R. Mark Enns and Dorian J. Garrick Department of Animal Sciences Colorado State University

1. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND POTENTIAL WHEN USING CURRENT AND FUTURE EPD – ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT TRAITS R. Mark Enns and Dorian J. Garrick Department of Animal SciencesColorado State University

2. Beef Producers’ Motivation • Hobby • Property tax reduction • Profit

3. Two basic tools of animal breeding • Selection • Mating

4. Expected Progeny Differences (EPD) • Widely adopted by the industry • Have increased from 5 to over 15

5. Birth Weight Weaning Weight Milk Total Maternal Yearling Weight Carcass Traits Calving Ease Mix of others… Typical Genetic Evaluation

6. Birth direct Birth maternal Weaning direct Weaning maternal Total maternal Yearling direct 600 d direct Calving direct Calving maternal Carcass wt Rib fat Rump fat LMA Marb score Quality grade % Retail yield Lbs (kg) retail yield Yield grade Us LMA US rib fat Us % IMF Fat percentage Condition score Gestation length Days to calving Calving interval Stayability Heifer pregnancy rate Rebreeding rate Calf weaned/cow exposed Scrotal circumference Pelvic area Frame score Muscle score Udder score Docility Tick score Parasite egg count Mature weight Maintenance energy Feed efficiency Drop weight Type score Uterine score Tooth score Precocity score Sire Summary of the Future? Feedlot feed consumption Feedlot surv. Pre-wean surv. Serving capacity Serving proportion Semen volume Hip height Leg score Length productive life Doing ability Grand-maternal weaning Twinning rate Days to 11mm BF Days to 75% Choice Days to carc wt. Hair whorl score Average daily gain Wt. /day of age Liver weight Resting heart rate Pulmonary arteriole pressure Brisket disease rate Bravery Aggression Information Overload

7. Typical Genetic Evaluation • Proven • Accepted • Well-used • Assumption: • More EPD allow us to better characterize the genetic potential of animals • Should be able to make more profitable selection decisions • But …

8. Proliferation of EPD • Many EPD indirectly related to economic goals • An ever-increasing list of traits • Methods for using EPD to make financially sound selection decisions

9. Combining EPD for financially sound selection decisions • Selection index (Hazel, 1943) • Has been successfully implemented

10. Landcorp Beef Breeding Objective .53 = Net income from surplus progeny .06 = Net income from cull cows L = Slaughter weight of surplus progeny (kg) DP = Dressing percentage of surplus progeny DM = Dressing percentage of cull cows F = Fertility M = Weight of cull cows at disposal (kg) 1976 NZ$; Morris, Baker, and Johnson (1980)

11. Landcorp Selection Index

12. Genetic Trends

13. MacNeil, 2003 I = YW -3.2BW

14. EPD and Profitability • We can combine genetic evaluation to make • Genetic progress in multiple traits simultaneously • Increase profitability

15. Current options • Stay with the status quo • Develop an index • Focus selection on economically relevant traits

16. Terminology • Economically Relevant Traits: traits that are directly associated with a revenue stream or cost of production of a commercial operation.

17. Indicator Traits:traits that add accuracy to the prediction of ERT by pleiotropy (e.g. genetic correlation).

18. ERT • Does selecting on an indicator directly effect your income or cost?

19. Economically Relevant:Probability Of Calving Ease • Indicators: • Birth Weight • Pelvic Area • Gestation Length • Calving Ease Score ?

20. Conceptually • Sire A • Average birth weight of calves is 80 pounds • Sire B • Average birth weight of calves is 90 pounds • Is there a difference, if all offspring are born unassisted? • How do we make sense of these EPD to increase profitability?

21. Option 1: Status quo • Use “perceived” value to make selection decisions • Pros: • Easiest • Cons: • Least accurate method

22. Option 2: Develop an index • Pros: • Proven • Cons: • Detailed information on costs and incomes required • Correct enterprise allocation • May require services of a consultant

23. Option 3: Focus on Economically Relevant Traits • Pros: • One of easiest to implement at the outset • Cons: • Not all EPD on ERT are available yet • Requires knowledge of costs and incomes of production

24. Option 3: Levels of Complexity • Focus on the EPD for the ERT • Add in knowledge of costs and incomes of production to form your “producer specific” index

25. What is the value difference in the following two bulls: • Bull A WW EPD = +16 • Bull B WW EPD = +32 • Difference = 16 pounds in EPD • Price is $1.05 per pound • 16 * 1.05 = $16.80 • Assume we will keep replacements for a 400 cow herd

27. Result … • Justifies EPDs related to feed costs • Maintenance feed requirements (CSU) • Feed for production (days to finish; CSU) • Residual feed intake • These are economically relevant traits (ERT) in addition to WW

28. Another Example What is the difference in value of these bulls?

29. Stayability example

31. Our desire is that producers use EPDs objectively in the context of their business goal(s) Profit = Income – Expense

32. Current options • Stay with the status quo • Develop an index • Focus selection on economically relevant traits

33. Congressional Special Grant Develop and implement improved methodologies and technologies for genetic evaluation of beef cattle to maximize the impact genetic programs have on the economic viability, international competitiveness, and sustainability of U.S. beef cattle producers and to provide consumers with affordable and healthy beef products Colorado State University Cornell University University of Georgia Coordinated effort