Embryo calves... Ultrasound IMF versus actual

[PPRM]

Marbling is a big factor for us. We direct market beef.

I noticed some embryo bull calves at a sale with really decent to good epd's for it. However, the measured IMF wasn't compared to non flushed calves.

WSU has done some work showing nutritional effects en utero on actual IMF for the carcasses of those calves. It is a strong relationship. It seems to me other stresses during pregnancy could certainly have the same effect on expressed marbling. Now, i don't exactly call the procedure stressful in an animal care way. But, I certainly noticed the relationship in that bull catalog (I think there was in excess of 150 bulls) that day.

Has anyone else ever seen that brought up? It seems genetically, these calves would pass marbling on even though they weren't expressing it themselves.

 

[WB]

The difference in carcass traits in environment are just as large in many instances as genetics. Yes it starts before calf is born and continues till they are harvested. When you are buying a bull for breeding you are buying his genes. In an et situation such as you described actual data may or may not be relevant just depends on the bull buyers confidence in the mating. Just my opinion but I feel many seed stock operations have gone overboard with et. Just plain wrong to flush a female that hasn't weaned 3 calves at least. Unless they are raising terminal seed stock and label them as such.

 

[RSL]

Perhaps an epigenetic effect from a recip dam. It would be interesting to review ET results from recip dams with known carcass history. Does implanting a low marbling egg in a high marbling cow switch on genes, and vice versa.