|
|
| (143 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant traits and their indicator traits, accurate identification of animals, parents, [[contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. | | #REDIRECT [[:Category:Data Collection]] |
| | At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality data quality] is critical, the quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for [[Economically Relevant Traits | economically relevant traits]] and their [[Indicator_Traits | indicators]], accurate [[Identification Systems | identification of animals]], parents, [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary groups]], and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. (Go [[Traits | here for a list of traits and their definitions)]]. |
| | =Collection of data to enter genetic evaluation= |
| | At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high-quality data. Data quality can be impacted by [https://www.precisely.com/blog/data-quality/data-quality-dimensions-measure several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Using consistent procedures for collecting, recording, manipulating and [[Data_Processing | processing data]] at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data. |
|
| |
|
| Data quality can be impacted by [https://smartbridge.com/data-done-right-6-dimensions-of-data-quality-part-1/ several clearly identified factors]. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Collecting, recording, manipulating and processing data using consistent procedures at both the farm and association levels is essential to maintaining quality data.
| | In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal, an effective [[Identification Systems | beef cattle identification system]] is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including [[Genomic Data | genomic information.]] Because the number of animals processed in [[:Category:Genetic Evaluation | genetic evaluation]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier. |
|
| |
|
| In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal an effective [[beef cattle identification system]] is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data. Because of the number of animals processed in [[National Cattle Evaluations programs (NCE)]] is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. [[Standards for ear tagging]] and on-farm electronic identification have also been implemented. In addition, recording of animal identification is closely associated with the collection of [[genomic information.]]
| | Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based [[Whole Herd Reporting]] (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, [[Whole_Herd_Reporting | whole herd reporting]] is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | Data recording on individual cows]] is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. [[Weaning_Weight | weaning weight]]). The [[Whole Herd Reporting#Performance recording requirements | female production data]] to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with. |
| =Beef Cattle Identification Systems=
| |
| <span style="color:red">NOTE: THIS SECTION IS OUTDATED AND SHOULD BE WRITTEN FOR INTERNATIONAL ID STANDARDS</span>
| |
|
| |
|
| Unique identification (ID) of cattle within the nation's beef herd is required for accurate genetic evaluation and subsequent improvement by selection. In [[Appendix 2.1]], a uniform coding system for identifying bull semen is described, and in [[Appendix 2.2]], an international system assigning letters to calf birth years is presented. Both were developed by the National Association of Animal Breeders.
| | Regardless of whether using an [[Whole Herd Reporting | inventory-based reporting system]] or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on [[Whole_Herd_Reporting#Performance_record_requirements | calves, bulls, heifers, mature cows]], or fed cattle (including [[Required_Carcass_Data_Collection_for_Use_in_Genetic_Evaluations| carcass data]]) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for [[Traits | novel traits]], where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate [[Contemporary Groups | contemporary grouping]] information to ensure that the data are appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied performance recording software helps to improve the consistency of data collection and reporting. Producers are encouraged to contact their breed associations to obtain recommendations on what software may be compatible with their systems. |
|
| |
|
| Two key elements in an identification system are 1) a premises ID to uniquely identify an operation or producer and 2) an individual identification for each animal on a premises.
| | [[Data Collection for Commercial Producers | Data collected by commercial cattle producers]] are, in most cases, substantially different than data collection requirements for seedstock producers. |
| | |
| Historically, a premises ID has been used to identify the participating rancher. This is commonly a member code that is assigned by a breed association in order that the member may conduct business with the association. A premises ID could further be used to identify location, management group, and contemporary group information.
| |
| | |
| The identification of individual animals within a particular ranch has several benefits. In seedstock production, the documentation of identity matched to a unique registration number that is tied to a pedigree is an essential component of merchandising. Individual animal identification also is essential to ownership issues and effective management and documentation of data for performance recording and evaluation.
| |
| Individual ID on a registered animal is currently handled by utilizing a unique registration number assigned by a breed association, tied to a within-herd ID number administered by the breeder. Traditionally, the within-herd number is a permanent number attached to the animal in the form of a tattoo or a brand. These numbers (tattoos or brands) may be unique to that ranch of origin, but duplicates may occur from operation to operation. Though not a foolproof system, when tied with other tools such as blood typing and DNA analysis, breeders have confidence in this identification method.
| |
| | |
| Technological advances will allow for new methods of identifying animals, especially as hardware cost decreases and infrastructure is developed. Radio frequency devices (e.g., tags and implants), biometric identification (e.g., retinal imaging), and DNA technologies all are receiving increased interest as a significant segment of identification programs. These technologies will allow for an efficient interface with electronic data transfer.
| |
| | |
| Today, a tremendous amount of interest is developing in a national identification system for all beef cattle. Basically all that is needed is to utilize the unique animal number recorded in an identified production unit. This would be a useful resource in issues including animal health and disease surveillance programs, building consumer confidence in food safety, enhancing international trade, increasing the efficiency of performance recording and national cattle evaluation, and finally for process and source verification associated with premium branded programs, alliances, and cooperatives. In the future, individual animal identification at the ranch of origin may become a necessary element of market accessibility for the commercial beef cattle producer.
| |
| | |
| BIF encourages data exchange and interfacing among data management and software companies. However, this raises many issues concerning the ownership and rights to use of the data. Reasonable data security is necessary and should be guaranteed before data are entered into a system. Written rules governing the sharing and transfer of information from one party to another should be agreed upon in advance between owners and others interested in the genetic improvement of beef cattle.
| |
| | |
| =Whole Herd Reporting=
| |
| Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory based Whole Herd Reporting (WHR) requires collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd.
| |
| | |
| The objective of WHR is to accumulate reproductive and performance data on all animals in a breed. It does not, however, seek to control which animals will be registered. That remains a decision of individual breeders. With WHR, performance records (or disposal codes) are required on all calves produced by each breeder, but whether any or all of those calves receive registration papers is the breeder’s decision.
| |
| | |
| The following procedures and definitions are recommended for an efficient and effective inventory based Whole Herd Reporting system,
| |
| | |
| == Heifer exposure inventory ==
| |
| To collect reproductive data on potential replacement heifers, a yearling heifer exposure inventory must be produced. This inventory would typically be sent in May for spring born heifers and in November for fall born heifers. On the inventory, producers should indicate breeding season start and end dates, individual exposure status, management group, and disposal information. Differences among management groups in post-yearling feeding, management, or mating practices should be recorded.
| |
| | |
| ==Breeding herd inventory==
| |
| An annual inventory will be sent from the breed association to the breeder in December or early January for spring calving herds (January 1st – June 30th) and in June for fall calving herds (July 1st – December 31st). Breeders will identify those animals to be removed from inventory, add new animals of breeding age not found on the inventory report (e.g., new purchases), and return the completed inventory report to the breed association national office. These inventories will list all animals the breeder will be collecting production data on for the next 12 months.
| |
| | |
| The two-inventory system described above is recommended over single inventory systems that encompass both calving seasons. To identify which cattle will be expected to calve in the coming year, the two-inventory times, spring and fall, allow breeding inventories to be determined when cows are at the same relative stage of production – regardless of calving season. The inventory times, December to early January for spring calving and June for fall calving, are desirable because they follow weaning and pregnancy testing but precede the peak of the calving season. This allows both reproduction and production to be tracked in a uniform manner.
| |
| | |
| Breeders must complete and report herd inventories to the association on a set schedule. The objective is to record performance data from the entire herd. Therefore, the fee assessment structure must encourage complete and unbiased reporting of data. Charging assessment fees and/or penalties for non-reporting of data may differ from one association to the next. With inventory based WHR, consideration should be given to an inventory-based fee assessment system because: 1) it removes all financial disincentives to submitting complete production and performance data; 2) it encourages producers to maintain an accurate active inventory; and 3) it promotes the registration and transfer of seedstock destined for use in commercial production.
| |
| | |
| ==Performance record requirements==
| |
| During each 12-month period, one of the following must be recorded for each cow on inventory:
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| A calf record, including a disposal code for calves that die before weaning.
| |
| | |
| A disposal code for the cow.
| |
| | |
| A reason code for the cow's failure to produce a calf (e.g., open, embryo transfer program, moved to the next calving season).
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
| ==No progeny report==
| |
| Prior to inactivation, breed associations should send producers a "no progeny" report listing all cows that have not met reporting requirements. This would allow the producer to complete reporting on any cattle that might have been missed.
| |
| | |
| ==Sample annual schedule for Whole Herd Reporting==
| |
| <pre>
| |
| Spring calving Description Fall calving
| |
| ******************************************************************************
| |
| Dec. or Jan. 1 Association sends out preliminary June 1
| |
| herd inventory.
| |
| | |
| February Member returns the inventory to the July
| |
| Association with all changes.
| |
| | |
| March 15 Association sends “No Progeny Report” on August 15
| |
| females missing WHR requirements.
| |
| | |
| April 15 “No Progeny Report” due back to Association. September 15
| |
| | |
| May Association runs inactivation program. October
| |
| | |
| July Association bills for annual WHR December
| |
| assessments based on herd inventory.
| |
| | |
| May 15 Association sends preliminary inventory November 15
| |
| for heifer exposure information.
| |
| | |
| August 1 Association sends pre-listed weaning March 1
| |
| worksheets.
| |
| | |
| August 15 Member returns heifer exposure inventory February 15
| |
| with all exposure and disposal information.
| |
| | |
| November WHR assessment must be paid in full. May
| |
| ******************************************************************************
| |
| </pre>
| |
| ==Data to be recorded on individual cows==
| |
| Breeding dates. Record dates of artificial insemination services or of observed natural matings. For pasture matings, record natural service exposure dates (start and end of breeding season).
| |
| | |
| Pregnancy status. Prior to determining a breeding herd inventory for the coming year, cows should be pregnancy tested by trained personnel.
| |
| | |
| Calving date. Each calf’s birth date is also its dam’s date of calving. As a trait of the cow, this date may be used to calculate gestation length, days to rebreeding, and calving interval.
| |
| | |
| Calving difficulty or ease. Record with the following scores:
| |
| | |
| 1 – No difficulty, no assistance
| |
| 2 – Minor difficulty, some assistance
| |
| 3 – Major difficulty, usually mechanical assistance
| |
| 4 – Caesarian section or other surgery
| |
| 5 – Abnormal presentation
| |
| | |
| From these data, expected progeny differences for calving ease-direct and calving ease-maternal can be calculated. Scores of 5 should be excluded from such evaluations, because abnormal presentations do not appear to be heritable either as a trait of the calf or of the dam.
| |
| | |
| Disposal codes: Birth to weaning.
| |
| | |
| 1 – Stillborn/full term
| |
| 2 – Died at birth - defect
| |
| 3 – Died at birth - other
| |
| 4 – Born alive, died before weaning - disease
| |
| 5 – Born alive, died before weaning - other
| |
| | |
| Disposal codes: Weaning to two years of age.
| |
| | |
| 10 – Died after weaning – disease
| |
| 11 – Died after weaning – other
| |
| 12 – Culled – feet and legs
| |
| 13 – Culled – performance
| |
| 14 – Culled – temperament
| |
| 15 – Sold exposed – open
| |
| 16 – Sold exposed – pregnant
| |
| | |
| Disposal codes: Mature cows and bulls.
| |
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While data quality is critical, the quantity of data collected can sometimes overcome the limitations on data quality that inherently occur in farm and ranch operations. Along with weights and scores for economically relevant traits and their indicators, accurate identification of animals, parents, contemporary groups, and other important details (e.g., age) are essential. (Go here for a list of traits and their definitions).
Collection of data to enter genetic evaluation
At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of high-quality data. Data quality can be impacted by several clearly identified factors. While completeness, timeliness, accuracy, and conformity are all essential, consistency is often the least understood and most overlooked consideration for quality data. Using consistent procedures for collecting, recording, manipulating and processing data at both the farm and association levels is the most important aspect to maintaining quality data.
In order to keep all data collected associated with an individual animal, an effective beef cattle identification system is essential. Standards have been developed for identification methods that ensure unique and accurate identification of animals during the transmission and processing of data, including genomic information. Because the number of animals processed in genetic evaluation is routinely in the millions, it is not practical to routinely use registration number information for on-farm data collection. Ear tagging and on-farm electronic identification are often implemented in place of using a full registration identifier.
Historically, many beef breed genetic evaluations were based on progeny weaned and/or registered and did not require that data be recorded from females that failed to reproduce or whose progeny were not registered. By contrast, inventory-based Whole Herd Reporting (WHR) requires the collection of annual production and performance records on all cattle within a herd. Where possible, whole herd reporting is recommended to capture the greatest amount of complete cowherd information. Data recording on individual cows is essential for the prediction of female fertility. Cow fertility is often the most important determinant of profitability in the beef herd. Additionally, accurate and complete cow data are essential for the prediction of traits with a maternal influence (e.g. weaning weight). The female production data to be recorded on each cow must be standardized because it is often the most complex data that a producer deals with.
Regardless of whether using an inventory-based reporting system or not, accurate phenotypic data collection is vital to genetic evaluation. Collection of complete and accurate data on calves, bulls, heifers, mature cows, or fed cattle (including carcass data) is critical to making genetic improvement. Producers may also be interested in working with their breed associations to provide data for novel traits, where EPDs may be under development. When reporting these data, it is also vital to include appropriate contemporary grouping information to ensure that the data are appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied performance recording software helps to improve the consistency of data collection and reporting. Producers are encouraged to contact their breed associations to obtain recommendations on what software may be compatible with their systems.
Data collected by commercial cattle producers are, in most cases, substantially different than data collection requirements for seedstock producers.
