Data Collection

Data Collection for Seedstock Producers

At the core of genetic improvement is the collection of data. While 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 indicators, accurate identification of animals, parents, contemporary groups, and other important details (e.g., age) are essential.

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. Collecting, recording, manipulating and processing data using consistent procedures 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 is appropriately incorporated into the evaluation. Using consistent methods for taking animals' weights, measures, and scores is key to accurate data. Additionally, using a commercial or breed association supplied performance recording software helps to improve the consistency of data collection and reporting. Producers are encouraged to contact their breed associations to obtain recommendations on what software may be compatible with their systems.

Data Collection for Commercial Producers

Genetic awareness within the commercial beef sector has been a much-discussed topic and an ongoing challenge to make a pervasive reality. Ideally, commercial producers would both see the rationale behind serious collection of phenotypes and genotypes and have the resources to capture them. However, the practicality of the matter may be very different. Given the limited time and dollars available within commercial environments, the expense of collecting records needs to be offset with a ready manner in which to use and profit from the data.

Clearly, commercial producers hold the keys to obtaining genetic knowledge on certain hard-to-collect traits such as cow longevity and feedlot/carcass data. While many progressive seedstock producers prioritize these data points, in many seedstock operations cows turn over quickly in the pursuit of genetic progress and a high percentage of male calves are destined for a bull battery and not meat production. Thus, commercial producers have access to insight that seedstock breeders may not have the ability to collect, and these data have immense value in genetic prediction.

However, the lack of ability to capture much value from these data is not necessarily appealing to the bottom-line focus of the commercial audience unless the demand for data can be turned into tangible actions and subsequent dollars for the commercial operation. There are two primary pivot points that will decide the uptake of serious genetic efforts in the commercial sector:

• The production of and demand for slaughter cattle with more predictable profit potential, whether that takes the form of retained ownership or the marketing of value-added feeder calves.
• The retention of females that provide meaningful and reliable predictability of long term cow performance.

BIF and like-minded organizations need to continue to engage and relay information to those entities involved in the marketing of feeder cattle, cattle feeding, the harvesting of terminal cattle, and the promotion and sale of beef products if we are to significantly grow the appetite for serious genetic awareness of these traits in the commercial sector. BIF and like-minded organizations should also continue to advocate for whole life cycle indexes that reflect a holistic view of the impact that a given female has on the bottom-line of an operation.

Commercial producers recognize these fundamental ingredients of a herd improvement program:

• A controlled breeding and calving season or seasons
• Adoption of a mating system that uses heterosis
• Selection and use of superior sires for traits economically relevant to the system
• Selection of replacement females
• Culling of the cow herd based on economically relevant criteria

For those commercial producers who seek to add genetic awareness to their decision-making process, there are multiple approaches available. The different approaches come with varying levels of ease, time commitment, expense, and with different levels of genetic insight.

Approach A: Bull knowledge alone

Purchase bulls from trusted seedstock providers and use that as a proxy for herd knowledge. In this scenario, commercial producers are taking advantage of the genetic credibility provided by their seedstock supplier. No further steps are taken by the commercial operation to refine the genetic awareness of their herd.

Pros

• Easy - no added effort after bull purchase
• No added expense after bull purchase
• No added time or labor to capture phenotypes or genotypes
• Allows access to most feeder calf verification programs (e.g. Angus Link, IGS Feeder Profit Calculator, Top Dollar Angus)

Cons

• Provides little to no understanding of genetic differences within the herd
• Doesn’t advance the ability to differentiate females based on their own genetic merit
• Provides the least genetic insight of the approaches discussed
• Provides the poorest opportunity for genetic advancement of the approaches discussed

Approach B: Bull knowledge and commercial DNA tests

In addition to the knowledge acquired with bull purchases, this option also incorporates commercially-available genomic tests (e.g. Igenity and Zoetis) that give a rudimentary genetic view that allows in-herd comparisons. These tests range in price, efficacy, and appropriateness for various breed types or breed compositions.

Pros

• Easy - typically requires only a blood or tissue capture chute side. The sample is sent to a commercial lab and results returned on a simplified scale.
• Expense for these tests varies, but are largely moderately priced and continue to become more cost-effective with time. Return on the investment for this information should be rigorously considered.
• Provides information to make heifer retention decisions. It can be used on terminal calves, but that is usually price prohibitive. In lieu of sampling terminal calves, samples taken on replacement heifer prospects are usually viewed as a proxy for the terminal calves.

Cons

• Does not take into account the genetic awareness derived from pedigree and performance knowledge
• Is better served as an in-herd comparison than an industry-wide comparison
• Moderate expense
• Moderate knowledge

BIF’s own guiding policy makes clear the limitations of this approach: “BIF believes that information from DNA tests only has value in selection when incorporated with all other available forms of performance information for economically important traits in NCE, and when communicated in the form of an EPD with corresponding BIF accuracy. For some economically-important traits, information other than DNA tests may not be available. Selection tools based on these tests should still be expressed as EPD within the normal parameters of NCE.”

Approach C: Structured genetic evaluation using pedigrees and phenotypes/performance only

This approach (and approach D) require a more significant commitment to data collection. A structured approach to capture and report identified phenotypes at regularly scheduled intervals is essential to gaining meaningful results. This approach opens the door for serious knowledge, but also requires significant homework to identify the genetic evaluation system that meets the needs and expectations of the operation.

Pros

• Significant genetic awareness - on par with seedstock operators
• EPDs and Indexes can be generated across all females or an entire operation
• EPDs and Indexes allow for advanced heifer selection, mating, and terminal decisions
• Cost can be low when viewed on a per-cow basis through some genetic evaluation providers
• Robust software, system support, and technical assistance available through some genetic evaluation providers

Cons

• Greater time and labor commitment for data capture and reporting
• Greater learning curve to understand the reporting software
• Cost can be variable (and thus fairly expensive in some cases) depending upon the provider

Upon first glance, the demands of data reporting through a structured genetic evaluation are foreign to many commercial clients. However, many thorough and progressive operations are already capturing a large portion of the information needed - and often more. Seedstock operators should encourage their elite customers to consider this step. It empowers their customers and also provides an avenue to get more information regarding the seedstock providers' genetics into a genetic evaluation. All parties benefit from enhanced data collection, in particular on hard-to-capture phenotypes. The commercial customer gains more insight into their own ranch and thus is better equipped to determine the next step in their genetic purchases. This holds the seedstock operation more accountable for continuing to improve if they are to service that customer. In turn, the seedstock operator has greater knowledge of, via data and genetic tools, how to consult and guide the commercial operation to take advantage of genetic advancement and heterosis.

Approach D: Structured genetic evaluation using pedigrees, phenotypes, and genomics

This approach adds genomics to a structured genetic evaluation. As such, it becomes the pinnacle of thorough genetic awareness. Of course, that brings with it the greatest demand of time and dollars. However, this approach allows a committed commercial operation to ultimately attain the same level of genetic awareness of the most elite seedstock programs in the business. This approach isn’t for every commercial program, but where appropriate adds a unique level of knowledge and informed decision making not possible with the other approaches.

Pros

• Greatest amount of genetic knowledge. With time can attain a similar level of genetic awareness of elite seedstock programs.
• Provides powerful genetic insight for all facets of the operation

Cons

• Most expensive approach. This is still quite varied depending upon the genetic evaluation provider and the relationship with the genotyping lab. These costs will range from moderate to high.
• Largest commitment of time and labor for data capture and reporting
• Learning curve for reporting software