ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006

1
ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR
2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004
L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff
MARC-ARS-USDA Lincoln and Clay Center, NE
Beef Improvement Federation 38th Annual
Meeting Choctaw, MS April 18-21, 2006
2
MEAN EPDs (Birth Year 2004, Spring 2006
Evaluations)
Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK
Angus 2.3 38.5 71.5 19.0 Hereford 3.7 37.0
63.0 14.0 Red Angus 0.4 29.0 51.0 15.0 Shorth
orn 1.8 13.0 21.0 2.4 S. Devon 0.2 19.1 26.
4 7.1 Brahman 1.8 14.1 23.1 6.1 Limousin 2.1
36.3 68.2 18.3 Simmental 1.8 34.1 59.5 5.4
Charolais 1.3 20.0 35.2 6.2 Gelbvieh 1.9 41
.0 73.0 18.0 Maine Anjou 2.5 39.6 78.2 18.4
Salers 1.1 15.5 25.8 8.7 Tarentaise -1.5 4.0
11.0 1.0 Braunvieh 1.1 7.0 8.0 0.0 Brangus
2.0 22.7 37.8 9.9 Beefmaster 0.4 7.0 12.0 2
.0
(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
3
SIRE BREEDS WITH EPDs IN GERMPLASM EVALUATION
PROGRAM
CYCLE I II III IV V VI VII VIII Breed 70-7
2 73-74 75-76 84-90 92-94 97-98 99-00 01-02
Angus X X X X X X X X Hereford X X X X X X X X Red
Angus X Shorthorn X S.
Devon X Brahman X X Limousin X X Simmental
X X Charolais X X X
Gelbvieh X X X Maine Anjou X Salers X Ta
rentaise X Braunvieh X Brangus X Beefmas
ter X
4
MARC Sires and Progeny by Breed (Wn. Wt.)
Maternal
Grand Sires Progeny Grand Sires
Daughters progeny
Hereford 112 1712 108 714 2890 Angus 106 1315 104
541 2152 Shorthorn 25 170 22 69 251 S.
Devon 15 134 14 69 347 Brahman 40 509 40 216 880 S
immental 47 564 47 239 1129 Limousin 40 533 40 240
1112 Charolais 74 600 68 235 1029 Ma.
Anjou 18 197 17 86 485 Gelbvieh 48 559 46 232 989
Tarentaise 7 191 6 78 341 Salers 27 176 25 89 351
Red Angus 21 199 21 89 330 Braunvieh 7 183 7 92 50
2 Brangus 21 208 19 43 99 Beefmaster 22 215 20 51
113
5
REGRESSION OF PERFORMANCE ON EPDS AT MARC
(LB/LB), (Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
Pooled
over all breeds Observed Expected
Birth weight 1.02 .05 1.00 Wean weight .89
.05 1.00 Yearling weight 1.14
.05 1.00 Maternal weaning weight .57
.04 .50 Milk 1.13 .06 1.00
Data for 2006 analysis for weaning wt included 16
sire breeds, 630 sires, and 7,465 progeny.
6
ESTIMATING AB-EPD FACTORS FOR WEANING WEIGHT(Van
Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
Breed Avg. EPD Adj. Avg. 2004 EPD
(i) AB-EPB Breed solution Breed MARC
Avg. Dev. Dev. Factor (n
sires) MARC (i) 2004 bulls (Mi)a
Angus Angus (Ai)b
Angus (106) 504 38.5 23.5 517 .0 .0 .0 Hereford
(112) 501 37.0 23.5 513 - 4.0 - 1.5 - 2.5 Red
Angus (21) 505 29.0 27.6 506 - 11.1 -
9.5 -1.6 Charolais (74) 527 20.0 8.4 538 20.3 -
18.5 38.8 Limousin (40) 503 36.3 20.8 517 - .4 -
2.2 1.8 Gelbvieh (48) 518 41.0 32.3 52
6 8.7 2.5 6.2 Simmental (47) 526 34.1 23.8 536 1
8.2 - 4.4 22.6
aMi MARC (i) bEPD(i)2004 EPD(i)MARC,
where b 0.89. bAi (Mi MAngus) (EPD(i)2004
EPD (Angus)2004).
7
BREEDS MEANS AND DEVIATIONS FROM ANGUS (SPRING,
2006)
Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK
Angus 85 (0.0) 517 ( 0.0) 903 (
0.0) 0.0 Hereford 89 (4.3) 513 (- 4.0) 879 (-
24.2) - 23.3 Red Angus 86 (1.1) 506
(-11.1) 882 (- 21.3) - 12.1 Shorthorn 91
(6.6) 522 ( 5.1) 897 ( - 5.9) -1.6 S.
Devon 89 (4.0) 521 ( 3.2) 899 ( - 3.8) -
6.6 Brahman 97 (12.0) 529 (11.5) 849 (-
53.6) 13.6 Limousin 89 (3.9) 517 (- 0.4) 878
(- 24.8) - 17.1 Simmental 90 (5.3) 536
(18.2) 912 ( 8.8) - 1.7 Charolais 94
(9.0) 538 (20.3) 920 ( 16.8) -
11.4 Gelbvieh 89 (4.3) 526 ( 8.7) 882 (-
21.1) 3.6 Maine Anjou 91 (6.5) 512 (-
5.1) 866 (- 36.7) - 7.8 Salers 88 (3.0) 523 (
6.0) 899 ( - 3.6) - .1 Tarentaise 87
(2.3) 515 (- 2.8) 854 (- 49.0) 0.6 Braunvieh 8
9 (4.8) 516 (- 1.6) 851 (- 51.6) 5.1 Brangus
89 (4.9) 521 ( 4.1) 890 (- 12.6) -
11.7 Beefmaster 92 (7.3) 524 ( 7.0) 881 (-
22.2) - 24.1
(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
8
MEAN ANNUAL CHANGE FOR GROWTH TRAIT EPDs IN
SEVEN PROMINENT BEEF BREEDS (lb/yr)
Breed (range in yrs) BW WW YW Milk Angus
(1979-2004) .104 1.49 2.84 0.75 Hereford
(1979-2004) .152 0.93 1.90 0.51 Red Angus
(1979-2005) .077 0.93 1.81 0.51 Mean .111 1.12
2.18 0.59 Simmental (1985-2004) -.049 0.53 1.10 -
.07 Gelbvieh (1984-2004)
-0.077 0.24 0.79 0.04 Charolais
(1990-2005) 0.007 0.93 1.70 0.40 Limousin
(1985-2005) 0.053 0.88 1.61 0.26 Mean -.017 0.6
4 1.30 0.16
9
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TO ADD TO EPDs OF SEVENTEEN
BREEDS TO ESTIMATE AB-EPDs (SPRING, 2006)
Breed BWT WNWT YRWT MILK
Angus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hereford 2.9 -2.5 -
15.7 -18.3 Red Angus 3.0 - 1.6 - 0.8 -
8.1 Shorthorn 7.1 30.6 44.6 15.0 S.
Devon 6.1 22.6 41.3 5.3 Brahman 12.5 35.9 -
5.2 26.5 Limousin 4.1 1.8 - 21.5 -16.4 Simmental
5.8 22.6 20.8 11.9 Charolais
10.0 38.8 53.1 1.3 Gelbvieh 4.7 6.2 - 22.6
4.6 Maine Anjou 6.3 -6.2 - 43.4 -
7.2 Salers 4.2 29.0 42.1 11.2 Tarentaise 3.1 31.7
11.5 18.6 Braunvieh 6.0 29.9 11.9 24.1 Brangus 5.
2 19.9 21.1 - 2.6 Beefmaster 9.2 38.5 37.3 - 7.1
(Van Vleck and Cundiff, 2006)
10
Using EPDs and AB-EPDs
BW WW YW MILK
Angus AB - Factors .0 0 0 0 GDAR
EPDs 2.9 43 84 15 Traveler 044 AB-EPDs 2.9 43 84
15 Simmental AB-Factors 5.8 22.6 20.8 11.9 Bla
ck Irish EPDs -1.8 29.7 60.9 1.5 Kansas AB-EPDs 4
.0 52.3 81.7 13.4 TOSU Orlando EPDs 2.4 55.6 94.
9 -.6 F004 AB-EPDs 8.2 78.2 115.7 11.3
11
AB-EPDs

• Within breed EPDs are accurate predictors of
  purebred and crossbred performance.
• AB-EPDs are most useful for selecting bulls of
  two or more breeds for use in crossbreeding.
• Uniformity in AB-EPDs should be emphasized for
  rotational crossing.
• Divergence in AB-EPDs should be emphasized in
  selection of bulls for terminal crossing or
  calving ease in first calf heifers.

12
ConsiderationsforAcross-Breed Factors for
Carcass Traits
Cundiff and Van Vleck
BIF 2006
13
EPDs FOR CARCASS TRAITS BASED ON CARCASS (C),
ULTRASOUND (U), OR COMBINED CU ESTIMATES
Marbling Fat thickness
Ribeye area Breed C U CU C U CU C U CU
Angus X X X X X X Shorthorn X X X Char
olais X X X Gelbvieh X X X Limousin X X
X Hereford X X X Brangus X X X Red
Angus X X X South Devon X X X Chianina
X X X Salers X X X Simmental X X
X
14
Carcass traits (Regression by Breed)
Breed No. Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye
Angus 504 0.86 ? 0.16 1.39 ? 0.27 1.84 ?
0.30 Shorthorn 96 1.96 ? 0.44 2.29 ? 0.64 1.55 ?
0.75 Limousin 255 1.93 ? 0.57 1.70 ? 0.52 1.25 ?
0.30 Gellbvieh 283 1.86 ? 0.39 2.19 ? 0.55 1.77 ?
0.31 Red Angus 90 3.35 ? 1.02
All 1228 1.16 ? 0.14 1.72 ? 0.21 1.62 ?
0.17
15
Ultrasound (Regression by Breed)
Breed No. Marbling Fat thickness Ribeye
Hereford 401 1.12 ? 0.42 0.80 ? 0.58 0.64 ?
0.47 Angus 493 0.78 ? 0.19 2.91 ? 0.45 0.95 ?
0.25 Simmental 264 0.45 ? 0.31 0.26 ? 0.75 1.47 ?
0.43 Limousin 255 2.35 ? 0.57 3.13 ? 0.99 1.10 ?
0.27 Brangus 104 3.41 ? 0.74 0.04 ? 2.46 0.85 ?
0.47 All 1517 0.95 ? 0.15 2.41 ? 0.31 1.01 ?
0.15
16
Ultrasound Carcass (Regression by Breed)
Breed No. Marbling Fat Thickness Ribeye
South Devon 34 3.13 ? 1.31 -9.43 ? 4.65 1.29 ?
2.99 Charolais 99 0.48 ? 0.61 1.56 ? 1.17 1.96
? 0.59 Maine Anjou 94 0.94 ? 1.11 2.35 ?
1.88 -2.47 ? 1.77 Salers 84 0.29 ? 0.27 0.73 ?
2.10 3.39 ? 1.79 Red Angus 90 1.05 ? 0.31
1.94 ? 0.62 All
401 0.62 ? 0.19 1.31 ? 0.89 1.79 ? 0.40
17
Subcommittee to Develop Uniform Guidelines for
Carcass Trait EPD Standards for reporting
carcass EPD (slaughter steer basis, endpoint)
Two-trait analyses with carcass and
ultrasound records Basis for BIF Guidelines
revision
18
(No Transcript)