk) are considered [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] because they are directly associated with the income and costs of production. <br />
<br />
For commercial producers who market calves at older ages, weaning weight and its component traits it is sensible to include weaning weight in selection decisions (i.e., [[Selection Index | a selection index]]) to account for costs to weaning and not revenue. This is because there are not [[Economically Relevant Traits | ERT]]) EPDs for pre-weaning feed consumption. <br />
<br />
Weaning weight's component traits often appear in so-called "All Purpose" [[Selection Index | indices]] and are most appropriate in maternal indices. The Milk EPD component of weaning weight can affect the income and costs for the commercial cattle producer. Milk EPD can be an indicator trait for the costs of producing milk and maintenance energy requirements of cows, as well as being associated with revenue from calf sale weight.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Birth_Weight&diff=2506Birth Weight2022-05-19T14:13:53Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Calf birth weight is a good [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]] for calving difficulty. If calving difficulty is a problem in the herd, and [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]] are not available, selection of breeding animals for lighter birth weight may be an effective strategy to improve [[Calving Difficulty | direct calving ease]]. However, single-trait selection for lighter birth weight or shorter gestation intervals may reduce calf viability <ref>W. L. Reynolds, T. M. DeRouen, S. Moin, K. L. Koonce, Factors Influencing Gestation Length, Birth Weight and Calf Survival of Angus, Zebu and Zebu Cross Beef Cattle, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 51, Issue 4, October 1980, Pages 860–867, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1980.514860x</ref><ref>G. E. Carstens, D. E. Johnson, M. D. Holland, K. G. Odde, Effects of Prepartum Protein Nutrition and Birth Weight on Basal Metabolism in Bovine Neonates, Journal of Animal Science, Volume 65, Issue 3, September 1987, Pages 745–751, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1987.653745x</ref> and growth rate from birth to maturity. <br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Obtaining an accurate measure of birth weight (in pounds of calf) using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease EPDs]]. However, it is not always feasible to obtain birth weights this way. Digital scales for measuring calf birth weights can cost thousands of dollars. Even with good mechanical scales, trying to catch a calf when the mother is being protective, and then lifting that calf, are challenges for many producers and their ranch hands. Regardless of the method, accurate weights are important and should be recorded to the nearest pound (BIF) or kilogram (ICAR). There are reports of producers estimating the calf weights using visual inspection and this can be seen in many breed association birth weight data sets. Experience has shown these data are low accuracy, at best, and should not be submitted to breed associations, or used in selection decisions.<br />
<br />
While not ideal, a pragmatic alternative to actual birth weights appears to be [[Hoof Tape| using a calf hoof tape device]]. This method is superior to visually estimating birth weights or not weighing calves. ICAR also allows the use of [[Chest Circumference| chest circumference]] to predict birth weight. <br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205 day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
Both sex of calf and [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] influence birth weight of the calf. BIF recommends the use of additive rather than multiplicative age of [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors because research indicates that they are more appropriate<ref>Rumpf, Janice M. and Van Vleck, L. Dale, "Age-of-dam adjustment factors for birth and weaning weight records of beef cattle: a<br />
review" (2004). Faculty Papers and Publications in Animal Science. 241.<br />
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscifacpub/241</ref>.<br />
<br />
Birth weight adjustments for the [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] can differ from one breed to another. Some breed associations have developed adjustments using their own data. All breed associations are encouraged to develop their own [[Age of Dam | age of dam]] adjustment factors for birth weight. In most cases, these age-of-dam adjustment factors differ by sex of calf.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
Adj. Birth Wt. = Birth Wt. + Age of dam Adj.<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Significant amounts of unfavorable [[Heterosis | heterosis]] have been observed in birth weight and should be accounted for if adjusting birth weights.<br />
<br />
It has been observed that there are significant amounts of birth weight observations that were not collected using an actual scale. Routinely beef breed associations receive birth weights that are collected using [[Hoof Tape | calf hoof tape]], are visually estimated, or are "standard" filled in values. Because of this, it is recommended that birth weights be adjusted for sex by age-of-dam and these factors not be fit in the genetic evaluation.<br />
<br />
===Contempory Grouping===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
<br />
# Breeder-Herd Code<br />
# Year<br />
# Season (January-June, July-December)<br />
# Sex (Bull, Heifer)<br />
# Birth Management Code<br />
# Service Type (Embryo Transfer Calves)<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
Birth weight EPDs are generally produced using a [[Multiple Trait Evaluation | multiple-trait animal model]] that includes [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]] and [[Yearling Weight | yearling weight]] (usually fit as [[Yearling Weight | post-weaning gain]]).<br />
<br />
While a maternal effect has been consistently observed on birth weight, it is always small with low heritability. Many analyses performed for EPD production ignore the maternal effect and produce only additive direct genetic effect EPDs for birth weight.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait and how the trait should be used and not used.<br />
--><br />
<br />
In all situations, birth weight should be considered as only an [[Indicator Traits | indicator trait]]. In no situation is it an [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant trait]]. When ERT EPDs are available (i.e. calving ease), actual birth weights or birth weight EPDs should never be considered in a selection decision.<br />
<br />
===References===</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Weaning_Weight&diff=2505Weaning Weight2022-05-19T14:09:47Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><!-- <br />
To use this, add &preload=Template:Trait to the URL after <br />
clicking on the Create button or redlink and reload the page <br />
--><br />
[[Category:Growth Traits]]<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
Weight on the date the calf is weaned. This is typically at about 200 days of age. The recommended maximum age at which a calf should be weaned in order to be used in a performance recording program (e.g. [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]) is 250 days, and the recommended minimum age is 160 days of age.<br />
<br />
===Phenotype===<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Weaning weight should be collected on a high quality digital or mechanical individual animal scale, and it should be recorded in pounds. <br />
<br />
The weight should never be estimated and should be recorded to the nearest whole pound if possible. If recording the weight to the nearest whole pound is not feasible, then it can be acceptable to record the weight to the nearest 2-pound increment. Weaning weight should never be recorded to the nearest five pound or other larger increment. Weaning weight should never be estimated by averaging a group weight. Scales should be regularly calibrated. ICAR guidelines require that scales used for weaning weight measurement are accurate to 2 kilograms, but also recommends that weights be recorded to the nearest pound or kilogram.<br />
<br />
===Adjusted Value===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss how values are adjusted. E.g., 205-day ww, sex X aod adjustments, ratios, etc <br />
If the trait is not adjusted (e.g. Stayability) then say so<br />
--><br />
When publishing weaning weights or performing a [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] on weaning weight, several non-genetic factors should be considered that influence weaning weight, in addition to the contemporary group. The effects of these factors should be adjusted out prior to publishing weaning weights or computing [[Ratio | weaning weight ratios]]. <br />
<br />
Obviously weaning weights are affected by the age of the animal, so an adjustment is made for animals all weighed on the same day but differing in age. The standard age for adjustment is 205 days, so the standard then for age-adjusted weaning weight is 205-day weight. To calculate this adjusted weight, the [[Average daily gain | ADG]] from birth to weaning is multiplied by 205, and then birth weight is added. This is shown in the following:<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
205-Day\,Weaning\,Wt\,=\,\frac{Weaning\,Wt\,-\,Birth\,Wt}{Age\,at\,Weaning\,in\,Days}\,\times\,205\,+\,Birth\,Wt<br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
Additionally, the [[Age of Dam | age of the dam]] of the calf as well as the sex of the calf will influence calf weaning weights. These adjustments are typically different for each breed and may change over time as genetic progress is made in growth to weaning.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
Weaning contemporary group is a group of calves that are of the same sex, are similar in age, and have been raised in the same management group (same location on the same feed and pasture, at the same time) and weaned and weighed on the same day. Contemporary groups should include as many cattle as can be accurately compared. However, if, for example, first-calf heifers are given preferential treatment (better feed) prior to weaning their calves, then these calves should be designated into a separate contemporary group than the calves from mature cows.<br />
<br />
Weights should be taken on the same day for an entire [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary group]]. Especially for large contemporary groups, water should be provided to calves penned-up prior to weighing so that there is no effect due to differences in dehydration between the first and last calves weighed. <br />
<br />
While the recommended age range for collecting weaning weight on calves is 160 to 250 days of age, some organizations may choose to allow weights outside of the age range by grouping the calves into a separate contemporary group (younger calves together and a separate group for the older calves).<br />
<br />
===Genetic Evaluation===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss the genetic model for EPD production. <br />
E.g., direct, maternal, permanent environment due to dam. <br />
--><br />
The additive direct genetic effect on weaning weight is predicted by the Weaning Weight [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPD]]. It is a prediction of the average of the relative pounds of weaning an animal would pass on to its offspring through direct [[Glossary#A | additive genetic effects]].<br />
<br />
In addition to direct additive genetic effects, the Milk EPD component predicts daughters' additive genetic merit for maternal ability. It is the maternal additive genetic effect in relative pounds of weaning weight a sire's daughters will provide their calves independent of the direct genetic effect.<br />
<br />
Total maternal weaning EPDs are provided by many beef breed organizations and are the total additive genetic contribution to daughters' calves weaning weights. It is calculated as.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
Total\,Maternal\,Weaning\,EPD\,=\,\frac{1}{2}Weaning\,Direct\,EPD\,+\,Milk\,EPD <br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
<br />
Because dams wean multiple calves, an additional component due to the dam that is not genetic must be accounted for in [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation programs]]; this additional component is called the permanent environment due to the dam.<br />
<br />
Because the variance of weight traits can scale due to size (e.g., sex or breed differences), a procedure to account for [[Heterogeneous variance | heterogeneous variance]] should be considered.<br />
<br />
===Usage===<br />
<!-- <br />
Discuss in what circumstances the trait is an ERT or an indicator trait <br />
--><br />
Many commercial cattlemen sell their calves immediately after weaning. In these marketing programs weaning weight and its component EPDs (weaning and milk) are considered [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] because they are directly associated with the income and costs of production. <br />
<br />
For commercial producers who market calves at older ages, weaning weight and its component traits it is sensible to include weaning weight in selection decisions (i.e., [[Selection Index | a selection index]]) to account for costs to weaning and not revenue. This is because there are not [[Economically Relevant Traits | ERT]]) EPDs for pre-weaning feed consumption. <br />
<br />
Weaning weight's component traits often appear in so-called "All Purpose" [[Selection Index | indices]] and are most appropriate in maternal indices. The Milk EPD component of weaning weight can affect the income and costs for the commercial cattle producer. Milk EPD can be an indicator trait for the costs of producing milk and maintenance energy requirements of cows, as well as being associated with revenue from calf sale weight.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Recommended_Carcass_Data_Collection_Traits&diff=2443Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits2021-07-08T13:27:17Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Data Collection]]<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"<br />
!colspan="6"|'''Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits'''<br />
|-<br />
|'''Number'''<br />
|'''Trait'''<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|[[Identification Systems| Animal ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|Harvest Date<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|Packing Plant Name and Location<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|[[Identification Systems | Carcass ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|[[Hot Carcass Weight| Hot Carcass Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|[[Quality Grade#Marbling | Marbling Score]]<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Carcass Maturity]<br />
|-<br />
|8<br />
|[[Back Fat Thickness| Fat Thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
|9<br />
|[[Ribeye Area| Ribeye Area]]<br />
|-<br />
|10<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Percent Pelvic, Heart and Kidney Fat]<br />
|-<br />
|11<br />
|[[Yield Grade| Yield Grade]]<br />
|-<br />
|12<br />
|[[Quality Grade| Quality Grade]]<br />
|}</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Required_Carcass_Data_Collection_for_Use_in_Genetic_Evaluations&diff=2442Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations2021-07-08T13:26:19Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: Genetic Evaluation]]<br />
[[Category:Data Collection]]<br />
The primary goal of all genetic evaluation programs should be determining unbiased values of genetic merit for each parent tested. Unfortunately, economic hurdles may prevent this from being totally possible in carcass merit evaluations. However, below are guidelines that may minimize the effect of some of these hurdles.<br />
<br />
A proper contemporary group must be identified at harvest with a minimum of 3 progeny of the same sex from each sire, harvested on the same date, with progeny of at least 2 reference sires also in the contemporary group. <br />
<br />
Producers should identify the following information on all animals prior to harvest: <br />
<br />
# Sire: registration number, herd ID and birthdate.<br />
# Dam: registration number, herd ID, and birthdate. (No registration number needed if a commercial dam)<br />
# Calf: registration number, herd ID, birthdate, sex, birthweight, weaning weight and yearling weight. (No registration number needed if a commercial calf)<br />
<br />
== Harvested animal data==<br />
All of the recommended carcass data collection traits should be identified at harvest. <br />
<br />
This includes:<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"<br />
!colspan="6"|'''Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits'''<br />
|-<br />
|'''Number'''<br />
|'''Trait'''<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|[[Identification Systems| Animal ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|Harvest Date<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|Packing Plant Name and Location<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|[[Identification Systems | Carcass ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|[[Hot Carcass Weight| Hot Carcass Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|[[Quality Grade#Marbling | Marbling Score]]<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Carcass Maturity]<br />
|-<br />
|8<br />
|[[Back Fat Thickness| Fat Thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
|9<br />
|[[Ribeye Area| Ribeye Area]]<br />
|-<br />
|10<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Percent Pelvic, Heart and Kidney Fat]<br />
|-<br />
|11<br />
|[[Yield Grade| Yield Grade]]<br />
|-<br />
|12<br />
|[[Quality Grade| Quality Grade]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Ultrasound data on market steers==<br />
<br />
Ultrasound data may be collected on fed cattle (steers and/or heifers) just before harvest time. The ultrasound data should be interpreted by an approved and authorized Ultrasound Guidelines Council lab. Ultrasound data required includes:<br />
<br />
# Animal ID<br />
# Scan date - animals must be scanned in the age window accepted by your specific breed association<br />
# Contemporary group, test type, sex, diet concentration level<br />
# Ultrasound scan weight taken within 7 days of scanning<br />
# Rib fat<br />
# Rump fat<br />
# Percent intramuscular fat<br />
# Ribeye area<br />
<br />
Note: Most breed association require weaning weight submission before processing ultrasound data.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Required_Carcass_Data_Collection_for_Use_in_Genetic_Evaluations&diff=2441Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations2021-07-08T13:26:00Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: Genetic Evaluation]]<br />
[[Category:Data Collection]]<br />
The primary goal of all genetic evaluation programs should be determining unbiased values of genetic merit for each parent tested. Unfortunately, economic hurdles may prevent this from being totally possible in carcass merit evaluations. However, below are guidelines that may minimize the effect of some of these hurdles.<br />
<br />
A proper contemporary group must be identified at harvest with a minimum of 3 progeny of the same sex from each sire, harvested on the same date, with progeny of at least 2 reference sires also in the contemporary group. <br />
<br />
Producers should identify the following information on all animals prior to harvest: <br />
<br />
# Sire: registration number, herd ID and birthdate.<br />
# Dam: registration number, herd ID, and birthdate. (No registration number needed if a commercial dam)<br />
# Calf: registration number, herd ID, birthdate, sex, birthweight, weaning weight and yearling weight. (No registration number needed if a commercial calf)<br />
<br />
== Harvested animal data==<br />
All of the recommended carcass data collection traits should be identified at harvest. <br />
<br />
This includes:<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"<br />
!colspan="6"|'''Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits'''<br />
|-<br />
|'''Number'''<br />
|'''Trait'''<br />
|-<br />
|1<br />
|[[Identification Systems| Animal ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|2<br />
|Harvest Date<br />
|-<br />
|3<br />
|Packing Plant Name and Location<br />
|-<br />
|4<br />
|[[Identification Systems | Carcass ID]]<br />
|-<br />
|5<br />
|[[Hot Carcass Weight| Hot Carcass Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
|6<br />
|[[Quality Grade#Marbling | Marbling Score]]<br />
|-<br />
|7<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Carcass Maturity]<br />
|-<br />
|8<br />
|[[Back Fat Thickness| Fat Thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
|9<br />
|[[Ribeye Area| Ribeye Area]]<br />
|-<br />
|10<br />
|[https://meat.tamu.edu/beefgrading/ Percent Pelvic, Heart and Kidney Fat]<br />
|-<br />
|11<br />
|[[Final Calculated Yield Grade| Yield Grade]]<br />
|-<br />
|12<br />
|[[Quality Grade| Quality Grade]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Ultrasound data on market steers==<br />
<br />
Ultrasound data may be collected on fed cattle (steers and/or heifers) just before harvest time. The ultrasound data should be interpreted by an approved and authorized Ultrasound Guidelines Council lab. Ultrasound data required includes:<br />
<br />
# Animal ID<br />
# Scan date - animals must be scanned in the age window accepted by your specific breed association<br />
# Contemporary group, test type, sex, diet concentration level<br />
# Ultrasound scan weight taken within 7 days of scanning<br />
# Rib fat<br />
# Rump fat<br />
# Percent intramuscular fat<br />
# Ribeye area<br />
<br />
Note: Most breed association require weaning weight submission before processing ultrasound data.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=International_animal_identification_letter&diff=2173International animal identification letter2020-06-02T13:21:26Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The international animal identification letter codes—which represent the year of birth—are recommended by all the major breed associations to help with individual animal identification. Within this identification system each calendar year is assigned a standard letter code. Every 22 years the lettering system will repeat itself. Typically, producers find it beneficial to use the letter code in conjunction with an identification number for both visual and tattoo purposes. How and even if the letter is used depends upon a producer’s personal preference for animal identification. However, an example of a common identification system used by many seedstock operations has the number corresponding with the order of a calf’s birth followed by the year letter code, e.g. 101H would be an operation’s 101st calf born in 2020. Overall, the goal for the identification system that uses the letter codes is to have each animal on a farm or ranch uniquely identified within a birth year. The Letters I, O, Q and V are not used to avoid confusion with numbers and letter 1, 0, and U.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" <br />
|-<br />
! Year<br />
! Letter Code<br />
! Year<br />
! Letter Code<br />
|-<br />
| 2013<br />
| A<br />
| 2035<br />
| A<br />
|-<br />
| 2014<br />
| B<br />
| 2036<br />
| B<br />
|-<br />
| 2015<br />
| C<br />
| 2037<br />
| C<br />
|-<br />
| 2016<br />
| D<br />
| 2038<br />
| D<br />
|-<br />
| 2017<br />
| E<br />
| 2039<br />
| E<br />
|-<br />
| 2018<br />
| F<br />
| 2040<br />
| F<br />
|-<br />
| 2019<br />
| G<br />
| 2041<br />
| G<br />
|-<br />
| 2020<br />
| H<br />
| 2042<br />
| H<br />
|-<br />
| 2021<br />
| J<br />
| 2043<br />
| J<br />
|-<br />
| 2022<br />
| K<br />
| 2044<br />
| K<br />
|-<br />
| 2023<br />
| L<br />
| 2045<br />
| L<br />
|-<br />
| 2024<br />
| M<br />
| 2046<br />
| M<br />
|-<br />
| 2025<br />
| N<br />
| 2047<br />
| N<br />
|-<br />
| 2026<br />
| P<br />
| 2048<br />
| P<br />
|-<br />
| 2027<br />
| R<br />
| 2049<br />
| R<br />
|-<br />
| 2028<br />
| S<br />
| 2050<br />
| S<br />
|-<br />
| 2029<br />
| T<br />
| 2051<br />
| T<br />
|-<br />
| 2030<br />
| U<br />
| 2052<br />
| U<br />
|-<br />
| 2031<br />
| W<br />
| 2053<br />
| W<br />
|-<br />
| 2032<br />
| X<br />
| 2054<br />
| X<br />
|-<br />
| 2033<br />
| Y<br />
| 2055<br />
| Y<br />
|-<br />
| 2034<br />
| Z<br />
| 2056<br />
| Z<br />
|}</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=International_animal_identification_letter&diff=2172International animal identification letter2020-06-02T13:20:38Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The international animal identification letter codes—which represent the year of birth—are recommended by all the major breed associations to help with individual animal identification. Within this identification system each calendar year is assigned a standard letter code. Every 22 years the lettering system will repeat itself. Typically, producers find it beneficial to use the letter code in conjunction with an identification number for both visual and tattoo purposes. How and even if the letter is used depends upon a producer’s preferred style. However, an example of a common identification system used by many seedstock operations has the number corresponding with the order of a calf’s birth followed by the year letter code, e.g. 101H would be an operation’s 101st calf born in 2020. Overall, the goal for the identification system that uses the letter codes is to have each animal on a farm or ranch uniquely identified within a birth year. The Letters I, O, Q and V are not used to avoid confusion with numbers and letter 1, 0, and U.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" <br />
|-<br />
! Year<br />
! Letter Code<br />
! Year<br />
! Letter Code<br />
|-<br />
| 2013<br />
| A<br />
| 2035<br />
| A<br />
|-<br />
| 2014<br />
| B<br />
| 2036<br />
| B<br />
|-<br />
| 2015<br />
| C<br />
| 2037<br />
| C<br />
|-<br />
| 2016<br />
| D<br />
| 2038<br />
| D<br />
|-<br />
| 2017<br />
| E<br />
| 2039<br />
| E<br />
|-<br />
| 2018<br />
| F<br />
| 2040<br />
| F<br />
|-<br />
| 2019<br />
| G<br />
| 2041<br />
| G<br />
|-<br />
| 2020<br />
| H<br />
| 2042<br />
| H<br />
|-<br />
| 2021<br />
| J<br />
| 2043<br />
| J<br />
|-<br />
| 2022<br />
| K<br />
| 2044<br />
| K<br />
|-<br />
| 2023<br />
| L<br />
| 2045<br />
| L<br />
|-<br />
| 2024<br />
| M<br />
| 2046<br />
| M<br />
|-<br />
| 2025<br />
| N<br />
| 2047<br />
| N<br />
|-<br />
| 2026<br />
| P<br />
| 2048<br />
| P<br />
|-<br />
| 2027<br />
| R<br />
| 2049<br />
| R<br />
|-<br />
| 2028<br />
| S<br />
| 2050<br />
| S<br />
|-<br />
| 2029<br />
| T<br />
| 2051<br />
| T<br />
|-<br />
| 2030<br />
| U<br />
| 2052<br />
| U<br />
|-<br />
| 2031<br />
| W<br />
| 2053<br />
| W<br />
|-<br />
| 2032<br />
| X<br />
| 2054<br />
| X<br />
|-<br />
| 2033<br />
| Y<br />
| 2055<br />
| Y<br />
|-<br />
| 2034<br />
| Z<br />
| 2056<br />
| Z<br />
|}</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=International_animal_identification_letter&diff=2171International animal identification letter2020-06-02T13:19:54Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The international animal identification letter codes—which represent the year of birth—are recommended by all the major breed associations to help with individual animal identification. Within this identification system each calendar year is assigned a standard letter code. Every 22 years the lettering system will repeat itself. Typically, producers find it beneficial to use the letter code in conjunction with an identification number for both visual and tattoo purposes. How and even if the letter is used depends upon a producer’s preferred style. However, an example of a common identification system used by many seedstock operations has the number corresponding with the order of a calf’s birth followed by the year letter code, e.g. 101H would be an operation’s 101st calf born in 2020. Overall, the goal for the identification system that uses the letter codes is to have each animal on a farm or ranch uniquely identified within a birth year. The Letters I, O, Q and V are not used to avoid confusion with numbers and letter 1, 0, and U.<br />
<br />
| Year | Letter Code | Year | Letter Code |<br />
|------|-------------|------|-------------|<br />
| 2013 | A | 2035 | A |<br />
| 2014 | B | 2036 | B |<br />
| 2015 | C | 2037 | C |<br />
| 2016 | D | 2038 | D |<br />
| 2017 | E | 2039 | E |<br />
| 2018 | F | 2040 | F |<br />
| 2019 | G | 2041 | G |<br />
| 2020 | H | 2042 | H |<br />
| 2021 | J | 2043 | J |<br />
| 2022 | K | 2044 | K |<br />
| 2023 | L | 2045 | L |<br />
| 2024 | M | 2046 | M |<br />
| 2025 | N | 2047 | N |<br />
| 2026 | P | 2048 | P |<br />
| 2027 | R | 2049 | R |<br />
| 2028 | S | 2050 | S |<br />
| 2029 | T | 2051 | T |<br />
| 2030 | U | 2052 | U |<br />
| 2031 | W | 2053 | W |<br />
| 2032 | X | 2054 | X |<br />
| 2033 | Y | 2055 | Y |<br />
| 2034 | Z | 2056 | Z |</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=International_animal_identification_letter&diff=2169International animal identification letter2020-06-02T13:18:15Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "The international animal identification letter codes—which represent the year of birth—are recommended by all the major breed associations to help with individual animal i..."</p>
<hr />
<div>The international animal identification letter codes—which represent the year of birth—are recommended by all the major breed associations to help with individual animal identification. Within this identification system each calendar year is assigned a standard letter code. Every 22 years the lettering system will repeat itself. Typically, producers find it beneficial to use the letter code in conjunction with an identification number for both visual and tattoo purposes. How and even if the letter is used depends upon a producer’s preferred style. However, an example of a common identification system used by many seedstock operations has the number corresponding with the order of a calf’s birth followed by the year letter code, e.g. 101H would be an operation’s 101st calf born in 2020. Overall, the goal for the identification system that uses the letter codes is to have each animal on a farm or ranch uniquely identified within a birth year. The Letters I, O, Q and V are not used to avoid confusion with numbers and letter 1, 0, and U.<br />
<br />
<br />
| Year | Letter Code | Year | Letter Code |<br />
|-------------|--------------------|-------------|--------------------|<br />
| 2013 | A | 2035 | A |<br />
| 2014 | B | 2036 | B |<br />
| 2015 | C | 2037 | C |<br />
| 2016 | D | 2038 | D |<br />
| 2017 | E | 2039 | E |<br />
| 2018 | F | 2040 | F |<br />
| 2019 | G | 2041 | G |<br />
| 2020 | H | 2042 | H |<br />
| 2021 | J | 2043 | J |<br />
| 2022 | K | 2044 | K |<br />
| 2023 | L | 2045 | L |<br />
| 2024 | M | 2046 | M |<br />
| 2025 | N | 2047 | N |<br />
| 2026 | P | 2048 | P |<br />
| 2027 | R | 2049 | R |<br />
| 2028 | S | 2050 | S |<br />
| 2029 | T | 2051 | T |<br />
| 2030 | U | 2052 | U |<br />
| 2031 | W | 2053 | W |<br />
| 2032 | X | 2054 | X |<br />
| 2033 | Y | 2055 | Y |<br />
| 2034 | Z | 2056 | Z |</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Identification_Systems&diff=2168Identification Systems2020-06-02T13:16:02Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal, an effective beef cattle identification system is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data. Because the number of animals processed in genetic evaluation is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Standards for ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification have also been implemented. In addition, recording of animal identification is closely associated with the collection of genomic information.<br />
<br />
==On-farm identification==<br />
Animal identification is the basis for keeping accurate production records of the herd. Individual animal identification allows producers to keep records on an animal's parentage, birth date, production records, health history, and a host of other important management information. Often, this will include the [[international animal identification letter]]. Accurate records provide the producer with enough information to make individual or whole-herd management decisions. In many instances, the producer needs to be able to quickly identify an animal. A successful identification system makes this task more efficient. Identification is also important to indicate ownership of a particular animal or to indicate the herd of origin.<br />
<br />
The identification of individual animals within a particular ranch has several benefits. In seedstock production, the documentation of identity matched to a unique registration number that is tied to a pedigree is an essential component of merchandising. Individual animal identification also is essential to ownership issues and effective management and documentation of data for performance recording and evaluation. <br />
<br />
There are many on-farm identification systems, but choice of system should be based on the method that best fits an operation's needs. Factors that might influence the decision include size of the operation, type of records kept, and how easy or difficult the method is to apply. Two different methods should be used to ensure permanent identification. Once a system has been selected, it is important to be consistent with providing each animal a unique and permanent identification number that matches with each method used. Be careful not to duplicate numbers over a minimum of a ten-year period. When an animal is born/purchased, it should be identified immediately with only one unique number, which will serve as its identification number until it departs from the herd.<br />
<br />
==Identification for Genetic Evaluation==<br />
Unique identification (ID) of cattle across farms and ranches by organizations conducting national/international genetic evaluation is required for accurate genetic evaluation and subsequent improvement by selection. With the advent of multiple-breed genetic evaluation, a more robust an animal identification system was developed.<br />
<br />
===International Identification===<br />
The individual ID on a registered animal is currently handled by a unique registration number assigned by a breed organization. In order to allow for accurate animal identification in multiple-breed genetic evaluation and multiple-breed registries, many organizations have adopted a standardized method for including information about animals' breed registry and country of origin. This method uses a nineteen (19) character unique identification designator for each animal. From left to right, the first six (3) characters contain a designator of the animal's original "breed" registration and the next three characters (4-6) contain a code identifying the country of the breed organization for the original registration. For example, if an animal were a Hereford first registered in the United States, the first six (6) characters of the international identification would be (always in uppercase characters only),<br />
<center><br />
<pre><br />
HERUSA<br />
</pre><br />
</center><br />
The seventh (7th) character of the international identification would be a code for the sex of the animal at birth (M=male; F=female). The remaining twelve (12) characters contain the animal's registration number assigned by the breed organization of origin. This registration number is right-justified and padded with leading zeros (0). For example, a bull that was first recorded as a Black Angus by the Canadian Angus Association with registration number 123456, its international animal identification value would be,<br />
<center><br />
<pre><br />
AANCANM000000123456<br />
</pre><br />
</center><br />
<br />
<br />
==Data exchange==<br />
BIF encourages data exchange and interfacing among data management and software companies. However, this raises many issues concerning the ownership and rights to use of the data. Reasonable data security is necessary and should be guaranteed before data are entered into a system. Written rules governing the sharing and transfer of information from one party to another should be agreed upon in advance between owners and others interested in the genetic improvement of beef cattle.<br />
<br />
Accurate and permanent herd identification plays a critical role in successful herd management. The unique animal ID is used to properly record pedigrees, ensure animal health and productivity, and reach herd goals.<br />
Herd animals can be identified by ear tags, tattoos, hot-iron and freeze brands, biometrics, and genomics. When determining the right method of ID for your herd, consider the costs, rules, requirements and convenience.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=1856Data Collection2019-12-11T21:16:02Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Collection of data to enter genetic evaluation=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] and their [[Indicator_Traits | indicators]], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. (Go [[Traits | here for a list of traits and their definitions)]].<br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high-quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [[Data_Processing | processing data]] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[Identification Systems | beef cattle identification system]] is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Data | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [[Whole_Herd_Reporting | whole herd reporting]] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [[Weaning_Weight | weaning weight]]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an [[Whole Herd Reporting | inventory-based reporting system]] or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Whole_Herd_Reporting#Performance_record_requirements | calves, bulls, heifers, mature cows]], or fed cattle (including [[Required_Carcass_Data_Collection_for_Use_in_Genetic_Evaluations| carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data are appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied performance recording software helps to improve the consistency of data collection and reporting. Producers are encouraged to contact their breed associations to obtain recommendations on what software may be compatible with their systems.<br />
<br />
[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers | Data collected by commercial cattle producers]] are, in most cases, substantially different than data collection requirements for seedstock producers.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Slaughter_Weight&diff=1623Slaughter Weight2019-11-27T07:58:50Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of slaughter weight data in US beef cattle.<br />
<br />
While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future investment in research on slaughter weight and additional guidelines development would be essential before predictions of genetic merit can be made available.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Docility&diff=1491Docility2019-11-10T04:05:07Z<p>Mrolf: /* Pen Scoring */</p>
<hr />
<div>Important behaviors to beef cattle production include reactions to<br />
processing through a squeeze chute, maternal instincts at calving, newborn calf vigor,<br />
bull serving capacity, and foraging behavior. Because these are distinctly different<br />
behaviors, different strategies are necessary to quantify differences among animals.<br />
Among the most important of behavioral traits, temperament reflects the ease with<br />
which animals respond to handling, treatment, and routine management. Animals with<br />
disposition problems are a safety risk to handlers, themselves, and other animals in the<br />
herd. Disposition affects handling equipment requirements, operation liability exposure,<br />
Beef Quality Assurance, and performance.<br />
<br />
==Chute Scoring==<br />
The docility score provided below is designed to subjectively evaluate differences in<br />
disposition when animals are processed through the squeeze chute. Because an<br />
animal’s behavior can be influenced by past experiences, scoring should be conducted<br />
at weaning or yearling ages. This will reduce the extent to which current behavior has<br />
been influenced by prior handling experiences. Scores should be collected while calves<br />
are restrained with headgates but without having motion restricted by squeeze.<br />
<br />
==Chute Score and Description:==<br />
# Docile. Mild disposition. Gentle and easily handled. Stands and moves slowly during processing. Undisturbed, settled, somewhat dull. It does not pull on headgate when in chute. Exits chute calmly.<br />
# Restless. Quieter than average, but maybe stubborn during processing. May try to back out of chute or pull back on headgate. Some flicking of tail. Exits chute promptly.<br />
# Nervous. Typical temperament is manageable but nervous and impatient. A moderate amount of struggling, movement and tail flicking. Repeated pushing and pulling on headgate. Exits chute briskly.<br />
# Flighty (Wild). Jumpy and out of control, quivers and struggles violently. May bellow and froth at the mouth. Continuous tail flicking. Defecates and urinates during processing. Frantically runs fence line and may jump when penned individually. Exhibits long flight distance and exits chute wildly<br />
# Aggressive. May be similar to Score 4, but with added aggressive behavior, fearfulness, extreme agitation, and continuous movement which may include jumping and bellowing while in chute. Exits chute frantically and may exhibit attack behavior when handled alone.<br />
# Very Aggressive. Extremely aggressive temperament. Thrashes about or attacks wildly when confined in small, tight places. Pronounced attack behavior<br />
<br />
==Exit Velocity== <br />
In addition to docility scores, researchers have evaluated flight speed or exit velocity (EV), the velocity at which and animal leaves a restraining device such as a squeeze chute. EV can either be measured objectively in seconds using a photo electronic device or subjectively by visual appraisal using a six point categorical scale from 1 = slow to 6 = very fast. In using electronic equipment the first timing trigger is often placed 6 feet beyond the headgate and the second timing trigger is often placed 12 feet from the headgate (6 feet between start and stop trigger). Elapsed times are converted to velocity by diving the distance by the elapsed time. The heritability is increased considerably by averaging 2 or 3 flight speed scores.<br />
<br />
===Pen Scoring===<br />
Another method of temperament measurement is Pen Score. Animals are penned in a<br />
small lot (approximately 12 feet X 24 feet) in small groups (n~=5) and approached by<br />
two observers. The individual animal’s response to human approach is scored on a<br />
scale from 1 to 5 as follows:<br />
<br />
#Non-aggressive (docile) Walks slowly, can be approached closely by humans, not excited by humans or facilities<br />
# Slightly Aggressive Runs along fences, will stand in corner if humans stay away, may pace fence<br />
# Moderately Aggressive Runs along fences, head up and will run if humans move closer, stops before hitting gates and fences, avoids humans<br />
# Aggressive Runs, stays in back of group, head high and very aware of humans, may run into fences and gates even with some distance, will likely run into fences if alone in pen<br />
# Very Aggressive Excited, runs into fences, runs over humans and anything else in path, “crazy”<br />
<br />
==Summary== <br />
Temperament traits have been shown to be moderately heritable, with magnitudes similar to heritability of growth traits. These procedures should be treated as separate traits. <br />
Positive correlations between chute scores, pen scores, and exit velocity have been reported.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Docility&diff=1490Docility2019-11-10T04:04:10Z<p>Mrolf: /* Chute Score and Description: */</p>
<hr />
<div>Important behaviors to beef cattle production include reactions to<br />
processing through a squeeze chute, maternal instincts at calving, newborn calf vigor,<br />
bull serving capacity, and foraging behavior. Because these are distinctly different<br />
behaviors, different strategies are necessary to quantify differences among animals.<br />
Among the most important of behavioral traits, temperament reflects the ease with<br />
which animals respond to handling, treatment, and routine management. Animals with<br />
disposition problems are a safety risk to handlers, themselves, and other animals in the<br />
herd. Disposition affects handling equipment requirements, operation liability exposure,<br />
Beef Quality Assurance, and performance.<br />
<br />
==Chute Scoring==<br />
The docility score provided below is designed to subjectively evaluate differences in<br />
disposition when animals are processed through the squeeze chute. Because an<br />
animal’s behavior can be influenced by past experiences, scoring should be conducted<br />
at weaning or yearling ages. This will reduce the extent to which current behavior has<br />
been influenced by prior handling experiences. Scores should be collected while calves<br />
are restrained with headgates but without having motion restricted by squeeze.<br />
<br />
==Chute Score and Description:==<br />
# Docile. Mild disposition. Gentle and easily handled. Stands and moves slowly during processing. Undisturbed, settled, somewhat dull. It does not pull on headgate when in chute. Exits chute calmly.<br />
# Restless. Quieter than average, but maybe stubborn during processing. May try to back out of chute or pull back on headgate. Some flicking of tail. Exits chute promptly.<br />
# Nervous. Typical temperament is manageable but nervous and impatient. A moderate amount of struggling, movement and tail flicking. Repeated pushing and pulling on headgate. Exits chute briskly.<br />
# Flighty (Wild). Jumpy and out of control, quivers and struggles violently. May bellow and froth at the mouth. Continuous tail flicking. Defecates and urinates during processing. Frantically runs fence line and may jump when penned individually. Exhibits long flight distance and exits chute wildly<br />
# Aggressive. May be similar to Score 4, but with added aggressive behavior, fearfulness, extreme agitation, and continuous movement which may include jumping and bellowing while in chute. Exits chute frantically and may exhibit attack behavior when handled alone.<br />
# Very Aggressive. Extremely aggressive temperament. Thrashes about or attacks wildly when confined in small, tight places. Pronounced attack behavior<br />
<br />
==Exit Velocity== <br />
In addition to docility scores, researchers have evaluated flight speed or exit velocity (EV), the velocity at which and animal leaves a restraining device such as a squeeze chute. EV can either be measured objectively in seconds using a photo electronic device or subjectively by visual appraisal using a six point categorical scale from 1 = slow to 6 = very fast. In using electronic equipment the first timing trigger is often placed 6 feet beyond the headgate and the second timing trigger is often placed 12 feet from the headgate (6 feet between start and stop trigger). Elapsed times are converted to velocity by diving the distance by the elapsed time. The heritability is increased considerably by averaging 2 or 3 flight speed scores.<br />
<br />
===Pen Scoring===<br />
Another method of temperament measurement is Pen Score. Animals are penned in a<br />
small lot (approximately 12 feet X 24 feet) in small groups (n~=5) and approached by<br />
two observers. The individual animal’s response to human approach is scored on a<br />
scale from 1 to 5 as follows:<br />
<br />
#Non-aggressive (docile) Walks slowly, can be approached closely by humans, not excited by humans or facilities<br />
# Slightly Aggressive Runs along fences, will stand in corner if humans stay away, may pace fence<br />
<br />
# Moderately Aggressive Runs along fences, head up and will run if humans move closer, stops before hitting gates and fences, avoids humans<br />
<br />
# Aggressive Runs, stays in back of group, head high and very aware of humans, may run into fences and gates even with some distance, will likely run into fences if alone in pen<br />
<br />
# Very Aggressive Excited, runs into fences, runs over humans and anything else in path, “crazy” <br />
<br />
<br />
==Summary== <br />
Temperament traits have been shown to be moderately heritable, with magnitudes similar to heritability of growth traits. These procedures should be treated as separate traits. <br />
Positive correlations between chute scores, pen scores, and exit velocity have been reported.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Docility&diff=1489Docility2019-11-10T04:01:45Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Important behaviors to beef cattle production include reactions to<br />
processing through a squeeze chute, maternal instincts at calving, newborn calf vigor,<br />
bull serving capacity, and foraging behavior. Because these are distinctly different<br />
behaviors, different strategies are necessary to quantify differences among animals.<br />
Among the most important of behavioral traits, temperament reflects the ease with<br />
which animals respond to handling, treatment, and routine management. Animals with<br />
disposition problems are a safety risk to handlers, themselves, and other animals in the<br />
herd. Disposition affects handling equipment requirements, operation liability exposure,<br />
Beef Quality Assurance, and performance.<br />
<br />
==Chute Scoring==<br />
The docility score provided below is designed to subjectively evaluate differences in<br />
disposition when animals are processed through the squeeze chute. Because an<br />
animal’s behavior can be influenced by past experiences, scoring should be conducted<br />
at weaning or yearling ages. This will reduce the extent to which current behavior has<br />
been influenced by prior handling experiences. Scores should be collected while calves<br />
are restrained with headgates but without having motion restricted by squeeze.<br />
<br />
==Chute Score and Description:==<br />
# Docile. Mild disposition. Gentle and easily handled. Stands and moves slowly during processing. Undisturbed, settled, somewhat dull. It does not pull on headgate when in chute. Exits chute calmly.<br />
<br />
# Restless. Quieter than average, but maybe stubborn during processing. May try to back out of chute or pull back on headgate. Some flicking of tail. Exits chute promptly.<br />
<br />
# Nervous. Typical temperament is manageable but nervous and impatient. A moderate amount of struggling, movement and tail flicking. Repeated pushing and pulling on headgate. Exits chute briskly.<br />
<br />
# Flighty (Wild). Jumpy and out of control, quivers and struggles violently. May bellow and froth at the mouth. Continuous tail flicking. Defecates and urinates during processing. Frantically runs fence line and may jump when penned individually. Exhibits long flight distance and exits chute wildly<br />
<br />
# Aggressive. May be similar to Score 4, but with added aggressive behavior, fearfulness, extreme agitation, and continuous movement which may include jumping and bellowing while in chute. Exits chute frantically and may exhibit attack behavior when handled alone.<br />
<br />
# Very Aggressive. Extremely aggressive temperament. Thrashes about or attacks wildly when confined in small, tight places. Pronounced attack behavior <br />
<br />
<br />
==Exit Velocity== <br />
In addition to docility scores, researchers have evaluated flight speed or exit velocity (EV), the velocity at which and animal leaves a restraining device such as a squeeze chute. EV can either be measured objectively in seconds using a photo electronic device or subjectively by visual appraisal using a six point categorical scale from 1 = slow to 6 = very fast. In using electronic equipment the first timing trigger is often placed 6 feet beyond the headgate and the second timing trigger is often placed 12 feet from the headgate (6 feet between start and stop trigger). Elapsed times are converted to velocity by diving the distance by the elapsed time. The heritability is increased considerably by averaging 2 or 3 flight speed scores.<br />
<br />
===Pen Scoring===<br />
Another method of temperament measurement is Pen Score. Animals are penned in a<br />
small lot (approximately 12 feet X 24 feet) in small groups (n~=5) and approached by<br />
two observers. The individual animal’s response to human approach is scored on a<br />
scale from 1 to 5 as follows:<br />
<br />
#Non-aggressive (docile) Walks slowly, can be approached closely by humans, not excited by humans or facilities<br />
# Slightly Aggressive Runs along fences, will stand in corner if humans stay away, may pace fence<br />
<br />
# Moderately Aggressive Runs along fences, head up and will run if humans move closer, stops before hitting gates and fences, avoids humans<br />
<br />
# Aggressive Runs, stays in back of group, head high and very aware of humans, may run into fences and gates even with some distance, will likely run into fences if alone in pen<br />
<br />
# Very Aggressive Excited, runs into fences, runs over humans and anything else in path, “crazy” <br />
<br />
<br />
==Summary== <br />
Temperament traits have been shown to be moderately heritable, with magnitudes similar to heritability of growth traits. These procedures should be treated as separate traits. <br />
Positive correlations between chute scores, pen scores, and exit velocity have been reported.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Cow_Intake&diff=1311Cow Intake2019-10-16T19:51:09Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The beef cattle industry has recently adopted expected progeny differences (EPDs) to estimate genetic merit for feed intake (FI), residual feed intake (RFI) and residual average daily gain (RADG). These selection tools are calculated using phenotypic data from growing animals fed a total mixed ration in confinement. Feed intake and efficiency traits are considered to be moderately heritable. For example, Berry and Crowley (2013) reviewed 45 experiments where heritability of average daily gain (ADG), body weight (BW), feed intake (FI) and RFI were determined in growing animals. The pooled heritability across all studies was 0.31, 0.39, 0.40, and 0.33 for ADG, BW, FI, and RFI, respectively, suggesting that substantial genetic improvement can be made in feeder calves for these traits.<br />
However, a primary consideration is whether selecting for growing and finishing period efficiency results in improved forage utilization efficiency in the cow herd. After all, approximately 70% of feed energy used in the process of beef production is consumed by the cow herd (Gregory, 1972), and increasing efficiency of feed utilization in cows should be a primary economic selection criterion. Considerable research has been published over the last 20 years related to feed efficiency traits in growing cattle consuming high-quality diets. However, relatively little is known about the genetics of low-quality forage utilization efficiency in beef cows. <br />
<br />
Beef Improvement Federation guidelines require a minimum diet energy concentration of 2.4 Mcal ME/kg feed (DM basis). This is approximately equivalent to 67% total digestible nutrients or 0.43 Mcal of net energy for gain (NEg) per pound of feed. Since this is a minimum requirement, many test diets contain around 70 to 74% TDN or 0.47 to 0.53 Mcal of NEg per pound of feed DM. This degree of diet energy concentration (or digestibility) is equivalent or beyond the absolute peak of forage digestibility in almost any environment. In most grazing systems, beef cows spend more than half of the year consuming moderate to low-quality forage ranging from 48 to 60% digestibility. <br />
Differences in diet quality combined with differences in physiological maturity represent the potential for a genetic by environment interaction (GxE) regarding genetic potential for feed intake or feed efficiency. In other words, mature animals consuming moderate to low-quality forage diets may rerank compared to their ranking established during a test period that was conducted while they were 8 to 14 months of age, growing rapidly and consuming a high-quality diet. <br />
Thus, the factors that must be considered before selecting on existing feed intake and efficiency metrics in the industry (derived from high-quality diets and growing animals) to improve cow feed intake and efficiency are a) evidence of high genetic correlations over time (age and stage of production), and b) high genetic correlations between measures collected using a wide range in diet characteristics. <br />
<br />
<br />
Stage of Production, Age<br />
<br />
In studies where growing animals and cows were provided similar high-quality forage or mixed forage and concentrate rations during both stages, phenotypic correlations for FI are generally positive (Freetly, 2016 (rp = 0.65); Cassady, 2016 (0.57); Hardie, 2016 (0.78). Similarly, phenotypic correlations for RFI measured during the post-weaning period and again at three to five years of age are generally positive when high-quality diets are fed during both stages of maturity (Archer et al., 2002 (0.4); Herd et al., 2006 (0.39); Lawrence, 2011 (??); Hafla et al., 2013 (??). <br />
Genetic correlations for FI were moderate to high (Nieuwhof et al., 1992, rg = 0.74; Freetly, 2016 (0.65); Archer et al., 2002 (0.69) when high-quality diets were provided to heifers during the post-weaning period and again during lactation. Under the same circumstances, genetic correlations for RFI were moderate to high in two experiments (Nieuwhof et al., 1992 (0.58); Archer et al., 2002 (0.98)). Taken together, these studies indicate that FI and RFI are moderately repeatable across time (age) and stage of production when high-quality diets are provided during each stage of maturity or production. <br />
When test diets were similar (and generally high-quality), phenotypic and genetic correlations were moderate to high between growing heifers and later as mature cows. This suggests that selection tools based on growing-phase feed intake and performance should rank animals similarly across ages and stages of production. It would seem that repeatability should be reasonable in situations where cows are not frequently subjected to restricted nutrient quality or quantity. <br />
<br />
<br />
Diet Quality and Age<br />
<br />
Studies investigating the relationship of FI or RFI determined during the post-weaning phase and FI or RFI determined in mature cows consuming a moderate or low-quality diet are sparse. Using a 1.5 Mcal NEm/kg diet for heifers and 1.0 Mcal NEm/kg diet for cows, Black et al. (2013) reported a phenotypic correlation of 0.63 for FI. There was no significant correlation for RFI, however. Cassaday (2016) reported lower DMI for mature cows previously classified as medium and low RFI and FI during the post-weaning period. The diet used in this experiment contained 80% (DM basis) processed switchgrass hay and 20% (DM basis) corn condensed distillers solubles. In a recent study, De La Torre et al. (2019) found no difference in hay intake of cows previously classified as high or low RFI as heifers. In contrast, in a large experiment involving 584 purebred dry, open Charolais cows, phenotypic and genetic correlations of 0.36 and 0.83 were reported for residual energy intake. In this study, feed intake was measured during two consecutive periods, beginning with hay and followed by a corn silage diet supplemented with soybean meal. Due to the conflicting nature of these studies, more research is needed to establish a consensus.<br />
Development of tools that can accurately rank mature cattle for low-quality forage intake is a critical step in improving beef production efficiency, carbon footprint and cow/calf enterprise profitability. There are few experiments available at this time to address potential reranking of cows in moderately restricted environments common to commercial cattle enterprises. Furthermore, results of the few experiments ranking growing animals for FI and RFI and then again as mature cows are inconsistent. Therefore, we encourage continued research comparing intake across different diets, especially those that reflect prevailing conditions in most commercial cattle herds.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Cow_Intake&diff=1310Cow Intake2019-10-16T19:50:59Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The beef cattle industry has recently adopted expected progeny differences (EPDs) to estimate genetic merit for feed intake (FI), residual feed intake (RFI) and residual average daily gain (RADG). These selection tools are calculated using phenotypic data from growing animals fed a total mixed ration in confinement. Feed intake and efficiency traits are considered to be moderately heritable. For example, Berry and Crowley (2013) reviewed 45 experiments where heritability of average daily gain (ADG), body weight (BW), feed intake (FI) and RFI were determined in growing animals. The pooled heritability across all studies was 0.31, 0.39, 0.40, and 0.33 for ADG, BW, FI, and RFI, respectively, suggesting that substantial genetic improvement can be made in feeder calves for these traits.<br />
However, a primary consideration is whether selecting for growing and finishing period efficiency results in improved forage utilization efficiency in the cow herd. After all, approximately 70% of feed energy used in the process of beef production is consumed by the cow herd (Gregory, 1972), and increasing efficiency of feed utilization in cows should be a primary economic selection criterion. Considerable research has been published over the last 20 years related to feed efficiency traits in growing cattle consuming high-quality diets. However, relatively little is known about the genetics of low-quality forage utilization efficiency in beef cows. <br />
<br />
Beef Improvement Federation guidelines require a minimum diet energy concentration of 2.4 Mcal ME/kg feed (DM basis). This is approximately equivalent to 67% total digestible nutrients or 0.43 Mcal of net energy for gain (NEg) per pound of feed. Since this is a minimum requirement, many test diets contain around 70 to 74% TDN or 0.47 to 0.53 Mcal of NEg per pound of feed DM. This degree of diet energy concentration (or digestibility) is equivalent or beyond the absolute peak of forage digestibility in almost any environment. In most grazing systems, beef cows spend more than half of the year consuming moderate to low-quality forage ranging from 48 to 60% digestibility. <br />
Differences in diet quality combined with differences in physiological maturity represent the potential for a genetic by environment interaction (GxE) regarding genetic potential for feed intake or feed efficiency. In other words, mature animals consuming moderate to low-quality forage diets may rerank compared to their ranking established during a test period that was conducted while they were 8 to 14 months of age, growing rapidly and consuming a high-quality diet. <br />
Thus, the factors that must be considered before selecting on existing feed intake and efficiency metrics in the industry (derived from high-quality diets and growing animals) to improve cow feed intake and efficiency are a) evidence of high genetic correlations over time (age and stage of production), and b) high genetic correlations between measures collected using a wide range in diet characteristics. <br />
<br />
<br />
Stage of Production, Age<br />
<br />
In studies where growing animals and cows were provided similar high-quality forage or mixed forage and concentrate rations during both stages, phenotypic correlations for FI are generally positive (Freetly, 2016 (rp = 0.65); Cassady, 2016 (0.57); Hardie, 2016 (0.78). Similarly, phenotypic correlations for RFI measured during the post-weaning period and again at three to five years of age are generally positive when high-quality diets are fed during both stages of maturity (Archer et al., 2002 (0.4); Herd et al., 2006 (0.39); Lawrence, 2011 (??); Hafla et al., 2013 (??). <br />
Genetic correlations for FI were moderate to high (Nieuwhof et al., 1992, rg = 0.74; Freetly, 2016 (0.65); Archer et al., 2002 (0.69) when high-quality diets were provided to heifers during the post-weaning period and again during lactation. Under the same circumstances, genetic correlations for RFI were moderate to high in two experiments (Nieuwhof et al., 1992 (0.58); Archer et al., 2002 (0.98)). Taken together, these studies indicate that FI and RFI are moderately repeatable across time (age) and stage of production when high-quality diets are provided during each stage of maturity or production. <br />
When test diets were similar (and generally high-quality), phenotypic and genetic correlations were moderate to high between growing heifers and later as mature cows. This suggests that selection tools based on growing-phase feed intake and performance should rank animals similarly across ages and stages of production. It would seem that repeatability should be reasonable in situations where cows are not frequently subjected to restricted nutrient quality or quantity. <br />
<br />
Diet Quality and Age<br />
<br />
Studies investigating the relationship of FI or RFI determined during the post-weaning phase and FI or RFI determined in mature cows consuming a moderate or low-quality diet are sparse. Using a 1.5 Mcal NEm/kg diet for heifers and 1.0 Mcal NEm/kg diet for cows, Black et al. (2013) reported a phenotypic correlation of 0.63 for FI. There was no significant correlation for RFI, however. Cassaday (2016) reported lower DMI for mature cows previously classified as medium and low RFI and FI during the post-weaning period. The diet used in this experiment contained 80% (DM basis) processed switchgrass hay and 20% (DM basis) corn condensed distillers solubles. In a recent study, De La Torre et al. (2019) found no difference in hay intake of cows previously classified as high or low RFI as heifers. In contrast, in a large experiment involving 584 purebred dry, open Charolais cows, phenotypic and genetic correlations of 0.36 and 0.83 were reported for residual energy intake. In this study, feed intake was measured during two consecutive periods, beginning with hay and followed by a corn silage diet supplemented with soybean meal. Due to the conflicting nature of these studies, more research is needed to establish a consensus.<br />
Development of tools that can accurately rank mature cattle for low-quality forage intake is a critical step in improving beef production efficiency, carbon footprint and cow/calf enterprise profitability. There are few experiments available at this time to address potential reranking of cows in moderately restricted environments common to commercial cattle enterprises. Furthermore, results of the few experiments ranking growing animals for FI and RFI and then again as mature cows are inconsistent. Therefore, we encourage continued research comparing intake across different diets, especially those that reflect prevailing conditions in most commercial cattle herds.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Cow_Intake&diff=1309Cow Intake2019-10-16T19:50:42Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "The beef cattle industry has recently adopted expected progeny differences (EPDs) to estimate genetic merit for feed intake (FI), residual feed intake (RFI) and residual avera..."</p>
<hr />
<div>The beef cattle industry has recently adopted expected progeny differences (EPDs) to estimate genetic merit for feed intake (FI), residual feed intake (RFI) and residual average daily gain (RADG). These selection tools are calculated using phenotypic data from growing animals fed a total mixed ration in confinement. Feed intake and efficiency traits are considered to be moderately heritable. For example, Berry and Crowley (2013) reviewed 45 experiments where heritability of average daily gain (ADG), body weight (BW), feed intake (FI) and RFI were determined in growing animals. The pooled heritability across all studies was 0.31, 0.39, 0.40, and 0.33 for ADG, BW, FI, and RFI, respectively, suggesting that substantial genetic improvement can be made in feeder calves for these traits.<br />
However, a primary consideration is whether selecting for growing and finishing period efficiency results in improved forage utilization efficiency in the cow herd. After all, approximately 70% of feed energy used in the process of beef production is consumed by the cow herd (Gregory, 1972), and increasing efficiency of feed utilization in cows should be a primary economic selection criterion. Considerable research has been published over the last 20 years related to feed efficiency traits in growing cattle consuming high-quality diets. However, relatively little is known about the genetics of low-quality forage utilization efficiency in beef cows. <br />
<br />
Beef Improvement Federation guidelines require a minimum diet energy concentration of 2.4 Mcal ME/kg feed (DM basis). This is approximately equivalent to 67% total digestible nutrients or 0.43 Mcal of net energy for gain (NEg) per pound of feed. Since this is a minimum requirement, many test diets contain around 70 to 74% TDN or 0.47 to 0.53 Mcal of NEg per pound of feed DM. This degree of diet energy concentration (or digestibility) is equivalent or beyond the absolute peak of forage digestibility in almost any environment. In most grazing systems, beef cows spend more than half of the year consuming moderate to low-quality forage ranging from 48 to 60% digestibility. <br />
Differences in diet quality combined with differences in physiological maturity represent the potential for a genetic by environment interaction (GxE) regarding genetic potential for feed intake or feed efficiency. In other words, mature animals consuming moderate to low-quality forage diets may rerank compared to their ranking established during a test period that was conducted while they were 8 to 14 months of age, growing rapidly and consuming a high-quality diet. <br />
Thus, the factors that must be considered before selecting on existing feed intake and efficiency metrics in the industry (derived from high-quality diets and growing animals) to improve cow feed intake and efficiency are a) evidence of high genetic correlations over time (age and stage of production), and b) high genetic correlations between measures collected using a wide range in diet characteristics. <br />
<br />
Stage of Production, Age<br />
In studies where growing animals and cows were provided similar high-quality forage or mixed forage and concentrate rations during both stages, phenotypic correlations for FI are generally positive (Freetly, 2016 (rp = 0.65); Cassady, 2016 (0.57); Hardie, 2016 (0.78). Similarly, phenotypic correlations for RFI measured during the post-weaning period and again at three to five years of age are generally positive when high-quality diets are fed during both stages of maturity (Archer et al., 2002 (0.4); Herd et al., 2006 (0.39); Lawrence, 2011 (??); Hafla et al., 2013 (??). <br />
Genetic correlations for FI were moderate to high (Nieuwhof et al., 1992, rg = 0.74; Freetly, 2016 (0.65); Archer et al., 2002 (0.69) when high-quality diets were provided to heifers during the post-weaning period and again during lactation. Under the same circumstances, genetic correlations for RFI were moderate to high in two experiments (Nieuwhof et al., 1992 (0.58); Archer et al., 2002 (0.98)). Taken together, these studies indicate that FI and RFI are moderately repeatable across time (age) and stage of production when high-quality diets are provided during each stage of maturity or production. <br />
When test diets were similar (and generally high-quality), phenotypic and genetic correlations were moderate to high between growing heifers and later as mature cows. This suggests that selection tools based on growing-phase feed intake and performance should rank animals similarly across ages and stages of production. It would seem that repeatability should be reasonable in situations where cows are not frequently subjected to restricted nutrient quality or quantity. <br />
<br />
Diet Quality and Age<br />
Studies investigating the relationship of FI or RFI determined during the post-weaning phase and FI or RFI determined in mature cows consuming a moderate or low-quality diet are sparse. Using a 1.5 Mcal NEm/kg diet for heifers and 1.0 Mcal NEm/kg diet for cows, Black et al. (2013) reported a phenotypic correlation of 0.63 for FI. There was no significant correlation for RFI, however. Cassaday (2016) reported lower DMI for mature cows previously classified as medium and low RFI and FI during the post-weaning period. The diet used in this experiment contained 80% (DM basis) processed switchgrass hay and 20% (DM basis) corn condensed distillers solubles. In a recent study, De La Torre et al. (2019) found no difference in hay intake of cows previously classified as high or low RFI as heifers. In contrast, in a large experiment involving 584 purebred dry, open Charolais cows, phenotypic and genetic correlations of 0.36 and 0.83 were reported for residual energy intake. In this study, feed intake was measured during two consecutive periods, beginning with hay and followed by a corn silage diet supplemented with soybean meal. Due to the conflicting nature of these studies, more research is needed to establish a consensus.<br />
Development of tools that can accurately rank mature cattle for low-quality forage intake is a critical step in improving beef production efficiency, carbon footprint and cow/calf enterprise profitability. There are few experiments available at this time to address potential reranking of cows in moderately restricted environments common to commercial cattle enterprises. Furthermore, results of the few experiments ranking growing animals for FI and RFI and then again as mature cows are inconsistent. Therefore, we encourage continued research comparing intake across different diets, especially those that reflect prevailing conditions in most commercial cattle herds.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Slaughter_Weight&diff=1307Slaughter Weight2019-10-16T19:45:32Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of slaughter weight data in US beef cattle. While work has been performed in the US and other countries, futur..."</p>
<hr />
<div>BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of slaughter weight data in US beef cattle.<br />
<br />
While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future investment in research on slaughter weight and additional guidelines development would be essential before predictions of genetic merit can be made available. Below are links to examples of the efforts from other countries.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Days_to_finish&diff=1306Days to finish2019-10-16T19:45:01Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of days to finish in US beef cattle.<br />
<br />
While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future investment in research on days to finish and additional guidelines development would be essential before predictions of genetic merit can be made available.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Days_to_finish&diff=1305Days to finish2019-10-16T19:43:03Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of muscle score data in US beef cattle. While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future in..."</p>
<hr />
<div>BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of muscle score data in US beef cattle.<br />
<br />
While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future investment in research on muscle score and additional guidelines development would be essential before predictions of genetic merit can be made available.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Muscle_score&diff=1303Muscle score2019-10-16T19:32:42Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of muscle score data in US beef cattle. While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future i..."</p>
<hr />
<div>BIF currently has no guidelines for the collection and analysis of muscle score data in US beef cattle. <br />
<br />
While work has been performed in the US and other countries, future investment in research on muscle score and additional guidelines development would be essential before predictions of genetic merit can be made available. Below are links to examples of the efforts from other countries.<br />
<br />
https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/103938/muscle-scoring-beef-cattle.pdf</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Birth_Weight&diff=1253Birth Weight2019-09-27T16:50:03Z<p>Mrolf: Bgolden moved page Birth Weight to Birth Weight old</p>
<hr />
<div>#REDIRECT [[Birth Weight old]]</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Traits&diff=1190Traits2019-09-05T21:30:34Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''<br />
</center><br />
This article is simply a list of traits commonly observed in beef cattle. Some traits are economically relevant traits ([[Economically Relevant Traits | ERTs]]), directly affecting costs and income realized by an individual producer. Depending on [[Marketing | marketing]] strategy, the same trait may be highly relevant, largely irrelevant, or an [[Indicator Traits | indicator]] of an ERT. Most of the entries in this table have links to a specific article with details about that trait. Also, you are encouraged to see the [[Selection and Mating]] section for guidance on using traits. <br />
<br />
Authors, please feel free to add to this table, even if there is no specific linkable article with more details.<br />
<br />
Also, if you make changes please arrange them in alphabetical order of within row/column.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Catagory<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Trait<br />
|-<br />
| Growth<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Average daily gain]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Birth Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to finish]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Intake and Feed Efficiency|Dry matter intake]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Intake and Feed Efficiency|Feed efficiency]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Frame score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Hip height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Muscle score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Slaughter weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Weaning Weight | Weaning weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yearling Weight | Yearling weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Reproduction<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Interval]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to calving]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Gestation length]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Heifer pregnancy rate]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Length of productive life]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Reproductive Tract Scores | Reproductive tract score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Scrotal Circumference | Scrotal circumference]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Semen volume]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Serving capacity]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Stayability]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Twinning rate<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Carcass<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Carcass weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Drop weight<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Marbling score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Quality Grade | Quality grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ribeye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shear force]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound intramuscular fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rib eye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rump fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yield grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Management/Convenience<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Body Condition Scores | Body condition score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving difficulty score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving ease]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Docility]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Foot and Leg Scores | Foot and leg score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Maintenance energy]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pelvic area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shedding score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tooth score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Health<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Parasite egg count]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pre-weaning survival]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP)]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tick score]]<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Traits&diff=1188Traits2019-09-05T21:18:37Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''<br />
</center><br />
This article is simply a list of traits commonly observed in beef cattle. Some traits are economically relevant traits ([[Economically Relevant Traits | ERTs]]), directly affecting costs and income realized by an individual producer. Depending on [[Marketing | marketing]] strategy, the same trait may be highly relevant, largely irrelevant, or an [[Indicator Traits | indicator]] of an ERT. Most of the entries in this table have links to a specific article with details about that trait. Also, you are encouraged to see the [[Selection and Mating]] section for guidance on using traits. <br />
<br />
Authors, please feel free to add to this table, even if there is no specific linkable article with more details.<br />
<br />
Also, if you make changes please arrange them in alphabetical order of within row/column.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Catagory<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Trait<br />
|-<br />
| Growth<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Average daily gain]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Birth Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to finish]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Intake and Feed Efficiency|Dry matter intake]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Intake and Feed Efficiency|Feed efficiency]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Frame score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Hip height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Muscle score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Slaughter weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Weaning Weight | Weaning weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yearling Weight | Yearling weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Reproduction<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving interval]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to calving]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Gestation length]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Heifer pregnancy rate]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Length of productive life]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Reproductive Tract Scores | Reproductive tract score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Scrotal Circumference | Scrotal circumference]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Semen volume]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Serving capacity]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Stayability]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Twinning rate<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Carcass<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Carcass weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Drop weight<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Marbling score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Quality Grade | Quality grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ribeye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shear force]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound intramuscular fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rib eye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rump fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yield grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Management/Convenience<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Body Condition Scores | Body condition score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving difficulty score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving ease]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Docility]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Foot and Leg Scores | Foot and leg score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Maintenance energy]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pelvic area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shedding score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tooth score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Health<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Parasite egg count]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pre-weaning survival]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP)]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tick score]]<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Traits&diff=1187Traits2019-09-05T21:17:33Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''<br />
</center><br />
This article is simply a list of traits commonly observed in beef cattle. Some traits are economically relevant traits ([[Economically Relevant Traits | ERTs]]), directly affecting costs and income realized by an individual producer. Depending on [[Marketing | marketing]] strategy, the same trait may be highly relevant, largely irrelevant, or an [[Indicator Traits | indicator]] of an ERT. Most of the entries in this table have links to a specific article with details about that trait. Also, you are encouraged to see the [[Selection and Mating]] section for guidance on using traits. <br />
<br />
Authors, please feel free to add to this table, even if there is no specific linkable article with more details.<br />
<br />
Also, if you make changes please arrange them in alphabetical order of within row/column.<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Catagory<br />
! style="font-weight:bold; background-color:#efefef;" | Trait<br />
|-<br />
| Growth<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Average daily gain]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Birth Weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to finish]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Dry matter intake]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Feed efficiency]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Frame score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Hip Height/Frame | Hip height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature height]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Mature Height and Weight | Mature weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Muscle score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Slaughter weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Weaning Weight | Weaning weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yearling Weight | Yearling weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Reproduction<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving interval]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Days to calving]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Gestation length]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Heifer pregnancy rate]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Length of productive life]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Reproductive Tract Scores | Reproductive tract score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Scrotal Circumference | Scrotal circumference]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Semen volume]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Serving capacity]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Stayability]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Twinning rate<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Carcass<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Carcass weight]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| Drop weight<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Marbling score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Quality Grade | Quality grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ribeye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shear force]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound back fat thickness]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound intramuscular fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rib eye area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Ultrasound rump fat]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Yield grade]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Management/Convenience<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Body Condition Scores | Body condition score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving difficulty score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Calving Difficulty | Calving ease]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Docility]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Foot and Leg Scores | Foot and leg score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Maintenance energy]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pelvic area]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Shedding score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tooth score]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| Health<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Parasite egg count]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pre-weaning survival]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP)]]<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
| [[Tick score]]<br />
|}<br />
</center></div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1185Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:16:21Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[Birth Weight|birth]], [[Weaning Weight|weaning]], [[Yearling Weight|yearling]], [[Mature Height and Weight |mature]], or [[Slaughter Weight |harvest]] weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1184Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:15:42Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[Birth Weight|birth]], [[Weaning Weight|weaning]], [[Yearling Weight|yearling]], [[Mature Height and Weight |mature]], or harvest weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1182Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:14:06Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[Birth Weight|birth]], [[Weaning Weight|weaning]], [[Yearling Weight|yearling]], mature, or harvest weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1180Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:12:33Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[birth|Birth Weight]], weaning, yearling, mature, or harvest weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1179Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:12:14Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[Birth Weight|birth]], weaning, yearling, mature, or harvest weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Average_daily_gain&diff=1178Average daily gain2019-09-05T21:11:54Z<p>Mrolf: Created page with "Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows..."</p>
<hr />
<div>Average daily gain (ADG) is a measurement of the average daily body weight change of an animal over a specified period of time. Average daily gain can be calculated as follows:<br />
ADG (average daily gain)<br />
ADG = (Final weight – Initial weight) / Days on test<br />
<br />
It can also be expressed as a ratio as follows:<br />
ADGR (average daily gain ratio)<br />
ADGR = (ADG / Breed-test group average ADG) x 100<br />
<br />
Initial and final weight data can be obtained as combinations of weights from specific testing periods (such as from feed intake tests), or from combinations of [[birth weight|birth]], weaning, yearling, mature, or harvest weights.</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=1165Data Collection2019-08-01T15:26:02Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] and their [[Indicator_Traits | indicators]], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [[Data_Processing | processing data]] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[Identification Systems | beef cattle identification system]] is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Data | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [[Whole_Herd_Reporting | whole herd reporting]]] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [[Weaning_Weight | weaning weight]]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied performance recording software helps to improve the consistency of data collection and reporting. Producers are encouraged to contact their breed associations to obtain recommendations on what software may be compatible with their systems.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Expected_Progeny_Difference&diff=1155Expected Progeny Difference2019-06-26T20:23:01Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The estimation of breeding values, which reflect the value of an animal as a parent for the next generation, or Expected Progeny Differences (EPD), which are simply half of a breeding value, was a major advancement in the ability to select animals to fit production goals. Prior to the development of EPDs the primary method for genetic improvement was some form of subjective visual appraisal<ref name="milestone" <ref>Golden, BL, DJ Garrick, and LL Benyshek. 2009. Milestones in beef cattle genetic evaluation. J Anim Sci. 87(E. Suppl.):E3-E10.</ref>. Since the development of methodology to implement Genetic Evaluation in the beef industry (launched in the 1970s)<ref name="milestone" />, EPDs have been the gold standard for genetic selection. Regardless of their associated [[Accuracy | accuracy]] value, they are the best selection tool that producers have to improve genetic merit in a single trait, though [[Selection Index| indices]] incorporate EPD information and are the best tools for multi-trait selection. Nevertheless, there is often confusion surrounding the best tools and information on which to make selection decisions. <br />
Phenotypes for quantitative traits are a combination of influences from both genetics (additive, dominance, epistatic) and the environment (permanent and temporary). Alternatively, we can write this as an equation as follows:<br />
<br />
<center><br />
P=μ+G+E <br />
</center><br />
<br />
where P represents phenotype, μ represents the average phenotypic value for all animals in the population, G is the genotypic value of the individual for the trait and E represents the environmental effect on the animal’s performance<ref name="Bourdon" <ref>Bourdon, RM. 2000. Understanding Animal Breeding. Second edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.</ref>. If we expand the equation to define genetic and environmental effects on the phenotype, we can write the equation as follows:<br />
<center><br />
P=μ+A+D+I+E<sub>P</sub>+E<sub>T</sub>+GxE<br />
</center><br />
where P and μ are as previously defined, A represents additive genetic effects, D represents dominance, I represents epistasis, E<sub>P</sub> represents permanent environmental effects, E<sub>T</sub> represents temporary environmental effects, and GxE represents interactions between genotype and environment<ref name="Bourdon"/><ref>Pierce, BA. 2016. Genetics Essentials. Third edition. MacMillan, New York, New York.</ref>.<br />
<br />
EPDs describe the additive genetic merit of an individual and reflect its value as a parent. It is important to remember that environmental influences are not heritable, and the only genetic influence that is known to be stably inherited at this time is additive genetic variation, though dominance can be managed through crossbreeding systems. EPDs and indices are the best tools for genetic selection and do reflect average progeny performance<ref>Thrift, FA and TA Thrift. 2006. Review: Expected versus realized progeny differences for various beef cattle traits. Prof Anim Sci. 22:413-423.</ref><ref>Kuehn, LA and RM Thallman. 2017. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2017 adjusted to breed differences for birth year of 2015. Proceedings of the Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting and Research Symposium. Pages 112-144.</ref>. <br />
<br />
The challenge with selection on measures of phenotype is that they include both genetic and environmental effects, even if weights are adjusted and/or ratios (which limit comparisons to within contemporary groups) are utilized. When selection decisions are made on these metrics, selection emphasis is also placed on nongenetic factors, which reduces the efficacy of selection and reduces genetic progress. Superiority of selection using EPDs (or breeding values) as compared to phenotypes has been demonstrated<ref>Gall, GAE and Y Bakar. 2002. Application of mixed-model techniques to fish breed improvement: analysis of breeding-value selection to increase 98-day body weight in tilapia. Aquaculture. 212(1-4):93-113.</ref><ref>Kuhlers, DL and BW Kennedy. 1992. Effect of culling on selection response using phenotypic selection or best linear unbiased prediction of breeding values in small, closed herds of swine. J Anim Sci. 70(8):2338-2348.</ref><ref>Belonsky, GM and BW Kennedy. 1988. Selection on individual phenotype and best linear unbiased predictor of breeding values in a closed swine herd. J. Anim Sci. 66:1124-1131.</ref><ref>Hagger, C. 1991. Effects of selecting on phenotype, on index, or on breeding values, on expected response, genetic relationships, and accuracy of breeding values in an experiment. J Anim Breed Genet. 108:102-110.</ref>. <br />
EPDs also simplify selection decisions. Selection using phenotypes can involve the individual’s own phenotype as well as phenotypes on relatives (including progeny, parents, and siblings, as an example). With Genetic Evaluation, all of this information is combined and weighted appropriately in a single value, the EPD, which simplifies selection. This same value is even more relevant in the genomics era, because genomic testing provides another source of information for selection. <br />
<br />
The Beef Improvement Federation recommends using genomically-enhanced EPDs (see [[Single-step Genomic BLUP]] and [[Single-step Hybrid Marker Effects Models]]), as opposed to using disjoined marker scores and EPDs separately, as the best method for utilizing genomic data for selection<ref>Muir, WM. 2007. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J. Anim Brdg Genet. 124(6):342-355.</ref>. Genetic Evaluation methodologies are always evolving and improving, but all of these methods incorporate all available data on an animal into EPD prediction, including genomic data, and weight it appropriately so that there is a single metric for genetic selection that represents the best estimate of that animal’s genetic merit using all available data. <br />
<br />
===Interim EPDs===<br />
Most beef breed organizations and companies have transitioned to routinely perform their genetic evaluation. Often these routine analyses are performed as frequently as weekly. Prior to this change, many organizations performed interim EPD<ref>Wilson, D. E. and R. L. Willham. 1988. Interim Expected Progeny Differences for Young Animals Not Included in National Cattle Evaluations. Journal of Animal Science, Volume 66, Issue 3, March 1988, Pages 618–625, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663618x</ref> computations so that breeders could timely receive updates using new data.<br />
<br />
References: <br />
<br />
<br />
----</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Expected_Progeny_Difference&diff=1150Expected Progeny Difference2019-06-26T20:02:11Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>The estimation of breeding values, which reflect the value of an animal as a parent for the next generation, or Expected Progeny Differences (EPD), which are simply half of a breeding value, was a major advancement in the ability to select animals to fit production goals. Prior to the development of EPDs the primary method for genetic improvement was some form of subjective visual appraisal<ref name="milestone" <ref>Golden, BL, DJ Garrick, and LL Benyshek. 2009. Milestones in beef cattle genetic evaluation. J Anim Sci. 87(E. Suppl.):E3-E10.</ref>. Since the development of methodology to implement Genetic Evaluation in the beef industry (launched in the 1970s)<ref name="milestone" />, EPDs have been the gold standard for genetic selection. Regardless of their associated [[Accuracy | accuracy]] value, they are the best selection tool that producers have to improve genetic merit in a single trait, though [[Selection Index| indices]] incorporate EPD information and are the best tools for multi-trait selection. Nevertheless, there is often confusion surrounding the best tools and information on which to make selection decisions. <br />
Phenotypes for quantitative traits are a combination of influences from both genetics (additive, dominance, epistatic) and the environment (permanent and temporary). Alternatively, we can write this as an equation as follows:<br />
<br />
<center><br />
P=μ+G+E <br />
</center><br />
<br />
where P represents phenotype, μ represents the average phenotypic value for all animals in the population, G is the genotypic value of the individual for the trait and E represents the environmental effect on the animal’s performance<ref name="Bourdon" <ref>Bourdon, RM. 2000. Understanding Animal Breeding. Second edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.</ref>. If we expand the equation to define genetic and environmental effects on the phenotype, we can write the equation as follows:<br />
<center><br />
P=μ+A+D+I+E<sub>P</sub>+E<sub>T</sub>+GxE<br />
</center><br />
where P and μ are as previously defined, A represents additive genetic effects, D represents dominance, I represents epistasis, E<sub>P</sub> represents permanent environmental effects, E<sub>T</sub> represents temporary environmental effects, and GxE represents interactions between genotype and environment<ref name="Bourdon"/><ref>Pierce, BA. 2016. Genetics Essentials. Third edition. MacMillan, New York, New York.</ref>.<br />
<br />
EPDs describe the additive genetic merit of an individual and reflect its value as a parent. It is important to remember that environmental influences are not heritable, and the only genetic influence that is known to be stably inherited at this time is additive genetic variation, though dominance can be managed through crossbreeding systems. EPDs and indices are the best tools for genetic selection and do reflect average progeny performance<ref>Thrift, FA and TA Thrift. 2006. Review: Expected versus realized progeny differences for various beef cattle traits. Prof Anim Sci. 22:413-423.</ref><ref>Kuehn, LA and RM Thallman. 2017. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2017 adjusted to breed differences for birth year of 2015. Proceedings of the Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting and Research Symposium. Pages 112-144.</ref>. <br />
<br />
The challenge with selection on measures of phenotype is that they include both genetic and environmental effects, even if weights are adjusted and/or ratios (which limit comparisons to within contemporary groups) are utilized. When selection decisions are made on these metrics, selection emphasis is also placed on nongenetic factors, which reduces the efficacy of selection and reduces genetic progress. Superiority of selection using EPDs (or breeding values) as compared to phenotypes has been demonstrated<ref>Gall, GAE and Y Bakar. 2002. Application of mixed-model techniques to fish breed improvement: analysis of breeding-value selection to increase 98-day body weight in tilapia. Aquaculture. 212(1-4):93-113.</ref><ref>Kuhlers, DL and BW Kennedy. 1992. Effect of culling on selection response using phenotypic selection or best linear unbiased prediction of breeding values in small, closed herds of swine. J Anim Sci. 70(8):2338-2348.</ref><ref>Belonsky, GM and BW Kennedy. 1988. Selection on individual phenotype and best linear unbiased predictor of breeding values in a closed swine herd. J. Anim Sci. 66:1124-1131.</ref><ref>Hagger, C. 1991. Effects of selecting on phenotype, on index, or on breeding values, on expected response, genetic relationships, and accuracy of breeding values in an experiment. J Anim Breed Genet. 108:102-110.</ref>. <br />
EPDs also simplify selection decisions. Selection using phenotypes can involve the individual’s own phenotype as well as phenotypes on relatives (including progeny, parents, and siblings, as an example). With Genetic Evaluation, all of this information is combined and weighted appropriately in a single value, the EPD, which simplifies selection. This same value is even more relevant in the genomics era, because genomic testing provides another source of information for selection. <br />
<br />
The Beef Improvement Federation recommends using genomically-enhanced EPDs (see [[Single-step Genomic BLUP]] and [[Single-step Hybrid Marker Effects Models]]), as opposed to using disjoined marker scores and EPDs separately, as the best method for utilizing genomic data for selection<ref>Muir, WM. 2007. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J. Anim Brdg Genet. 124(6):342-355.</ref>. Genetic Evaluation methodologies are always evolving and improving, but all of these methods incorporate all available data on an animal into EPD prediction, including genomic data, and weight it appropriately so that there is a single metric for genetic selection that represents the best estimate of that animal’s genetic merit using all available data. <br />
<br />
Most beef breed organizations and companies have transitioned to routinely perform their genetic evaluation. Often these routine analyses are performed as frequently as weekly. Prior to this change, many organizations performed interim EPD<ref>Wilson, D. E. and R. L. Willham. 1988. Interim Expected Progeny Differences for Young Animals Not Included in National Cattle Evaluations. Journal of Animal Science, Volume 66, Issue 3, March 1988, Pages 618–625, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.663618x</ref> computations so that breeders could timely receive updates using new data.<br />
<br />
References: <br />
<br />
<br />
----</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Genomic_Data&diff=1140Genomic Data2019-06-26T14:32:47Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Use of genomic data requires quality [[Genotyping | sample collection]]. Once samples are acquired and processed according to breed association specifications, the data can be incorporated into reporting systems for breed associations, including reporting schemes for [[Monogenic_Traits | monogenic traits]] such as horned/polled genotype or [[Recessive_Genetic_Defects | genetic abnormality]] carrier status as well as for quantitative traits, which will be utilized within either [[Single-step_Genomic_BLUP | single-step genomic BLUP]] or [[Single-step_Hybrid_Marker_Effects_Models | single-step hybrid marker effects models]] for genetic prediction. Genotype data can also be utilized for other applications, as detailed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[Parentage Testing| Parentage Testing]]===</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Genomic_Data&diff=1139Genomic Data2019-06-26T14:31:22Z<p>Mrolf: </p>
<hr />
<div>Use of genomic data requires quality [[Genotyping | sample collection]]. Once samples are acquired and processed according to breed association specifications, the data can be incorporated into reporting systems for breed associations, including reporting schemes for [[Monogenic_Traits | monogenic traits]] such as horned/polled genotype or [[Recessive_Genetic_Defects | genetic abnormality]] carrier status as well as for quantitative traits, which will be utilized within either [[Single-step_Genomic_BLUP | single-step genomic BLUP]] or [[Single-step_Hybrid_Marker_Effects_Models | single-step hybrid marker effects models]] for genetic prediction. Genotype data can also be utilized for other applications, as detailed below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===[[Parentage Testing| Parentage Testing]]===<br />
content by Megan Rolf</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=1003Data Collection2019-05-31T16:03:40Z<p>Mrolf: /* Data Collection for Seedstock Producers */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] and their [[Indicator_Traits | indicators]], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [[Data_Processing | processing data]] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[Identification Systems | beef cattle identification system]] is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Information | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [[Whole_Herd_Reporting | whole herd reporting]]] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [[Weaning_Weight | weaning weight]]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied [[Performance Recording Software | performance recording software]] helps to improve consistency of data collection and reporting.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
===Gestation Length===<br />
<br />
===Calving Interval===<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Herd Management Software (link to Data Prep section)]]=</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=994Data Collection2019-05-30T20:45:46Z<p>Mrolf: /* Data Collection on Mature Cows */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Traits traits] and their [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Indicator_Traits indicators], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Data_Processing processing data] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[beef cattle identification system]] is essential. [[beef cattle identification system | Standards have been developed]] for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Information | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Whole_Herd_Reporting whole herd reporting] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Weaning_Weight weaning weight]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied [[Performance Recording Software | performance recording software]] helps to improve consistency of data collection and reporting.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
===Gestation Length===<br />
<br />
===Calving Interval===<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Herd Management Software (link to Data Prep section)]]=</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=993Data Collection2019-05-30T20:44:48Z<p>Mrolf: /* Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Traits traits] and their [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Indicator_Traits indicators], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Data_Processing processing data] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[beef cattle identification system]] is essential. [[beef cattle identification system | Standards have been developed]] for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Information | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Whole_Herd_Reporting whole herd reporting] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Weaning_Weight weaning weight]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied [[Performance Recording Software | performance recording software]] helps to improve consistency of data collection and reporting.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
===[[Pregnancy Data | Pregnancy Data]]===<br />
<br />
===Gestation Length===<br />
<br />
===Calving Interval===<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Herd Management Software (link to Data Prep section)]]=</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=991Data Collection2019-05-30T20:44:18Z<p>Mrolf: /* Data Collection at Feedlots */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Traits traits] and their [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Indicator_Traits indicators], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Data_Processing processing data] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[beef cattle identification system]] is essential. [[beef cattle identification system | Standards have been developed]] for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Information | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Whole_Herd_Reporting whole herd reporting] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Weaning_Weight weaning weight]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied [[Performance Recording Software | performance recording software]] helps to improve consistency of data collection and reporting.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
===[[Pregnancy Data | Pregnancy Data]]===<br />
<br />
===Gestation Length===<br />
<br />
===Calving Interval===<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=<br />
<br />
Content by Tommy Perkins<br />
<br />
===[[Cooperation Between Packer, Feedlot and Producer | Cooperation Between Packer, Feedlot and Producer]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Dressed Carcass Yield, Quality Grade and Yield Grade | Dressed Carcass Yield, Quality Grade and Yield Grade]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits | Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Measures of Tenderness | Measures of Tenderness]]===<br />
====[[Slice Shear Force | Slice Shear Force]]====<br />
====[[Warner-Bratzler Force | Warner-Bratzler Force]]====<br />
<br />
===[[Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations | Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations]]===<br />
<br />
=[[Herd Management Software (link to Data Prep section)]]=</div>Mrolfhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Data_Collection&diff=989Data Collection2019-05-30T20:43:48Z<p>Mrolf: /* Data Collection for Commercial Producers */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Data Collection for Seedstock Producers=<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Traits traits] and their [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Indicator_Traits indicators], accurate identification of animals, parents, [[contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. <br />
<br />
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Data_Processing processing data] using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. <br />
<br />
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[beef cattle identification system]] is essential. [[beef cattle identification system | Standards have been developed]] for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Information | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. <br />
<br />
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Whole_Herd_Reporting whole herd reporting] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php/Weaning_Weight weaning weight]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Data Collection on Calves |calves]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls | bulls]], [[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers | heifers]], [[Data Collection on Mature Cows | mature cows]], or [[Data Collection on Feedlot Cattle | fed cattle]] (including [[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant | carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Novel Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied [[Performance Recording Software | performance recording software]] helps to improve consistency of data collection and reporting.<br />
<br />
<br />
==[[Identification Systems]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Whole Herd Reporting]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Contemporary Groups]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Calves]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Bulls]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Yearling Heifers]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Data Collection on Mature Cows]]==<br />
<br />
===[[Pregnancy Data | Pregnancy Data]]===<br />
<br />
===Gestation Length===<br />
<br />
===Calving Interval===<br />
<br />
===Intake===<br />
<br />
==[[Novel Traits]]==<br />
<br />
==[[Genomic Data]]==<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection for Commercial Producers]]=<br />
<br />
=[[Data Collection at Feedlots]]=<br />
Content by Larry Kuehn<br />
===Average Daily Gain===<br />
===Intake and Feed Efficiency===<br />
===Health Traits===<br />
<br />
=[[Carcass Data Collection at the Packing Plant]]=<br />
<br />
Content by Tommy Perkins<br />
<br />
===[[Cooperation Between Packer, Feedlot and Producer | Cooperation Between Packer, Feedlot and Producer]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Dressed Carcass Yield, Quality Grade and Yield Grade | Dressed Carcass Yield, Quality Grade and Yield Grade]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits | Recommended Carcass Data Collection Traits]]===<br />
<br />
===[[Measures of Tenderness | Measures of Tenderness]]===<br />
====[[Slice Shear Force | Slice Shear Force]]====<br />
====[[Warner-Bratzler Force | Warner-Bratzler Force]]====<br />
<br />
===[[Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations | Required Carcass Data Collection for Use in Genetic Evaluations]]===<br />
<br />
=[[Herd Management Software (link to Data Prep section)]]=</div>Mrolf