Enhanced comment feature has been enabled for all readers including those not logged in. Click on the Discussion tab (top left) to add or reply to discussions.
Hoof Tape: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Obtaining an accurate measure of [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful [[Calving | Obtaining an accurate measure of [[Birth Weight | birth weight]] using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful [[Calving Difficulty | calving difficulty]] EPDs. However, it is not always feasible to obtain birth weights this way. Digital scales for measuring calf birth weights can cost thousands of dollars. Even with good mechanical scales, trying to catch a calf when the mother is being protective, and lifting that calf is a challenge for many producers and their ranch hands. There are reports of producers estimating the calf weights using visual inspection and this can be seen in many breed association birth weight datasets. | ||
A widely used alternative to weighing or estimating birth weight is the calf hoof tape method. A google search reveals that there are many vendors of calf hoof tape devices. They are relatively low cost and simple to use. Many large breeders have indicated that they use hoof tapes. Large contemporary groups of calves are especially challenging and obtaining an observation on all animals is not always feasible, especially in spring calving herds in the northern states and Canada. While it has been shown that the variance of hoof tape estimated birth weights is substantially smaller than actual birth weights<ref>Ko, J. C. H. and Ruble, M. V. 1990. Using maternal pelvis size and fetal hoof circumference to predict calving difficulty in beef cattle. Vet. Med. 85: 1030–1036. </ref><ref>LaShell, B. A., D.R Selzer, Rowley, B. Ackley and D. D. Zalesky. 2001.The Comparison of Actual | A widely used alternative to weighing or estimating birth weight is the calf hoof tape method. A google search reveals that there are many vendors of calf hoof tape devices. They are relatively low cost and simple to use. Many large breeders have indicated that they use hoof tapes. Large contemporary groups of calves are especially challenging and obtaining an observation on all animals is not always feasible, especially in spring calving herds in the northern states and Canada. While it has been shown that the variance of hoof tape estimated birth weights is substantially smaller than actual birth weights<ref>Ko, J. C. H. and Ruble, M. V. 1990. Using maternal pelvis size and fetal hoof circumference to predict calving difficulty in beef cattle. Vet. Med. 85: 1030–1036. </ref><ref>LaShell, B. A., D.R Selzer, Rowley, B. Ackley and D. D. Zalesky. 2001.The Comparison of Actual | ||
Revision as of 16:59, 1 November 2019
Obtaining an accurate measure of birth weight using a high-quality digital scale is important for producing meaningful calving difficulty EPDs. However, it is not always feasible to obtain birth weights this way. Digital scales for measuring calf birth weights can cost thousands of dollars. Even with good mechanical scales, trying to catch a calf when the mother is being protective, and lifting that calf is a challenge for many producers and their ranch hands. There are reports of producers estimating the calf weights using visual inspection and this can be seen in many breed association birth weight datasets.
A widely used alternative to weighing or estimating birth weight is the calf hoof tape method. A google search reveals that there are many vendors of calf hoof tape devices. They are relatively low cost and simple to use. Many large breeders have indicated that they use hoof tapes. Large contemporary groups of calves are especially challenging and obtaining an observation on all animals is not always feasible, especially in spring calving herds in the northern states and Canada. While it has been shown that the variance of hoof tape estimated birth weights is substantially smaller than actual birth weights[1][2][3][4][5], using a hoof tape may be a pragmatic alternative when obtaining actual birth weights is not feasible, and it should be superior to visual estimates. However, while some studies have shown a favorable relationship between birth weight and hoof tape measures, at least one study has shown a poor relationship[6].
The correlation to actual birth weight can be high. While it is possible to model hoof tape observations as a separate but correlated trait, as of this writing, no breed associations have required members to indicate if the weights were obtained by hoof tape. However, given the noticeably reduced variance within contemporary group, it is possible to identify many of these groups when they are larger. It is recommended that a heterogeneous variance procedure be implemented in the EPD production where birth weight is modeled.
- ↑ Ko, J. C. H. and Ruble, M. V. 1990. Using maternal pelvis size and fetal hoof circumference to predict calving difficulty in beef cattle. Vet. Med. 85: 1030–1036.
- ↑ LaShell, B. A., D.R Selzer, Rowley, B. Ackley and D. D. Zalesky. 2001.The Comparison of Actual Birth Weights and Hoof Tape Measurements. Colorado State Univ Tech Bulletin.
- ↑ Nugent, R. A., D. R. Notter and W. E. Beal. 1991. Body measurements of newborn calves and relationship of calf shape to sire breeding values for birth weight and calving ease. J. Anim. Sci. 69:241>2421.
- ↑ Parish, J. A., T. Smith, J.R. Parish, T.F. Best, and H.T. Boland. 2009.Evaluation of Four Different Methods of Calf Birth Weight Data Collection. The Professional Animal Scientist v25:6 716-721.
- ↑ Tozer, Peter & L. Scollard, D & Marsh, Thomas & J. Marsh, T. 2002. Recursive systems model of fetal birth weight and calving difficulty in beef heifers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 82. 19-27. 10.4141/A01-028.
- ↑ Pruit, R. J., K. Van Der Wal, and M. Britt. 1995. Evaluation of Hoof Circumference to Predict Birth Weight. South Dakota Beef Report, 1995. 17. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/sd_beefreport_1995/17.
