http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mspangler&feedformat=atomBIF Guidelines Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:57:39ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.2http://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Guidelines_for_Uniform_Beef_Improvement_Programs&diff=2716Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs2024-03-07T13:48:30Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! style="text-align: center; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important;; background-color:#68cbd0; color:#ffffff;" | [[About BIF]]<br />
! style="text-align: center; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important;; background-color:#68cbd0; color:#ffffff;" | [[:Category:Data Collection| Data Collection and Processing]]<br />
! style="text-align: center; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important;; background-color:#68cbd0; color:#ffffff;" | [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | Genetic Evaluation]]<br />
! style="text-align: center; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important;; background-color:#68cbd0; color:#ffffff;" | [[:Category:Selection and Mating | Selection and Mating]]<br />
! style="text-align: center; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif !important;; background-color:#68cbd0; color:#ffffff;" | [[Useful Pages]]<br />
|}<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
|-<br />
| style="width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white;" | <br />
| style="text-align: left; background-color: white; border-color: white; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;;" | '''Forward:'''<br><br />
Welcome to the Wiki version of the Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs published by the [HTTP://beefimprovement.org Beef Improvement Federation (BIF)]. The BIF Guidelines is provided to aid producers in selecting and improving beef cattle. This document is divided into three principal sections: [[Data Collection | Data Collection and Processing]], [[Genetic Evaluation]], and [[Selection and Mating]]. In addition, there are sections [[About BIF | about the Beef Improvement Federation]] and a [[Useful Pages]] section that includes an invaluable [[Essential Reading]] list for those interested in a deeper look into all things related to beef cattle breeding and selection.<br />
<br />
The Wiki version of the Guidelines is a modern take on a formal process of academic and industry review of best practices related to beef cattle improvement. As such, input from all sectors of the industry is sought and encouraged. Producers, breeders, academics, government scientists, breed association technical staff and extension educators have all contributed knowledge to this globally respected resource. Your input is valued, too! As you read the guidelines and see opportunities for input, please, utilize the [[BIF_Guidelines_Drafting_Committee | Wiki resources]] to pass that information to our review committee.<br />
<br />
As with all such efforts, the current contributors to the Guidelines stand on the shoulders of industry greats whose contributions to the science of genetic improvement date back well over six decades. It would be impossible to thank all of those who have come before us, but to them we owe a debt of gratitude. On behalf of myself, the BIF Board of Directors, and the long list of contributors to these Guidelines, we hope that you find them useful, if not essential, to achieving your selection goals!<br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" |<br />
|-<br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" |<br />
| style="text-align: right; background-color: white; border-color: white; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;;" | ''-Bob Weaber, Ph. D., Executive Director''<br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" |<br />
|-<br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" |<br />
| style="text-align: left; background-color: white; border-color: white; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;;" | <br />
The Beef Improvement Guidelines are the gold standard for unifying our industry. By providing this uniformity, we as a beef industry can bring more value and power to our collected data, enabling us to move our industry further than we could as individual breeders or breed organizations. I encourage you to use this resource to find answers, to learn about new technology, and learn how to collect meaningful data that will make your business or breeding program more successful. You might find some answers to questions you didn’t know you should be asking. <br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" |<br />
|-<br />
|style="text-align: left; background-color: white; border-color: white; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;;" |<br />
| style="text-align: right; background-color: white; border-color: white; font-size:medium; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;;" | ''-Kevin Schultz, President, 2023-2024'' <br />
| style= "width: 7%; background-color: white; border-color: white" | <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
''Guidelines'' is a publication of the [https://beefimprovement.org Beef Improvement Federation].</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2710Beef on Dairy2023-10-13T11:04:48Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref name="Baisel">Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref name="Baisel"/> <ref name="Foraker"> Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker"/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry"/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers.<br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2709Beef on Dairy2023-10-13T11:04:15Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref name="Baisel">Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref name="Baisel"/> <ref name="Foraker"> Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker"/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry"/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers.<br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2708Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:13:17Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref name="Baisel">Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref name="Baisel"/> <ref name="Foraker"> Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker"/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry"/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers.<br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2707Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:11:48Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref name="Baisel">Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel"/> <ref name="Foraker"> Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker"/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry"/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers.<br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2706Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:09:36Z<p>Mspangler: /* Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry"/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers.<br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2705Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:08:52Z<p>Mspangler: /* Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry"> Berry, D.P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2704Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:06:03Z<p>Mspangler: /* Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref name="Berry, D. P."> 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2703Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T15:03:47Z<p>Mspangler: /* Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry"/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned.<br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2702Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T11:20:41Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2701Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T11:19:03Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"</ref> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2700Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T11:17:47Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel"</ref> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2699Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T11:16:04Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref> name="Baisel"/> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2698Beef on Dairy2023-09-25T11:13:32Z<p>Mspangler: /* Beef x dairy performance */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref name="Baisel"/> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2697Beef on Dairy2023-09-23T04:03:19Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref name="Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix"/> <ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="Foraker, B. A."/> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref name="Berry, D. P."/><br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref name="Berry, D. P."/>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2696Beef on Dairy2023-09-23T03:13:34Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>Boykin, C. A. et al. 2017.National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. [doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543 Journal of Animal Science, Volume 95, 2993 - 3002]</ref><ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy animals<ref>Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022.Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac025 Translational Animal Science]</ref><ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref>Foraker, B. A. 2022.Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance.[doi:10.1093/tas/txac059 Translational Animal Science]</ref> Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs<ref>Halfman, B.,and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females.[ https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf]</ref>. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving<ref>Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle [doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519 Journal of Dairy Science, 104,3789–3819]</ref>. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2695Beef on Dairy2023-09-23T02:36:17Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]</ref>. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2694Beef on Dairy2023-09-23T02:35:28Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females<ref>Ettema, J.F. et al. 2017.Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. [doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333 Journal of Dairy Science , Volume 100, 4161 - 4171]. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2693Beef on Dairy2023-09-23T02:26:49Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref>. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2692Beef on Dairy2023-09-22T03:08:40Z<p>Mspangler: /* References */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref name="boykin" /><ref name="foraker" />. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2691Beef on Dairy2023-09-22T03:07:57Z<p>Mspangler: /* References: */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref name="boykin" /><ref name="foraker" />. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
1. National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO.<br />
2. Ettema, J. F., J. R. Thomasen, L. Hjortø, M. Kargo, S. Østergaard, and A. C. Sørensen. 2017. Economic opportunities for using sexed semen and semen of beef bulls in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 100:4161– 4171. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11333.<br />
3. Boykin, C. A., L. C. Eastwood, M. K. Harris, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, A. N. Arnold, J. D. Hasty, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, 2017. National Beef Quality Audit–2016: in-plant survey of carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 95:2993–3002. doi:10.2527/jas2017.1543.<br />
4. Baisel, B. L., and T. L. Felix. 2022. Board Invited Review: crossbreeding beef × dairy cattle for the modern beef production system. Transl. Anim. Sci. doi:10.1093/tas/txac025.<br />
5. Foraker, B. A., M. A. Ballou, and D. R. Woerner. 2022. Crossbreeding beef sires to dairy cows: cow, feedlot, and carcass performance. Transl. Anim. Sci. doi:10.1093/tas/txac059.<br />
6. Halfman, B., and R. Sterry. 2019. Dairy farm use, and criteria for use, of beef genetics on dairy females. https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/wbic/files/2019/07/dairy-beef-survey-white-paper-Final-4-4-2019.pdf.<br />
7. Berry, D. P. 2021. Invited review: Beef-on-dairy—The generation of crossbred beef × dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 104:3789–3819. doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19519.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2690Beef on Dairy2023-09-22T02:44:45Z<p>Mspangler: /* Read More */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref name="boykin" /><ref name="foraker" />. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet.<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2689Beef on Dairy2023-09-22T02:44:23Z<p>Mspangler: /* Read More */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref name="boykin" /><ref name="foraker" />. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet for more details.<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Beef_on_Dairy&diff=2688Beef on Dairy2023-09-22T02:43:28Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS A DRAFT PENDING REVIEW'''<br />
</center><br />
<br />
Beef from dairy herds has traditionally accounted for 16 to 20 percent of the beef supply in the United States<ref>National Beef Quality Audit (NBQA). 2016. Navigating Pathways to Success: Executive Summary. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Centennial, CO</ref>, and until recently, this supply was from straight-bred dairy cattle. Market changes and improvements in sexed semen technology have contributed to the transition from dairy to beef breed type semen use in dairies. Using sexed semen in many dairies has led to strategic breeding for creating replacement heifers from the best females and beef semen in lower-performing dairy females. This creates an opportunity to both capture data for use in genetic evaluations and to create the next generation of beef bulls for this specific use. <br />
<br />
==Beef x dairy performance==<br />
Dairy cattle have traditionally contributed to the U.S. Prime Quality Grades but have received discounts for less desirable USDA yield grades and dressing percentages attributed to lighter muscling and smaller ribeye areas<ref name="boykin" /><ref name="foraker" />. Feedlot performance for dairy cattle has lagged compared to beef counterparts due to higher energy requirements and lower average daily gain. Although dairy cattle lacked performance compared to beef cattle, their performance was consistent and predictable. Studies conducted in the U.S. found that beef x dairy cattle were less efficient when compared to beef cattle but demonstrated an advantage for average daily gain compared to straight-bred dairy<ref name="baisel" /><ref name="foraker" />. In comparing carcasses for beef, dairy, and beef x dairy cattle, beef x dairy cattle were intermediate in performance compared to straight-bred beef and dairy but beef x dairy crossbreds were not significantly different for quality grade compared to dairy<ref name="foraker" />. Although beef x dairy cattle performance was intermediate compared to straight-bred, their performance was considerably more variable than straight-bred dairy cattle creating a challenge for cattle feeders. The performance for beef x dairy cattle in the U.S. is limited, and studies on early beef x dairy calf development, health concerns, and feedlot performance are needed.<br />
<br />
==Data generation and inclusion in genetic evaluations==<br />
Including carcass phenotypes from beef x dairy crosses in beef cattle genetic evaluations can significantly expand the number of records used by evaluations, resulting in increased prediction accuracy for more animals. The number of carcass phenotypes included in genetic evaluations is considerably less than other evaluated traits (e.g., weight traits). Incorporating beef x dairy records requires that the evaluation account for dairy breed differences and beef x dairy heterotic effects as fixed effects. The early in life temporary environments experienced by these animals need to be evaluated relative to their impact on the phenotypes used in genetic evaluations to determine if early in life management groups need to be accounted for. <br />
<br />
The structure of beef x dairy differs substantially to that of native beef data that currently dominates beef breed genetic evaluations. Given management systems on most dairies, a single beef bull used in such systems could generate thousands of progeny with carcass records. Although this might be most profitable for a given dairy, there is a diminishing rate of return from the perspective of a genetic evaluation in terms of increases in EPD accuracy. Furthermore, using field data to estimate breed differences and the effects of heterosis are complicated given confounding of these effects with the additive effect of the sire. To fit both the needs of dairies and of genetic evaluations, some degree of optimization is needed to ensure management groups (e.g., calving intervals) contain more than one sire and multiple sires are being utilized.<br />
<br />
Current breed association genetic evaluations and associated databases have been built to accommodate data originating from seedstock herds. Consequently, the notion of sequential culling, and the potential for culling bias, is routinely built into these evaluation systems. However, for beef x dairy animals (or commercial data more generally) such protection might not be needed and could even be problematic if early in life records are a requirement for inclusion of post-weaning traits. The inclusion of weaning weight as a correlated trait in carcass evaluations can be problematic since beef x dairy calves are not weaned at 5 to 8 months as traditional beef calves routinely are. <br />
<br />
The accuracy of a genetic evaluation would depend on the level of connected data across contemporary groups. In the case of beef x dairy calves, the use of beef bulls on dairy females can create a connection between contemporary groups through the pedigree7. In order to incorporate the data from beef x dairy calves into a genetic evaluation, the sire must be known, and, at a minimum, the dam breed type. Including dam and maternal grandsire would lead to an increase in the connectivity of data, resulting in better genetic prediction. The recording of sires for beef x dairy calves is often lacking due to dairy producers placing lower importance on recording of terminal animals who would not be used for breeding11. <br />
<br />
For beef x dairy cattle, data collected on the dairy must remain with the animal through slaughter. Records collected on dairies should include: unique ID, birth date, sire, dam, maternal grandsire, calving difficulty score, disposal record (died, shipped/location). Although sire is assumed known given AI records from the dairy, genotyping to confirm sire would be advantageous. If not on every calf, a sample from dairy-breeding day combinations could give confidence that correct paternity is assigned. <br />
<br />
==Selection of bulls for use in beef x dairy systems==<br />
The decision of genetic merit for beef semen to generate terminal beef x dairy calves is made by dairy producers, but these decisions are driven by on-dairy performance and needs6. Breeding objectives for beef x dairy cattle need to consider profitability of the system, improved feedlot performance, carcass merit, and avoiding discounts of straight-breed dairy cattle. However, the vast majority of dairy breeding objectives do not consider the performance of beef x dairy calves post-calving7. Profit drivers such as feedlot health, days on feed, and liver abscesses should be considered in beef x dairy indexes, but estimation of genetic parameters for these traits is lacking. <br />
<br />
Several semen companies and breed associations in the U.S. have developed indexes for selecting beef bulls for use in dairies. Commonly these indexes are used to sort among bulls that were bred for beef x beef production. Alternatively, bulls could be bred with beef x dairy breeding objectives in mind. Such a strategy would lead to faster improvement in beef x dairy fed cattle. Such objectives may include germplasm that is not favored for native beef production but that could increase muscle, improve yield grade, and increase feed efficiency. Visual characteristics must also be considered. In the U.S., homozygous black and polled bulls are large considerations for beef germplasm use in dairy driven by market demands set by packers. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends the following with respect to the genetic evaluation model for beef x dairy carcass evaluation:<br />
• include beef x dairy heterosis effects<br />
• appropriate pre-weaning contemporary groups should be carefully constructed<br />
• multiple beef bulls be represented in the early in life contemporary group<br />
• sampling paternity of beef x dairy contemporary groups should be performed to avoid data with high pedigree error rates<br />
<br />
==Read More==<br />
Additional background can be found in the eBEEF fact sheet <br />
[https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7331/files/inline-files/Factsheet2_2023.pdf/ eBeef] fact sheet for more details.<br />
<br />
==References:==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Genetic_Disorders_Policy&diff=2657Genetic Disorders Policy2022-12-12T12:09:40Z<p>Mspangler: /* Policies for Reporting and Testing Genetic Disorders */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Selection and Mating]]<br />
<center><br />
'''THIS ARTICLE IS ONLY A DRAFT AND HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN THE GUIDELINES'''<br />
</center><br />
Research indicates that genetic mutations, including those that cause disorders, occur in nature and more of these will be identified in the future as technology advances. It is important to understand that carrier animals of [[Recessive Genetic Defects | recessive genetic disorders]] often have other genetic attributes desired by the industry. With genomic tools, management of deleterious alleles is possible to avoid undesirable disorders and reduce the allele frequency in the population over time <span style="color:orange;">while optimizing genetic progress</span>. Therefore, efforts to eradicate or eliminate animals based on being a carrier of recessive genetic disorders are <span style="color:orange;">generally</span> not recommended, <span style="color:orange;">except in rare situations where their presence will result in substantial damage to the organization's viability</span>.<br />
==Recommendation==<br />
''BIF recommends the following strategic approach to diagnose, set policy, and manage recessive genetic disorders<ref>Ciepłoch, A., Rutkowska, K., Oprządek, J. et al. Genetic disorders in beef cattle: a review. Genes Genom 39, 461–471 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13258-017-0525-8</ref>.'' More aggressive approaches may be necessary for deleterious disorders that are <span style="color:orange;">not expressed as recessive gene action (i.e., dominance, incomplete dominance, overdominance)</span>.<br />
<br />
==Determining If a Genetic Disorder Exists==<br />
Protocol to determine if a disorder has an underlying genetic cause:<br />
<blockquote><br />
* Take pictures and/or video of the affected animal<br />
* Collect tissues (i.e., tissue, whole blood) of the affected animal. Preserving the whole body of the affected animal is recommended.<br />
* [[Genotyping | Capture DNA samples]] on the sire and dam of the affected animal.<br />
* Have a veterinarian evaluate the affected animal and prepare a written report of their observations<br />
* Provide as much pedigree and breed composition information as possible<br />
* Work with the breed organization, genetics provider and/or university personnel to determine the appropriate entity to further analyze the situation.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
==Policies for Reporting and Testing Genetic Disorders==<br />
Once a genetic disorder has been identified, it is recommended that a pro-active approach for reporting and testing be taken. All breed associations should identify tested genetic carriers and potential carriers (identified by pedigree) on their registration certificate, the organization herdbook, and website. Test as many potential carriers as is economically feasible starting with the most widely used animals in that population (e.g., AI sires, donor dams). From an individual herd perspective, breeders should test sires to determine which, if any, active females need to be tested. This can be facilitated by collecting and storing tissue samples of previously used sires.<br />
<br />
Animals that are carriers of known genetic disorders should be register<span style="color:orange;">ed, even in the rare situation where the organization chooses to eliminate carriers for breed viability. Organizations that are not practicing [[Whole Herd Reporting]] should develop a special recording category (with reduced or no fees) for these eliminated animals so that essential data are recorded</span>.<br />
<br />
==Breeding Management for Genetic Disorders==<br />
Once carrier animals have been identified then the disorder can be managed through both tactical and strategic approaches as part of the breeding program:<br />
<blockquote><br />
* The simplest strategy is to avoid mating potential carriers of the recessive disorder to potential carriers of that same genetic disorder. However, care must be taken to identify what effect this approach will have on overall genetic improvement given that this strategy may <span style="color:orange;">unnecessarily </span>sacrifice genetic improvement at the expense of avoidance of generating affected animals.<br />
* A more comprehensive approach would incorporate a [[Mate Selection | mate selection]] framework<ref>Kinghorn, B.P. 2011. An algorithm for efficient constrained mate selection. Genetics Selection Evolution. 43:4.</ref>. Mate selection is the simultaneous choice of selection candidates and their pattern of mate allocation, i.e., a mating list. Mate selection applications can manage genetic defects while simultaneously controlling for changes in inbreeding and genetic improvement of the breeding program.<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
A deeper dive can be found at https://beef-cattle.extension.org/managing-genetic-defects/<br />
<br />
==Keywords==<br />
genetic conditions, genetic disorders, genetic defects, genetic variants<br />
<br />
==Attribution==<br />
This article was derived from a report by a BIF ''ad hoc'' committee and further developed by several authors including [[User:Dbullock]], [[User:Mspangler]], [[User:Bgolden]], and [[User:Snewman]].<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Essential_Reading&diff=2435Essential Reading2021-05-29T21:28:50Z<p>Mspangler: /* For Industry Professionals */</p>
<hr />
<div>The most successful students and practitioners of beef cattle breeding will be familiar with both historical and current scientific literature. While much of it is intended for researchers familiar with the highly technical methods involved in modern animal breeding, there are many works that translate this information into more generally accessible papers for beef cattle producers and other industry professionals. Many extension specialists and scientists have produced manuscripts that provide important insight. <br />
<br />
This Essential Reading wiki is divided into two general categories, essential reading written for [[#Essential Reading for Industry Professionals | industry professionals]] and important technical papers written as part of the [[#Seminal Scientific Literature | scientific literature]]. Readers and Guidelines wiki contributors are encouraged to add to the lists on this page. If you do not have authors' access to the wiki then please contact any member of the [[BIF Guidelines Drafting Committee]] to add your essential reading contributions.<br />
<br />
= For Industry Professionals =<br />
Beef sire selection manual, 3rd edition, NBCEC, 2021. https://ebeef.ucdavis.edu/2021-nbcec-beef-cattle-sire-selection-manual.<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of a modeler and purebred breeder. J. Anim. Sci. 66:8 1892-1898.<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1999. Understanding animal breeding. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130964492.<br />
<br />
Cundiff, L. V. 1993. Breed comparisons adjusted to a 1991 basis using current EPDs. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Asheville, NC. May 26-29, 1993. pp 114-123.<br />
<br />
Golden, B.L., D.J. Garrick, S. Newman, and R.M. Enns. 2000. Economically Relevant Traits: A framework for the next generation<br />
of EPDs. Proceedings of the 32nd Research Symposium and Annual Meeting of the Beef Improvement Federation. Pp. 2-13.<br />
<br />
Hohenboken, W. D. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of an experimentalist. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1885-1891.<br />
<br />
National beef quality audit. 2016. Beef Quality Assurance. [https://www.bqa.org/national-beef-quality-audit https://www.bqa.org/national-beef-quality-audit].<br />
<br />
= Scientific Literature =<br />
Bichard, M. 1971. Dissemination of genetic improvement through a livestock industry. Anim. Prod. 13:401–411<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of a modeler and purebred breeder. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1892-1898.<br />
<br />
Blasco, A. 2001. The Bayesian controversy in animal breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2023-46.<br />
<br />
Brascamp, E. W., 1978. Methods on economic optimization of animal breeding plans. Report B-134, Research Institute for Animal Husbandry “Schoonoord”, Zeist, The Netherlands<br />
<br />
Bulmer, M. G. 1985. The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 254pp.<br />
<br />
Cameron, N. D., 1997. Selection Indices and Prediction of Genetic Merit in Animal Breeding. CAB International, Wallingford, UK<br />
<br />
Crow, J. F., M. Kimura. 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. New York: Harper & Row.<br />
<br />
Darwin, C. 1859, 1964. On the origin of species (a facsimile of the First Edition).<br />
Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
Dickerson, G. E. 1970. Efficiency of animal production — molding the biological components. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 849–859.<br />
<br />
Falconer, D., T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman. Edinburgh.<br />
<br />
Fisher, R. A. 1918. The correlations between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinb. 52:399–433.<br />
<br />
Gianola, D. and R. L. Fernando. 1986. Bayesian methods in animal breeding theory. J. Anim. Sci. 63:217-244.<br />
<br />
Guy, D. and C. Smith. 1981. Derivation of improvement lags in a livestock industry. Anim. Prod. 32:333-336. <br />
<br />
Harris, D. L. 1970. Breeding for efficiency in livestock production: defining the economic objectives. Journal of Animal Science 30: 860–865.<br />
<br />
Harris, D. L., S. Newman. 1994. Breeding for profit: synergism between genetic improvement and livestock production (a review). J. Anim. Sci. Aug;72(8):2178-200.<br />
<br />
Harris, D.L., Stewart, T.S. and C.R. Arboleda. 1984. Animal breeding programs: A systematic approach to their design. Adv. Agric. Tech. AAT-NC-8. 14 pp. <br />
<br />
Hazel, L. N. 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28:476–490.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1964. Selection index and expected genetic advance. In: Hanson W.D., Robison, H.F. (eds) Statistical genetics and plant breeding. NAS, NRC, Washington, pp 141–163<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:423–49.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1976. A rapid method for computing the inverse of a relationship matrix. J Dairy Sci 58:1727–1730.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1984. Applications of linear models in animal breeding. Guelph: University of Guelph.<br />
<br />
Hohenboken, W. D. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of an experimentalist. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1885-1891.<br />
<br />
Kennedy, B. W., J.H.J. Vanderwerf, and T.H.E. Meuwissen. 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed-intake<br />
J. Anim. Sci. 71:3239-3250.<br />
<br />
Lerner, I M. 1958. The Genetic Basis of Selection. Wiley, New York.<br />
<br />
Lush, J. L. 1937. Animal breeding plans. Collegiate Press, Ames.<br />
<br />
Lynch, M. and B. Walsh. 1997. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. 980 pp.<br />
<br />
Mendel, J. G. 1866. Versuche u¨ber Plflanzenhybriden Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Bru¨nn, Bd.<br />
IV fu¨r das Jahr, 1865 Abhandlungen: 3–47. English translation at http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html.<br />
<br />
Meuwissen, T.H.E., B. H. Hayes, M. E. Goddard. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829. <br />
<br />
Ponzoni, R. W., and S. Newman. 1989. Developing breeding objectives for Australian beef cattle production. Anim. Prod. 49:35–47<br />
<br />
Quaas, R. L., and E. J. Pollak. 1980. Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. J. Anim. Sci. 52:1277-1287.<br />
<br />
Quaas, R.L. and Z. Zhang. 2006. Multiple-breed genetic evaluation in the US beef industry: Methodology. Proc. 8th World Cong. Genet. Appl. Live. Prod. 12:24.<br />
<br />
Robinson, H.F. 1965. Papers on quantitative genetics and related topics. North Carolina State University. 526pp.<br />
<br />
Sanders, J.O., and Cartwright, T.C. 1979a. A general cattle production systems model. 1. Structure of the model. Agric. Syst. 4:217–227. <br />
<br />
Sanders, J.O., and Cartwright, T.C. 1979b. A general cattle production systems model. 2. Procedures used for simulating animal performance. Agric. Syst. 4:289–309.<br />
<br />
Schaeffer, L.R. 2009. Contemporary groups are always random. http://animalbiosciences.uoguelph.ca/~lrs/piksLRS/ranfix.pdf<br />
<br />
Smith, C., 1964. The use of specialised sire and dam lines in selection for meat production. Anim. Prod. 6:337–344<br />
<br />
Turner, H.N. and S.S.Y. Young. 1969. Quantitative genetics in sheep breeding. Cornell University Press. 332 pp. (good book on quantitative-genetic fundamentals using sheep studies for empirical examples) <br />
<br />
Van Vleck, L.D. 1987. Contemporary groups for genetic evaluation. J. Dairy. Sci. 70:2456-64.<br />
<br />
Van Vleck, L.D. 1993. Selection index and introduction to mixed model methods for genetic improvement of animals (the green book). CRC Press.<br />
<br />
Walsh, B. and M. Lynch. 2018. Evolution and Selection of Quantitative Traits. Oxford University Press. 1496 pp.<br />
<br />
Wei, M., and J.H.J. Van der Werf. 1994. Maximizing genetic response in crossbreds using both purebred and crossbred information. Anim. Prod. 59:401–413<br />
<br />
Weller, J. I. 1994. Economic aspects of animal breeding. Chapman and Hall ISBN 0 412 5970 0.<br />
<br />
Wilton, J., Quinton, M. and Quinton, C. 2013. Optimizing Animal Genetic Improvement. Centre for Genet. Imp. Lives. Guelph, Canada. 301 pp<br />
<br />
Wright S. 1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationships. Am. Nat. 56:330–38.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Prediction_Bias&diff=2434Prediction Bias2021-05-29T21:20:08Z<p>Mspangler: /* Estimating Bias */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category: Genetic Evaluation]]<br />
Generally, bias is the systematic under or overestimation of what is being estimated or predicted. Bias can exist in [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPDs]] and [[Accuracy | accuracy values]] from many sources, including selective reporting, inaccurate measurements, approximation methods, incorrect models, incorrect variance components, and others.<br />
<br />
==Estimating Bias==<br />
<br />
If we had both the true progeny difference (TPD) and an estimate (EPD) of the TPD, then we could calculate the degree of bias in our estimate as the difference in the mean TPD and mean EPD. However, we never observe the TPD. Instead we estimate it using pedigree, performance, and genomic data.<br />
<br />
We can approximate the degree of bias and under/overdispersion of EPD by using regression techniques<ref>Reverter, A., B. L. Golden, R. M. Bourdon, and J. S. Brinks. 1994. Technical Note: Detection of Bias in Genetic Predictions. J. Anim. Sci. 72:34-37. </ref><br />
<ref>Legarra, A., and A. Reverter. 2018. Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method. Genetics Selection Evolution. 40:53. </ref>. One such way to do this is to regress the EPD with more information (e.g., genomic EPD) on the EPD with less information (e.g, pedigree-based EPD). Our expectation is that the intercept from this regression is 0 (no bias) given the properties of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] and the slope of the regression is 1 (no over or under dispersion). <br />
<br />
A fundamental assumption is that the ratio of variance components used to generate both sets of EPD are the same. if they are not, then the expectation of the regression coefficient being 1 no longer holds.<br />
<br />
Another approach is to regress phenotypes after being corrected for systematic effects on EPD. Here the expectation of the regression coefficient is 2. If EBV were used instead of EPD the expectation of the regression coefficient would be 1.<br />
<br />
A key assumption is that the phenotype of the individual is not included in the EPD of that individual. Consequently, this approach lends itself to cross-validation or forward-in-time validation strategies whereby some set(s) of animals have their phenotypes masked in the genetic evaluation.<br />
<br />
In a similar fashion, average progeny performance (corrected for systematic effects) can be regressed on parent (sire) EPD. This is done annually at the US Meat Animal Research Center as part of the process to update across-breed EPD adjustment factors. The expectation of the regression coefficient is 1 in this case and assumes that the progeny information used is not part of the sire's EPD. A regression coefficient of less than 1 suggests that the EPD are over-dispersed meaning that a one-unit change in EPD will generate less than a one-unit change in average progeny phenotypes.<br />
<br />
==Sources of Bias==<br />
<br />
Bias generally arises from incomplete information. For example, if selection takes place early in life (e.g., based on weaning weight) such that a non-random group of animals is culled, then subsequent weight trait EPD (e.g., yearling weight) could be biased. This issue can be accommodated through the use of [[Multiple Trait Evaluation | Multiple-Trait Evaluation]]. Another example is incomplete recording of animals within a contemporary group. If only the heaviest animals are reported, then their performance relative to their contemporaries (e.g., contemporary group deviations) is biased downward because the observed average for the group is artificially inflated.<br />
<br />
==References==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Expected_Progeny_Difference&diff=2258Expected Progeny Difference2020-12-29T20:00:51Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The estimation of the value of an animal as a parent for the next generation, or Expected Progeny Difference (EPD), which is simply half of the animal's 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 multiple-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 are a function of 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 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 genetic evaluations either annually or semi-annually, and thus 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 were done so that breeders could have at least an early estimate of genetic merit for selection decisions. As noted above with more routine runs of the genetic evaluation, interim EPDs now exist for shorter periods in an animal's life.<br />
<br />
===Genetically Identical Animals===<br />
There are instances where genetically identical animals are in the pedigree (i.e. identical twins and clones). BIF recommends that, where genetically identical animals exist in the pedigree, for purposes of routine genetic evaluation, each set of genetically identical individuals is assigned a common identifier so they have identical EPDs. Periodic test runs with the genetic identicals individually identified and the differences between them evaluated would be prudent. BIF recommends that genetically identical individuals should be assigned different permanent identification numbers.<br />
<br />
===References:=== <br />
<br />
<br />
----</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Possible_Change&diff=2252Possible Change2020-12-16T00:01:11Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''The information contained in this page is a DRAFT under consideration for inclusion in the official BIF Guidelines. It should not be considered to be part of the Guidelines until this message has been removed'''<br />
</center><br />
Organizations involved in producing [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPDs]] will often provide a table of "possible change" values. Possible change is a measure of the potential difference<br />
between an EPD and the true progeny difference. Possible change values are different for each [[ Traits | trait]] because they are constructed using traits' genetic variances. Also, possible change values are different at each level of [[Accuracy | accuracy]].<br />
<br />
When calculating the possible change table values, inbreeding is assumed to be zero. The relationship between possible change and [[Accuracy | BIF Accuracy]] is, <br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
a_{BIF}=1-\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{p}^{2}}{\sigma_{u}^{2}}}<br />
</math><br><br><math><br />
\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_{p}^{2}}{\sigma_{u}^{2}}}=1-a_{BIF}<br />
</math><br><br><math><br />
\frac{\sigma_{p}^{2}}{\sigma_{u}^{2}}=(1-a_{BIF})^{2}<br />
</math><br><br><math><br />
\sigma_{p}^{2}=(1-a_{BIF})^{2}\sigma_{u}^{2}<br />
</math><br><br><math><br />
\sigma_{p}=(1-a_{BIF})\sigma_{u}<br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
where <math>a_{BIF}</math> is the [[Accuracy | BIF Accuracy]]; <math>\sigma_{u}^{2}</math> is the additive genetic variance of the trait for which the possible change values are being calculated; and <math>\sigma_{p}^{2}</math> is the prediction error variance corresponding to a given level of BIF Accuracy (i.e., It is the expected value of the mean squared difference between the true value and the estimated breeding value at the corresponding level of accuracy).<br />
<br />
The <math>\sigma_{p}</math> is the standard error of prediction for an estimated breeding value. Because an EPD is one-half of the estimated breeding value, the standard error of prediction for an [[Expected Progeny Difference | EPD]] is then calculated as,<br />
<center><br />
<math><br />
\sigma_{PC}=\frac{\sigma_{p}}{2}=\frac{(1-a_{BIF})\sigma_{u}}{2}<br />
</math><br />
</center><br />
which is then used to calculate possible change values for corresponding BIF Accuracy values. <br />
<br />
Some organizations publish possible change values as one EPD standard prediction error (square root of the prediction error variance divided by 2). One standard prediction error means the true value should fall within the range of plus or minus one possible change from the EPD 68% of the time for a given level of BIF Accuracy. Other organizations choose to publish possible change values as two standard prediction errors and the true value will fall within plus or mins the possible change value 95% of the time.<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
''BIF recommends that possible change be published as one or two standard error of prediction of EPDs.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that possible change tables should be clearly labelled as representing 68% or 95% confidence ranges''</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Embryo_Transfer_(ET):_Data_Collection_And_Utilization&diff=2238Embryo Transfer (ET): Data Collection And Utilization2020-12-13T16:32:24Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>Due to selection placed on parents and the additional financial investment with the ET process, potential seedstock animals resulting from ET need to have proper, uniquely designed, [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] in order to have a role in genetic progress. Therefore, maximizing the [[Accuracy | accuracy of genetic predictions]] early in the animals’ lives by using the animals’ own observations along with those of relatives has increased importance. But, for maternally influenced [[Traits | traits]] such as weaning weight, the genetic evaluation model must be modified slightly to account separately for the donors’ contributions to the genetics of the calves and the recipient cows’ contribution to maternal environment. Because of the increased investment, breeders may be motivated to provide preferential treatment that must be accounted for through appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]].<br />
==Recipient dam considerations==<br />
Effects on the phenotype due to the dam of the animal are present in traits measured up to weaning, but generally assumed not present in phenotypes measured post-weaning. These include both genetic and non-genetic effects. For animals produced using ET, these maternal influences are due to the recipient dam, and not the embryo donor dam. Therefore, information on the recipient dam for these maternally influenced traits is necessary to reliably include the observations in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]. Both [[Age of Dam | age of the recipient dam]] and its breed composition will affect maternally influenced traits - i.e. [[Birth Weight | birth weight]], [[Calving Difficulty | calving ease]], and [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]]. <br />
<br />
Ideally, pedigree information on the recipient would be included but it is not always available, as recipients are often [[Data Collection for Commercial Producers | commercial females]]. Some organizations producing genetic evaluations will not use observations resulting from non-registered recipient females. Other organizations will use these observations when age and breed composition of the recipient are known.<br />
==Modeling Records of ET Animals in Genetic Evaluation==<br />
===Recipients in genetic evaluation===<br />
Methods for modelling the effects of recipient dams are in the literature<ref>Schaeffer, L. and Kennedy, B. 1989. Effects of embryo transfer in beef cattle on genetic evaluation methodology. Journal of Animal Science 67:2536-2543.</ref><ref>Van Vleck, L. D. 1990. Alternative animal models with maternal effects and foster dams. Journal of Animal Science 68:4026-4038.</ref><ref>Suárez MJ, Munilla S, Cantet RJ. 2015. Accounting for unknown foster dams in the genetic evaluation of embryo transfer progeny. J Anim Breed Genet. 2015;132(1):21‐29. doi:10.1111/jbg.12121.</ref><ref>Thallman, R. M. 1988. Prediction of genetic values for weaning weight from field data on calves produced by embryo transfer, M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station.</ref> and can be easily incorporated in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluations]] if sufficient information about the recipient dams is available. Specifically, both the maternal additive genetic effect and the permanent maternal environment effect should be associated with the recipient dam instead of the donor dam.<br />
<!--<br />
==Birth Weight==<br />
Researchers have reported effects of alternative embryo transfer technologies on [[Birth Weight | birth weight]].<ref>Behboodi, E., G.B. Anderson, R.H. BonDurant, S.L. Cargill, B.R. Kreuscher, J.F. Medrano and J.D. Murray. 1995. Birth of large calves that developed from in vitro-derived bovine embryos. Theriogenology v44 p227-232.</ref><ref>Numabe T., Oikawa T., Kikuchi T. and Horiuchi T. 2000. Birth weight and birth rate of heavy calves conceived by transfer of in vitro or in vivo produced bovine embryos. Animal Reproduction Science, 64 (1-2), pp. 13-20.</ref><ref>H. Jacobsen, M. Schmidt, P. Holm, P.T. Sangild, G. Vajta, T. Greve, H. Callesen. 2000. Body dimensions and birth and organ weights of calves derived from in vitro produced embryos cultured with or without serum and oviduct epithelium cells. Theriogenology, v53, Issue 9 p1761-1769. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00312-5.</ref><ref>Luiz Sergio Almeida Camargo, Celio Freitas, Wanderlei Ferreira de Sa, Ademir de Moraes Ferreira, Raquel Varela Serapiao, João Henrique Moreira Viana. 2010. Gestation length, birth weight and offspring gender ratio of in vitro-produced Gyr (Bos indicus) cattle embryos/ Animal Reproduction Science. Volume 120, Issues 1–4, p10-15. ISSN 0378-4320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.02.013.</ref> Literature indicates that birth weight can vary according to whether the embryo was produced using in vivo or in vitro (IVF) fertilization, the type of medium used, and the incubation process (e.g., oxygen tension). In one study the calves produced using IVF were 10% heavier than calves born from artificial insemination.<ref>A.M van Wagtendonk-de Leeuw, B.J.G Aerts, J.H.G den Daas. 1995. Abnormal offspring following in vitro production of bovine preimplantation embryos: A field study. Theriogenology. Volume 49, Issue 5, p883-894. ISSN 0093-691X.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00038-7.</ref>. In another report, relatively small differences in the length of the incubation period had a significant impact on birth weight of calves.<ref>Yong-Soo Park, So-Seob Kim, Jae-Myeoung Kim, Hum-Dai Park, Myung-Dae Byun. 2005. The effects of duration of in vitro maturation of bovine oocytes on subsequent development, quality, and transfer of embryos. Theriogenology. Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 123-134. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.11.012.</ref> Additionally, the oxygen concentration during incubation can affect birth weight.<ref>Iwata H, Minami N, Imai H. Postnatal weight of calves derived from in vitro matured and in vitro fertilized embryos developed under various oxygen concentrations. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2000;12(7-8):391‐396. doi:10.1071/rd00057</ref>.<br />
<br />
Not all organizations producing embryos use the same technologies. In an ideal world, capturing data on these variables would permit the utilization of birth weight data for genetic evaluation. However, because of the number of variables, collecting and recording these data are likely infeasible to reliably allow the use of birth weight observations from ET calves. Because of its strong relationship to birth weight, it is also not likely that ET effects on calving difficulty can be accounted for in a large scale [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]].<br />
<br />
The literature also indicates that these effects have not been detected in traits measured later in life. The literature contains mixed reports of the impact of alternative embryo technologies on [[Gestation Length | gestation length]].<br />
--><br />
===Suitability of Multiple Ovulation Embryo Transfer (MOET) records for genetic evaluation===<br />
Calves produced by MOET had greater birth weight than non-ET calves, although the data structure was far from ideal for estimating such effect.<ref name="mt">Thallman, R. M., J. A. Dillon, J. O. Sanders, A. D. Herring, S. D. Kachman, and D. G. Riley. 2014. Large Effects on Birth Weight Follow Inheritance Pattern Consistent with Gametic Imprinting and X Chromosome. In: 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vancouver, BC Canada</ref> Nonetheless, the data structure was well-suited for estimation of heritability in subsets of the data. Heritability of birth weight of non-ET calves, and ET calves with Holstein, beef crossbred, or unknown breed recipients was 41.4±4.3, 28.4±3.1, 32.4±3.8, and 32.5±3.4%, respectively.<ref name="mt"></ref> The ET calves resulted from transfers of mixtures of fresh and frozen, sexed and un-sexed embryos and probably countless other variations in ET processes, none of which were available for the analysis. Thus, birth weight records from calves produced by MOET are suitable for use in genetic evaluation even with little or no information on the recipient breed and age (excluding heifers) or the variations on MOET techniques performed. In such cases, it would be preferable to fit additional residual and/or permanent environment variance to the model for such records. Nonetheless, it is far preferable to have as much information as possible on the recipient cows, and where feasible, to use registered recipients that have several previous recorded calves. Furthermore, it would be useful to record whether MOET calves were produced from fresh or frozen transfers, were biopsied for sex determination and/or genotyping, and whether any other substantial variations in ET technique were performed.<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from MOET, for traits that do not have maternal effects, be used in genetic evaluations provided any preferential treatment, if given, is accounted for by assigning an appropriate contemporary group code.'' <br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from MOET, for traits that have maternal effects, be used in genetic evaluations as long as the recipient dams' ages (heifer, 1st parity, or multiparity) and approximate breed compositions are available, and any preferential treatment, if given, is accounted for by contemporary grouping.'' <br />
<br />
''BIF recommends use of recipient cows with known pedigrees well-tied to the genetic evaluation as being preferable to recipients with unknown pedigree and no previous calves with records in the genetic evaluation. Where this is not practical, each recipient dam should be assigned a unique identifier so occurrences of multiple ET calves with the same recipient are properly accounted for.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that embryo stage (1-9)<ref name="ds"> Stringfellow, D.A. and M.D. Givens. 2010. Manual of international embryo transfer society (IETS). 4th ed. Champaign, Illinois: International Embryo Transfer Society.</ref> and grade (1-3)<ref name="ds"></ref> and whether frozen, split, sexed, or genotyped be recorded and submitted to breed association or other recording organization. BIF recommends that, when sufficient information becomes available, genetic evaluation models for MOET calves include effects of fresh versus frozen and of biopsied (sexed and/or genotyped) or not.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that records of animals produced by MOET should have separate contemporary group effects in the genetic evaluation from records of animals produced by AI or natural service. However, animals produced by MOET should be included in the same management code (as determined by the breeder) as animals not produced by MOET (including AI or natural service calves) that were managed identically in the same group so their common environmental effect can be accounted for in future genetic evaluations. Major differences in age, breed, origin, etc. among recipients should also be accounted for in genetic evaluation models.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends to not use phenotypic observations in genetic evaluation from animals resulting from In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), Nuclear Transfer, or that are not explicitly known to have resulted from natural service, AI, or MOET in genetic evaluations. BIF recommends that observations on ET calves be recorded and submitted to breed association or other recording organization, along with the form of technology (as listed above or others not listed) used to produce the ET calves.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that for genetic evaluations of traits with maternal effects, that direct effects (breeding value, genomic effects, breed composition, heterosis, etc.) be assigned to the donor or natural dam, and maternal effects (breeding value, genomic effects, breed composition, heterosis, permanent environment, etc.) with the recipient dam.''<br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that records for reproductive traits collected subsequent to superovulation not be used in genetic evaluation.''<br />
==Citations==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Embryo_Transfer_(ET):_Data_Collection_And_Utilization&diff=2212Embryo Transfer (ET): Data Collection And Utilization2020-06-08T14:12:15Z<p>Mspangler: /* Recipient dam considerations */</p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''<big>THIS PAGE CONTAINS A DRAFT OF INFORMATION BEING EVALUATED FOR INCLUSION AS AN OFFICIAL GUIDELINE</big>'''<br><br />
Please do not cite this page until this message has been removed.<br />
<br />
'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''<br />
</center><br />
When using observations in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluations]] from animals resulting from embryo transfer (ET), it is important that sufficient information about the recipient females is available and any potential preferential treatment is identified. Seedstock animals resulting from ET are potentially influential and reflect additional investment to achieve genetic progress. Therefore, maximizing the [[Accuracy | accuracy of genetic predictions]] early in the animals' lives by using the animals' own observations has increased importance. But for maternally influenced traits such as [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]] knowledge of the recipients' breed composition, age, and other factors must be considered. Because of the increased investment, breeders are motivated to provide preferential treatment that must be accounted for. Additionally, genetic evaluation of [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] and [[Calving Difficulty | calving difficulty]] requires special considerations because of the potential influences of alternative ET technologies.<br />
<br />
==Recipient dam considerations==<br />
Effects on the phenotype due to the dam of the animal are present in traits measured up to weaning, but generally not seen on phenotypes measured post-weaning. These include both genetic and non-genetic effects. For animals produced using ET, these maternal influences are due to the recipient dam, and not the embryo donor dam. Therefore, information on the recipient dam for these maternally influenced traits is necessary to reliably include the observations in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]. Both [[Age of Dam | age of the recipient dam]] and its breed composition will affect maternally influenced traits - i.e. [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]]. <br />
<br />
Ideally, pedigree information on the recipient would be included but it is not always available, as recipients are often [[Data Collection for Commercial Producers | commercial females]]. Some organizations producing genetic evaluations will not use observations resulting from non-registered recipient females. Other organizations will use these observations when age and breed composition of the recipient are known.<br />
<br />
===Recipients in genetic evaluation===<br />
Methods for modelling the effects of recipient dams are in the literature<ref>Schaeffer, L. and Kennedy, B. 1989. Effects of embryo transfer in beef cattle on genetic evaluation methodology. Journal of Animal Science 67:2536-2543.</ref><ref>Van Vleck, L. D. 1990. Alternative animal models with maternal effects and foster dams. Journal of Animal Science 68:4026-4038.</ref><ref>Suárez MJ, Munilla S, Cantet RJ. 2015. Accounting for unknown foster dams in the genetic evaluation of embryo transfer progeny. J Anim Breed Genet. 2015;132(1):21‐29. doi:10.1111/jbg.12121.</ref> and can be easily incorporated in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluations]] if sufficient information about the recipient dams is available.<br />
<br />
==Birth Weight==<br />
Researchers have reported effects of alternative embryo transfer technologies on [[Birth Weight | birth weight]].<ref>Behboodi, E., G.B. Anderson, R.H. BonDurant, S.L. Cargill, B.R. Kreuscher, J.F. Medrano and J.D. Murray. 1995. Birth of large calves that developed from in vitro-derived bovine embryos. Theriogenology v44 p227-232.</ref><ref>Numabe T., Oikawa T., Kikuchi T. and Horiuchi T. 2000. Birth weight and birth rate of heavy calves conceived by transfer of in vitro or in vivo produced bovine embryos. Animal Reproduction Science, 64 (1-2), pp. 13-20.</ref><ref>H. Jacobsen, M. Schmidt, P. Holm, P.T. Sangild, G. Vajta, T. Greve, H. Callesen. 2000. Body dimensions and birth and organ weights of calves derived from in vitro produced embryos cultured with or without serum and oviduct epithelium cells. Theriogenology, v53, Issue 9 p1761-1769. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00312-5.</ref><ref>Luiz Sergio Almeida Camargo, Celio Freitas, Wanderlei Ferreira de Sa, Ademir de Moraes Ferreira, Raquel Varela Serapiao, João Henrique Moreira Viana. 2010. Gestation length, birth weight and offspring gender ratio of in vitro-produced Gyr (Bos indicus) cattle embryos/ Animal Reproduction Science. Volume 120, Issues 1–4, p10-15. ISSN 0378-4320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.02.013.</ref> Literature indicates that birth weight can vary according to whether the embryo was produced using in vivo or in vitro (IVF) fertilization, the type of medium used, and the incubation process (e.g., oxygen tension). In one study the calves produced using IVF were 10% heavier than calves born from artificial insemination.<ref>A.M van Wagtendonk-de Leeuw, B.J.G Aerts, J.H.G den Daas. 1995. Abnormal offspring following in vitro production of bovine preimplantation embryos: A field study. Theriogenology. Volume 49, Issue 5, p883-894. ISSN 0093-691X.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00038-7.</ref>. In another report, relatively small differences in the length of the incubation period had a significant impact on birth weight of calves.<ref>Yong-Soo Park, So-Seob Kim, Jae-Myeoung Kim, Hum-Dai Park, Myung-Dae Byun. 2005. The effects of duration of in vitro maturation of bovine oocytes on subsequent development, quality, and transfer of embryos. Theriogenology. Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 123-134. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.11.012.</ref> Additionally, the oxygen concentration during incubation can affect birth weight.<ref>Iwata H, Minami N, Imai H. Postnatal weight of calves derived from in vitro matured and in vitro fertilized embryos developed under various oxygen concentrations. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2000;12(7-8):391‐396. doi:10.1071/rd00057</ref>.<br />
<br />
Not all organizations producing embryos use the same technologies. In an ideal world, capturing data on these variables would permit the utilization of birth weight data for genetic evaluation. However, because of the number of variables, collecting and recording these data are likely infeasible to reliably allow the use of birth weight observations from ET calves. Because of its strong relationship to birth weight, it is also not likely that ET effects on calving difficulty can be accounted for in a large scale [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]].<br />
<br />
The literature also indicates that these effects have not been detected in traits measured later in life. The literature contains mixed reports of the impact of alternative embryo technologies on [[Gestation Length | gestation length]].<br />
<br />
== Recomendations ==<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from ET for traits that do not have maternal effects be used in genetic evaluations as long as any preferential treatment, if given, is accounted for by assigning an appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary group]].'' <br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from ET for traits that have maternal effects be used in genetic evaluations as long as the recipient dams' ages and breed compositions are available, and any preferential treatment, if given, [[Contemporary Groups | is accounted for]].''<br />
<br />
'' BIF recommends to not use [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] and [[Calving Difficulty | calving difficulty]] observations from animals resulting from ET.''<br />
<br />
==Citations==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2209BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-06T16:45:27Z<p>Mspangler: /* Recommendations */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Difference|Expected Progeny Differences]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving Difficulty|Calving Ease]] Direct EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
''BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.''</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Essential_Reading&diff=2204Essential Reading2020-06-05T16:48:22Z<p>Mspangler: /* Scientific Literature */</p>
<hr />
<div>The most successful students and practitioners of beef cattle breeding will be familiar with both historical and current scientific literature. While much of it is intended for researchers familiar with the highly technical methods involved in modern animal breeding, there are many works that translate this information into more generally accessible papers for beef cattle producers and other industry professionals. Many extension specialists and scientists have produced manuscripts that provide important insight. <br />
<br />
This Essential Reading wiki is divided into two general categories, essential reading written for [[#Essential Reading for Industry Professionals | industry professionals]] and important technical papers written as part of the [[#Seminal Scientific Literature | scientific literature]]. Readers and Guidelines wiki contributors are encouraged to add to the lists on this page. If you do not have authors' access to the wiki then please contact any member of the [[BIF Guidelines Drafting Committee]] to add your essential reading contributions.<br />
<br />
= For Industry Professionals =<br />
Beef sire selection manual, 2nd edition, NBCEC, 2010. [http://www.nbcec.org/producers/sire.html http://www.nbcec.org/producers/sire.html].<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of a modeler and purebred breeder. J. Anim. Sci. 66:8 1892-1898.<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1999. Understanding animal breeding. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0130964492.<br />
<br />
Cundiff, L. V. 1993. Breed comparisons adjusted to a 1991 basis using current EPDs. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Asheville, NC. May 26-29, 1993. pp 114-123.<br />
<br />
Golden, B.L., D.J. Garrick, S. Newman, and R.M. Enns. 2000. Economically Relevant Traits: A framework for the next generation<br />
of EPDs. Proceedings of the 32nd Research Symposium and Annual Meeting of the Beef Improvement Federation. Pp. 2-13.<br />
<br />
Hohenboken, W. D. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of an experimentalist. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1885-1891.<br />
<br />
National beef quality audit. 2016. Beef Quality Assurance. [https://www.bqa.org/national-beef-quality-audit https://www.bqa.org/national-beef-quality-audit].<br />
<br />
= Scientific Literature =<br />
Bichard, M. 1971. Dissemination of genetic improvement through a livestock industry. Anim. Prod. 13:401–411<br />
<br />
Bourdon, R. M. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of a modeler and purebred breeder. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1892-1898.<br />
<br />
Blasco, A. 2001. The Bayesian controversy in animal breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2023-46.<br />
<br />
Brascamp, E. W., 1978. Methods on economic optimization of animal breeding plans. Report B-134, Research Institute for Animal Husbandry “Schoonoord”, Zeist, The Netherlands<br />
<br />
Bulmer, M. G. 1985. The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 254pp.<br />
<br />
Cameron, N. D., 1997. Selection Indices and Prediction of Genetic Merit in Animal Breeding. CAB International, Wallingford, UK<br />
<br />
Crow, J. F., M. Kimura. 1970. An Introduction to Population Genetics Theory. New York: Harper & Row.<br />
<br />
Darwin, C. 1859, 1964. On the origin of species (a facsimile of the First Edition).<br />
Harvard Univ. Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
Dickerson, G. E. 1970. Efficiency of animal production — molding the biological components. J. Anim. Sci. 30: 849–859.<br />
<br />
Falconer, D., T. F. C. Mackay. 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman. Edinburgh.<br />
<br />
Fisher, R. A. 1918. The correlations between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinb. 52:399–433.<br />
<br />
Gianola, D. and R. L. Fernando. 1986. Bayesian methods in animal breeding theory. J. Anim. Sci. 63:217-244.<br />
<br />
Guy, D. and C. Smith. 1981. Derivation of improvement lags in a livestock industry. Anim. Prod. 32:333-336. <br />
<br />
Harris, D. L. 1970. Breeding for efficiency in livestock production: defining the economic objectives. Journal of Animal Science 30: 860–865.<br />
<br />
Harris, D. L., S. Newman. 1994. Breeding for profit: synergism between genetic improvement and livestock production (a review). J. Anim. Sci. Aug;72(8):2178-200.<br />
<br />
Harris, D.L., Stewart, T.S. and C.R. Arboleda. 1984. Animal breeding programs: A systematic approach to their design. Adv. Agric. Tech. AAT-NC-8. 14 pp. <br />
<br />
Hazel, L. N. 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28:476–490.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1964. Selection index and expected genetic advance. In: Hanson W.D., Robison, H.F. (eds) Statistical genetics and plant breeding. NAS, NRC, Washington, pp 141–163<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:423–49.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1976. A rapid method for computing the inverse of a relationship matrix. J Dairy Sci 58:1727–1730.<br />
<br />
Henderson, C. R. 1984. Applications of linear models in animal breeding. Guelph: University of Guelph.<br />
<br />
Hohenboken, W. D. 1988. Bovine nirvana - from the perspective of an experimentalist. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1885-1891.<br />
<br />
Kennedy, B. W., J.H.J. Vanderwerf, and T.H.E. Meuwissen. 1993. Genetic and statistical properties of residual feed-intake<br />
J. Anim. Sci. 71:3239-3250.<br />
<br />
Lerner, I M. 1958. The Genetic Basis of Selection. Wiley, New York.<br />
<br />
Lush, J. L. 1937. Animal breeding plans. Collegiate Press, Ames.<br />
<br />
Mendel, J. G. 1866. Versuche u¨ber Plflanzenhybriden Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Bru¨nn, Bd.<br />
IV fu¨r das Jahr, 1865 Abhandlungen: 3–47. English translation at http://www.mendelweb.org/Mendel.html.<br />
<br />
Meuwissen, T.H.E., B. H. Hayes, M. E. Goddard. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829. <br />
<br />
Ponzoni, R. W., and S. Newman. 1989. Developing breeding objectives for Australian beef cattle production. Anim. Prod. 49:35–47<br />
<br />
Quaas, R. L., and E. J. Pollak. 1980. Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. J. Anim. Sci. 52:1277-1287.<br />
<br />
Robinson, H.F. 1965. Papers on quantitative genetics and related topics. North Carolina State University. 526pp.<br />
<br />
Sanders, J.O., and Cartwright, T.C. 1979a. A general cattle production systems model. 1. Structure of the model. Agric. Syst. 4:217–227. <br />
<br />
Sanders, J.O., and Cartwright, T.C. 1979b. A general cattle production systems model. 2. Procedures used for simulating animal performance. Agric. Syst. 4:289–309.<br />
<br />
Schaeffer, L.R. 2009. Contemporary groups are always random. http://animalbiosciences.uoguelph.ca/~lrs/piksLRS/ranfix.pdf<br />
<br />
Smith, C., 1964. The use of specialised sire and dam lines in selection for meat production. Anim. Prod. 6:337–344<br />
<br />
Turner, H.N. and S.S.Y. Young. 1969. Quantitative genetics in sheep breeding. Cornell University Press. 332 pp. (good book on quantitative-genetic fundamentals using sheep studies for empirical examples) <br />
<br />
Van Vleck, L.D. 1987. Contemporary groups for genetic evaluation. J. Dairy. Sci. 70:2456-64.<br />
<br />
Van Vleck, L.D. 1993. Selection index and introduction to mixed model methods for genetic improvement of animals (the green book). CRC Press.<br />
<br />
Wei, M., and J.H.J. Van der Werf. 1994. Maximizing genetic response in crossbreds using both purebred and crossbred information. Anim. Prod. 59:401–413<br />
<br />
Weller, J. I. 1994. Economic aspects of animal breeding. Chapman and Hall ISBN 0 412 5970 0.<br />
<br />
Wilton, J., Quinton, M. and Quinton, C. 2013. Optimizing Animal Genetic Improvement. Centre for Genet. Imp. Lives. Guelph, Canada. 301 pp<br />
<br />
Wright S. 1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationships. Am. Nat. 56:330–38.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2196BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T15:03:02Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Difference|Expected Progeny Differences]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving Difficulty|Calving Ease]] Direct EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2195BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T15:01:40Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Difference|Expected Progeny Differences]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving ease|Calving Ease]] Direct EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2194BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T15:00:35Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Difference|Expected Progeny Differences]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving Ease]] Direct EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2193BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T14:59:20Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Differences|Expected Progeny Difference]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving Ease]] Direct EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2192BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T14:57:55Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]] (BLUP) methodology to estimate [[Expected Progeny Differences]] (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of [[Calving Ease Direct]] EPD, [[Birth Weight]] EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2191BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T14:55:53Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Preface==<br />
The use of Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) methodology to estimate Expected Progeny Differences (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of Calving Ease Direct EPD, Birth Weight EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2190BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T14:54:07Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>The use of Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) methodology to estimate Expected Progeny Differences (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of Calving Ease Direct EPD, Birth Weight EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
BIF recommends that when an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions. Further, BIF recommends that when genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=BIF_recommends_the_use_of_EPD&diff=2189BIF recommends the use of EPD2020-06-05T14:51:39Z<p>Mspangler: Created page with "The use of Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) methodology to estimate Expected Progeny Differences (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades...."</p>
<hr />
<div>The use of Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) methodology to estimate Expected Progeny Differences (EPD) has been the norm in the North American Beef Industry for decades. Indeed, the global livestock genetics community utilizes the BLUP framework to drive genetic change. However, the US Beef Industry has continued to make components of EPD, including adjusted phenotypes and in some cases rankings based on genomic predictors, available. Publishing EPD components creates an unfavorable environment whereby EPD components are directly compared to EPD by some users, and selection decisions are incorrectly made using both the component and the EPD. A classic example of this is the all too common use of a combination of Calving Ease Direct EPD, Birth Weight EPD, adjusted birth weight of the animal, and perhaps the genomic predictor for calving ease, to make selection decisions when the most effective and correct way to select for calving ease is the exclusive use of the Calving Ease Direct EPD. <br />
<br />
Selection decisions made based on adjusted phenotypes are suboptimal when an EPD for the traits exists; this is because environmental effects also create variation in the phenotypic value. An extension of adjusted phenotypes is contemporary group ratios. These values ignore valuable information which comes from relatives and from genomic information. As a consequence, both adjusted phenotypes and ratios are less accurate predictors of genetic merit than an EPD. <br />
<br />
After nearly a decade of including genomic information into EPD, there still exists a desire by some to isolate the genomic-based prediction from the more traditional EPD, somehow rationalizing this decision believing one can learn more. The entire impetus of genomic prediction is to increase accuracy of genetic predictions and to avoid comparing two genetic predictors for the same trait. Publishing anything other than the complete EPD, that includes all available sources of information (pedigree, performance records, and genomic data), has the potential to decrease the accuracy of selection decisions and erode confidence in the process of genetic prediction. <br />
<br />
With these concerns in mind, the BIF Guidelines Drafting Committee recommends the following two guidelines: <br />
<br />
“When an EPD is available, an adjusted phenotype and ratio should NOT be made available as it suggests validity in comparing EPD and adjusted phenotypes, and ratios and can lead to incorrect selection decisions.”<br />
<br />
"When genomic information is used to produce an EPD, a separate prediction based only the genomic information, or a ranking based on such a prediction, should NOT be made available as it decreases the accuracy of the decisions made when jointly using the genomic predictor and EPDs, and it creates confusion about the value and utility of genomic data."</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Genetic_Evaluation&diff=2188Genetic Evaluation2020-06-05T14:50:36Z<p>Mspangler: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Category:Guidelines]]<br />
Predicting genetic merit for breeding animals is one of the oldest practices that mankind has used to improve food and fiber production. Identifying animals for [[Selection and Mating | selection and mating]] has evolved from visual appraisal to sophisticated analytical models for predicting [[Glossary#A | additive genetic]] merit of animals. Additive genetic merit is the effect of genes that are passed from parent to offspring that can be used to make genetic progress through selection. <br />
<br />
In North America, the standard for identifying genetic merit of breeding animals is [[Expected Progeny Difference | expected progeny differences (EPDs)]].<br />
With very few ''ad hoc'' exceptions, EPDs are produced for North American beef cattle using models based on [[Best Linear Unbiased Prediction]]. Consequently, [[BIF recommends the use of EPD]] when available. <br />
<br />
While not all [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] in all situations and in all North American breed registries have EPDs available, the number of [[Traits | traits and trait components]] that have EPDs has increased dramatically.<br />
Nearly all the major North American beef cattle breed organizations have migrated to weekly genetic evaluations, eliminating the need for [[Expected Progeny Difference#Interim EPDs | interim EPDs]].<br />
<br />
Most of the improvements in the technologies used in genetic evaluation have been motivated by an opportunity to increase [[Accuracy | accuracy of prediction]] and reduce [[Prediction Bias | bias]]. For example, the advent of [[Genotyping | genomic information]] to enhance the [[Accuracy | accuracy]] of prediction has resulted in EPDs for most traits being produced using either [[Single-step Genomic BLUP]] or [[Single-step Hybrid Marker Effects Models]]. The BIF has developed an extensive set of recommendations for the inclusion of [[Genomic Evaluation Guidelines | genomic data in genetic evaluations]].<br />
<br />
In commercial cattle production, EPDs for [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] should be combined with appropriate selection tools such as [[Selection Index | selection indices]] to make optimal genetic progress toward achieving [[Breeding Objectives | breeding objectives]]. It must be remembered that EPDs are just tools to make selection decisions to make genetic progress and manage certain genetic risks.<br />
<br />
In some special situations in seedstock production breeders may need to make selection decisions using EPDs that are not [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] in commercial settings in order to enhance the marketability of their breed or breeding animals. For example, if a breed has a perceived defect that is limiting that breed organizations' members from expanding their market for selling germplasm, then selection to improve that characteristic should be included in the seedstock breeder's [[Breeding Objectives | breeding objectives]].<br />
<br />
Critical to genetic evaluation is having high-quality estimates of [[Variance Components | variance components]]. Knowing the heritabilities and correlations of the traits and performing [[Multiple Trait Evaluation | Multiple-Trait Evaluation]] enhances the accuracy of prediction and reduces [[Prediction Bias | bias]] from effects such as incomplete reporting. Equally critical is understanding the [[Connectedness | connectedness]] of the data in a particular data set. Disconnected data can lead to invalid comparisons.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Embryo_Transfer_(ET):_Data_Collection_And_Utilization&diff=2162Embryo Transfer (ET): Data Collection And Utilization2020-06-01T13:59:20Z<p>Mspangler: /* Recomendations */</p>
<hr />
<div><center><br />
'''<big>THIS PAGE CONTAINS A DRAFT OF INFORMATION BEING EVALUATED FOR INCLUSION AS AN OFFICIAL GUIDELINE</big>'''<br><br />
Please do not cite this page until this message has been removed.<br />
<br />
'''UNDER CONSTRUCTION'''<br />
</center><br />
Care should be taken when using observations in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluations]] from animals resulting from embryo transfer (ET) to ensure that sufficient knowledge about the recipient females is available and any potential preferential treatment is identified. Seedstock animals resulting from ET are potentially influential and reflect additional investment to achieve genetic progress. Therefore, maximizing the [[Accuracy | accuracy of genetic predictions]] early in the animals' lives by using the animals' own observations has increased importance. But for maternally influenced traits such as [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]] knowledge of the recipients' breed composition, age, and other factors must be considered. Because of the increased investment, breeders are motivated to provide preferential treatment that must be accounted for. Additionally, genetic evaluation of [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] and [[Calving Difficulty | calving difficulty]] requires special considerations because of the potential influences of alternative ET technologies.<br />
<br />
==Recipient dam considerations==<br />
Effects on the phenotype due to the dam of the animal are present in traits measured up to weaning, but generally not seen on phenotypes measured post-weaning. These include both genetic and non-genetic effects. For animals produced using ET these maternal influences are due to the recipient dam, and not the embryo donor dam. Therefore, information on the recipient dam for these maternally influenced traits is necessary to reliably include the observations in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]]. Both [[Age of Dam | age of the recipient dam]] and its breed composition will affect maternally influenced traits - i.e. [[Weaning Weight | weaning weight]]. <br />
<br />
Ideally, pedigree information on the recipient would be important to include but is not always available, as recipients are often [[Data Collection for Commercial Producers | commercial females]]. Some organizations producing genetic evaluations will not use observations resulting from non-registered recipient females. Other organizations will use these observations when age and breed composition of the recipient are known.<br />
<br />
===Recipients in genetic evaluation===<br />
Methods for modelling the effects of recipient dams are in the literature<ref>Schaeffer, L. and Kennedy, B. 1989. Effects of embryo transfer in beef cattle on genetic evaluation methodology. Journal of Animal Science 67:2536-2543.</ref><ref>Van Vleck, L. D. 1990. Alternative animal models with maternal effects and foster dams. Journal of Animal Science 68:4026-4038.</ref><ref>Suárez MJ, Munilla S, Cantet RJ. 2015. Accounting for unknown foster dams in the genetic evaluation of embryo transfer progeny. J Anim Breed Genet. 2015;132(1):21‐29. doi:10.1111/jbg.12121.</ref> and can be easily incorporated in [[Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluations]] if sufficient information about the recipient dams is available.<br />
<br />
==Birth Weight==<br />
Researchers have reported effects of alternative embryo transfer technologies on [[Birth Weight | birth weight]].<ref>Behboodi, E., G.B. Anderson, R.H. BonDurant, S.L. Cargill, B.R. Kreuscher, J.F. Medrano and J.D. Murray. 1995. Birth of large calves that developed from in vitro-derived bovine embryos. Theriogenology v44 p227-232.</ref><ref>Numabe T., Oikawa T., Kikuchi T. and Horiuchi T. 2000. Birth weight and birth rate of heavy calves conceived by transfer of in vitro or in vivo produced bovine embryos. Animal Reproduction Science, 64 (1-2), pp. 13-20.</ref><ref>H. Jacobsen, M. Schmidt, P. Holm, P.T. Sangild, G. Vajta, T. Greve, H. Callesen. 2000. Body dimensions and birth and organ weights of calves derived from in vitro produced embryos cultured with or without serum and oviduct epithelium cells. Theriogenology, v53, Issue 9 p1761-1769. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(00)00312-5.</ref><ref>Luiz Sergio Almeida Camargo, Celio Freitas, Wanderlei Ferreira de Sa, Ademir de Moraes Ferreira, Raquel Varela Serapiao, João Henrique Moreira Viana. 2010. Gestation length, birth weight and offspring gender ratio of in vitro-produced Gyr (Bos indicus) cattle embryos/ Animal Reproduction Science. Volume 120, Issues 1–4, p10-15. ISSN 0378-4320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2010.02.013.</ref> Literature indicates that birth weight can vary according to whether the embryo was produced using in vivo or in vitro (IVF) fertilization, the type of medium used, and incubation process (e.g., oxygen tension). In one study the calves produced using IVF were 10% heavier than calves born from artificial insemination.<ref>A.M van Wagtendonk-de Leeuw, B.J.G Aerts, J.H.G den Daas. 1995. Abnormal offspring following in vitro production of bovine preimplantation embryos: A field study. Theriogenology. Volume 49, Issue 5, p883-894. ISSN 0093-691X.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(98)00038-7.</ref>. In another report, relatively small differences in the length of the incubation period had a significant impact on birth weight of calves.<ref>Yong-Soo Park, So-Seob Kim, Jae-Myeoung Kim, Hum-Dai Park, Myung-Dae Byun. 2005. The effects of duration of in vitro maturation of bovine oocytes on subsequent development, quality, and transfer of embryos. Theriogenology. Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 123-134. ISSN 0093-691X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2004.11.012.</ref> Additionally, the oxygen concentration during incubation can affect birth weight.<ref>Iwata H, Minami N, Imai H. Postnatal weight of calves derived from in vitro matured and in vitro fertilized embryos developed under various oxygen concentrations. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2000;12(7-8):391‐396. doi:10.1071/rd00057</ref>.<br />
<br />
Not all organizations producing embryos for implantation use the same technologies. In an ideal world, capturing data on these variables would permit the utilization of birth weight data for genetic evaluation. However, collecting and recording these data is likely infeasible to reliably allow the use of birth weight and calving difficulty observations from ET calves. The literature also indicates that these effects have not been detected in traits measured later in life. The literature contains mixed reports of the impact of alternative embryo technologies on [[Gestation Length | gestation length]].<br />
<br />
== Recomendations ==<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from ET for traits that do not have maternal effects be used in genetic evaluations as long as any preferential treatment, if given, is accounted for by assigning an appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary group]].'' <br />
<br />
''BIF recommends that observations from animals resulting from ET for traits that have maternal effects be used in genetic evaluations as long as the recipient dams' ages, and breed composition are available, and any preferential treatment, if given, [[Contemporary Groups | is accounted for]].''<br />
<br />
'' BIF recommends to not use [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] and [[Calving Difficulty | calving difficulty]] observations from animals resulting from ET''<br />
<br />
==Citations==</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Marbling_score&diff=1922Marbling score2019-12-22T03:29:05Z<p>Mspangler: </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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><br />
<br />
<!-- Describe ways the phenotype is collected <br />
E.g., for birth weight discuss digital scale, mechanical scale, hoof tape, etc.<br />
--><br />
Marbling, the flecks of fat in the lean, is the primary factor determining quality grade after maturity has been determined. Marbling is evaluated either visually or using cameras in the ribeye muscle, which is exposed between the 12th and 13th ribs.<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 />
Marbling score is then reported on an age-constant basis<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should ideally be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
Marbling score is generally included in a multiple-trait model along with its ultrasound indicator and other carcass-fat-related traits (e.g., back fat and ultrasound back fat). An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Only direct genetic effects are fitted.<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 />
Although producers are paid for improved quality grade, marbling score is generally considered an economically relevant trait. Producers can use marbling score EPD to improve the quality grade of fed cattle. Ideally this would be done through the use of a more comprehensive economic selection index that takes into account other revenue traits as well as traits related to the cost of production.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Ultrasound_rump_fat&diff=1872Ultrasound rump fat2019-12-14T03:20:31Z<p>Mspangler: /* Genetic Evaluation */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
Rump fat thickness is a fat depot that is highly related to 12th-13th rib backfat thickness. To collect this image, the ultrasound transducer should be placed directly between the hooks and pins without a standoff guide. Ultrasound technicians and image processing labs should be certified or accredited by the Ultrasound Guidelines Council.<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 />
<br />
===Contempory Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><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 />
This trait is not currently used in genetic evaluations.<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 />
--></div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Ribeye_Area&diff=1871Ribeye Area2019-12-12T16:09:52Z<p>Mspangler: /* Contemporary Group */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
Ribeye area is an indicator of muscling. The longissimus or ribeye muscle is measured at the 12th rib by using a grid or a ribeye tracing that is measured with a compensating polar planimeter or image-analysis system.<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 />
<br />
Ribeye area is adjusted to an age-constant basis.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary test group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should ideally be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
<br />
Ribeye area is generally included in a multiple-trait model with traits such as ultrasound ribeye area and carcass weight. An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Direct effects only are fitted.<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 />
Ribeye area contributes to the yield grade equation, but to a lesser degree than does back fat thickness. It is not an economically relevant trait but is an indicator of muscle and an indicator of the economically relevant trait which is yield grade.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Hot_Carcass_Weight&diff=1870Hot Carcass Weight2019-12-12T16:09:01Z<p>Mspangler: /* Contemporary Group */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
<br />
The weight of the carcass as it leaves the slaughter floor measured by a digital scale.<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 />
<br />
Hot carcass weight is adjusted to an age constant.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should ideally be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
<br />
Carcass weight is generally included in a multiple-trait model with other carcass traits such as ribeye area (carcass and ultrasound). An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Only direct genetic effects are fitted.<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 />
Hot carcass weight is an economically relevant trait given it represents a direct source of revenue, particularly for those producers that retain ownership of fed cattle and sell the animals on a carcass basis.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Back_Fat_Thickness&diff=1869Back Fat Thickness2019-12-12T16:08:23Z<p>Mspangler: /* Contemporary Group */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
Back fat is an estimate of external fat, which is the most important factor in determining retail yield. It is measured at the 12th rib, perpendicular to the outside fat at a point three-fourths of the length of the ribeye muscle from the backbone. As external fat increases, the percentage of retail product decreases.<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 />
This measurement is often subjectively adjusted at the time of data collection to reflect unusual fat distribution of the carcass. The adjusted back fat thickness is then reported on an age-constant basis.<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should ideally be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
Back fat thickness is generally included in a multiple-trait model along with its ultrasound indicator and other carcass-fat-related traits (e.g., marbling and ultrasound percentage of intramuscular fat). An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Only direct genetic effects are fitted.<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 />
Back fat thickness is the primary driver of yield grade, the actual economically relevant trait. If EPD for both fat thickness and yield grade exist, the yield grade EPD should be used.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Marbling_score&diff=1868Marbling score2019-12-12T16:07:40Z<p>Mspangler: /* Contemporary Group */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
Marbling, the flecks of fat in the lean, is the primary factor determining quality grade after maturity has been determined. Marbling is evaluated either visually or using cameras in the ribeye muscle, which is exposed between the 12th and 13th ribs.<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 />
Marbling score is then reported on an age-constant basis<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should ideally be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
Marbling score is generally included in a multiple-trait model along with its ultrasound indicator and other carcass-fat-related traits (e.g., back fat and ultrasound back fat). An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Only direct genetic effects are fitted.<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 />
Although producers are paid for improved quality grade, marbling score is generally considered an economically relevant trait. Producers can use marbling score EPD to improve the quality grade of fed cattle. Ideally this would be done through the use of a more comprehensive economic selection index that takes into account other revenue traits as well as traits related to the cost of production.</div>Mspanglerhttp://guidelines.beefimprovement.org/index.php?title=Marbling_score&diff=1867Marbling score2019-12-12T16:05:41Z<p>Mspangler: /* Usage */</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 />
<br />
<!-- <br />
Place brief trait definition/description here <br />
--><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 />
Marbling, the flecks of fat in the lean, is the primary factor determining quality grade after maturity has been determined. Marbling is evaluated either visually or using cameras in the ribeye muscle, which is exposed between the 12th and 13th ribs.<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 />
Marbling score is then reported on an age-constant basis<br />
<br />
===Contemporary Group===<br />
<!-- Discuss how contemporary groups are formed --><br />
A contemporary test group is a set of cattle of the same sex that have been raised together and have received equal treatment up to the point of slaughter. All progeny within a contemporary group should be born within a 90-day period, and male calves must be castrated prior to 150 days of age. A contemporary group up to the time of weaning will be subdivided if some cattle go on feed as calves and others are started on feed as yearlings, and if the cattle are then split into two or more slaughter groups. Birth date, identification of sire and dam, breed of dam (or breed proportions in crossbred dams) should be recorded for all individuals.<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 />
Marbling score is generally included in a multiple-trait model along with its ultrasound indicator and other carcass-fat-related traits (e.g., back fat and ultrasound back fat). An early growth trait (e.g., birth or weaning weight) may also be included to account for sequential culling if the genetic covariance is sufficient. Only direct genetic effects are fitted.<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 />
Although producers are paid for improved quality grade, marbling score is generally considered an economically relevant trait. Producers can use marbling score EPD to improve the quality grade of fed cattle. Ideally this would be done through the use of a more comprehensive economic selection index that takes into account other revenue traits as well as traits related to the cost of production.</div>Mspangler