• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

How Much Is Too Much?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not Your Daddy's Genes
Mar 1, 2010 12:00 PM, By Wes Ishmael, Contributing Editor

U.S. Meat Animal Research Center data shows remarkable selection pressure has upended breed stereotypes.



A show of hands: How many think Simmental cows have a larger mature size than Angus and Hereford?

If your hand's in the air, you've got plenty of company, but you also happen to be dead wrong.

Researchers at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) found that F1 cows sired by Angus weighed 1,410 lbs; those sired by Hereford weighed 1,419 lbs; and those sired by Simmental weighed 1,404 lbs. These were five year-old cows born in 1999 and 2000 by sires sampled in 1998, part of Cycle VII of USMARC's ongoing Germ Plasm Evaluation Program.

The mature weights of the three English breeds in Cycle VII ranged from 1,409 lbs. to 1,419 lbs., adjusted to a Body Condition Score of 5.5. For the cows sired by four of the most heavily used Continental breeds, the range in mature weight was 1,371 lbs. to 1,404 lbs. (Table 1).

"In the 1970s, Continental breeds had greater growth rates and were heavier at weaning, yearling and maturity. Today, British breeds in the U.S. are comparable to Continental breeds for these traits," explained Larry Cundiff to New Zealand producers in 2007. "The lack of differences among breeds for cow weight and height contrast sharply with comparisons made 30 years earlier when cows by Continental European sire breeds were on average 4.5% taller and about 4.8% heavier than those by British sire breeds." Cundiff served as research leader of USMARC's Genetics and Breeding Research Unit for better than three decades.

Cowboy math also supports the notion that commercial cow weights have increased at least 200-300 lbs. since 1994.

"We think of British breeds being moderate-sized and moderate in lactation, and that's not the case anymore when you look at genetic trends," says Bob Weaber, University of Missouri Extension beef cattle specialist.

Phenomenally steep trends
When you ponder the genetic trends for the most heavily used breeds since the 1970s, USMARC research geneticists Mark Thallman and Larry Kuehn say what strikes you most is the staggering increase in yearling growth and milk expected progeny difference (EPD), especially for the Angus breed.

According to graphs Kuehn assembled, the seven most heavily used beef breeds have all increased yearling growth — as measured by mean across-breed yearling growth weight EPD, adjusted to an Angus base, using USMARC across-breed EPD adjustment factors estimated by Kuehn (Figure 1). But none has been steeper than Angus, growing from among the lowest in 1985 to the second highest in 2007, just below Charolais and just above Simmental.

The same general trend can be seen for milk (Figure 2), with Angus growing from third lowest to second highest. Meanwhile, breeds like Gelbvieh and Simmental, which already had high levels for milking ability, have stabilized the trend or decreased it by choice.

To a lesser extent, the same trend describes weaning weight EPD (Figure 3). Plus, almost all of these breeds decreased birth weight trends during the past decade, especially Gelbvieh and Simmental (Figure 4).

"It's a great example of the utility of EPDs and what can be achieved by using them for selection," Weaber says.

The trends in growth also underscore the rational response of seedstock producers to an industry that continues to reward pounds above all else.

"Demand from feeders and packers to make cattle heavier drives the trend for growth. Also, in the seedstock industry, it's too easy to fall into the trap of trying to be the best at something and selecting for extremes," Weaber explains. "The growth in milk EPD is driven less by packers and feeders; it is producers seeing increased milk as a means to increase weaning weight, and seedstock producers chasing the numbers without recognizing the impact it has on nutritional demands."

But, Weaber cautions viewing breeds through yesterday's reality poses risk.

"I'm not going to presuppose the right size and lactation for an individual producer. What concerns me are the misconceptions that may exist relative to management," Weaber says. "If producers are using breed stereotypes based on the past in management, they may be setting up the genetics for failure if they're managing the cattle to those stereotypes."

How much is too much?
Though a tribute to breeder ability and commitment, the spectacular growth in genetic trends begs the question about whether a point comes where increasing the genetic potential in particular trait areas costs more than it returns.

"It can be useful to increase the genetic trend in trait areas as long as the profitability associated with them continues to increase," Kuehn says. "One reason they don't continue to be profitable is because of the antagonisms that exist between traits."

Thallman adds that "the complicated answer is that to really identify where we cross that line requires merging economics and genetics together. The answer will always depend so much on environment, management and marketing. It will always depend on where your operation fits within the production system."

Some work's been done to create prediction models and decision-support tools that would lead to the answer, but plenty of work is left to be done.

"The easier answer is that we could worry a little less about what the antagonisms might be if we could do a better job of measuring the other traits that impact it," Thallman says. Think here of fertility, cow longevity and the like.

For that matter, think about mature cow size.

"I think increased mature cow size resulted from increased selection for growth without also selecting to maintain mature weight," Weaber says. "Mature cow size is highly heritable, but it's difficult to get producers to collect the data."

In other words, to truly bend the growth curve — low birth weights and small to moderate mature size with rapid growth — would require selection tools for mature size. A few breeds have EPDs for mature size.

Overall, Weaber believes, "for many breeds, the genetic potential is above where it needs to be, especially for mature weight. A growing question among seedstock producers revolves around determining the optimum level for particular production environments, rather than how much more can be achieved in a trait. They're asking themselves about the costs associated with higher levels of production and how that's best utilized given their resources."

Weaber emphasizes, however, "EPDs for growth aren't responsible for big cows, producers are. And, EPDs — the tools used to select for more growth and larger cows — can be used with discipline to decrease and optimize mature cow size."

Keeping up with the Joneses
Perhaps as striking as the level of increase in genetic trends is the direction. In the world of genetics, where variation and differences are an asset rather than a liability, converging trends suggest breeds are becoming more alike than different.

Based on the trends, Thallman says, "they all appear to have the same target in mind, though they began the journey at different places relative to that target."

In other words, they're all chasing more weaning and yearling growth, more milk and trying to at least hold birth weight constant.

Looking at the convergence of breeds according to genetic trend, Kuehn explains, "I think a lot of them are coming at it from the standpoint of trying to be an all-purpose breed rather than accentuate their breed differences."

Producers can agree or disagree with the genetic trends of particular breeds, but the rapid change in these trends suggests they'd better keep track of where the breeds exist along that trend.

"The point is that breed differences are not static; they change over time," Thallman says.


Table 1. Mature cow weights of F1 cows by sire* Breed 5-year-old-weight, lbs.**
Hereford 1,419
Angus 1,410
Red Angus 1,409
Simmental 1,404
Gelbvieh 1,323
Limousin 1,391
Charolais 1,371


*Least squares means by breed of sire for weight of F1 cows at 5 years of age

**Weights adjusted to body condition score 505

Source: U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Germ Plasm Evaluation Program, Cycle VII
http://beefmagazine.com/genetics/beef-not-daddys-genes-20100301/
 
They are talking f1 crossbred cows whats that got to do with the mature weight of an Angus cow vs Simmental?? Why as I cull off the old black simmental cows from an experiment about 10 years ago they weigh 1700-1850 lbs and my straight angus weight 1350-1500? What a bunch of hogwash.
 
ANGUS327 said:
They are talking f1 crossbred cows whats that got to do with the mature weight of an Angus cow vs Simmental?? Why as I cull off the old black simmental cows from an experiment about 10 years ago they weigh 1700-1850 lbs and my straight angus weight 1350-1500? What a bunch of hogwash.

I guess it takes purebreds to make cross-breds?
This report doesn't surprise me with the selection that has gone on within the various breeds. I sat through a large dispersal a while back of cows all bred on one ranch, there were straight black angus cows, black baldie cows and charolais cross cows. Their weights were in that order too - the straight blacks were around 200lbs heavier than the charolais xs and the baldies were in the middle. The Charolais xs were the only ones that scraped under a 1300lb average :shock: Who'd ever have thunk it when the "huge" exotics were brought in all those years ago to cross onto the smaller, maternal type british breeds.
 
I would like to point out that there are still "British" breeds that are moderate sized compared to these numbers.

We also need to keep in mind that studies like this don't mean much more than the paper they're printed on, since you can't draw any conclusions or get anything useful from it. It doesn't take into account regional environmental differences in phenotype and such, which is what all cattlemen need to focus on to match the cow to the resources.

This study sounds like a 1-size-fits-all campaign.
 
Good point PC!! My last herd was registered Brangus. Half the herd was purchased from one breeder and the other half from another breeder. The mature size difference between the two halves was very remarkable!
 
Well I've got a herd on pretty much pure angus most registered some not. The two heaviest kill cows I've ever sold weighed 1445# hog fat. Most of my kill cows weigh 1000 to 1100#s a few heavier some lighter. I do believe there are bigger cattle out their but sit and watch a bred cow sale in Ft Pierre SD most of them are in that 1100# range to much ado about nothing I think.
 
PureCountry said:
I would like to point out that there are still "British" breeds that are moderate sized compared to these numbers.

We also need to keep in mind that studies like this don't mean much more than the paper they're printed on, since you can't draw any conclusions or get anything useful from it. It doesn't take into account regional environmental differences in phenotype and such, which is what all cattlemen need to focus on to match the cow to the resources.

This study sounds like a 1-size-fits-all campaign.
My thoughts exactly...did you waste your time reading it??? :wink:
 
Interesting responses.

Would it change your mind if I told you I had seen results that nearly duplicate these in Alberta, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, and Argentina?

Is it so hard to believe that the average Angus and Hereford are now larger, and have similar mature size to Continentals?


Badlands
 
Not hard to believe at all, if................

As said in the article ""We think of British breeds being moderate-sized and moderate in lactation, and that's not the case anymore when you look at genetic trends," says Bob Weaber, University of Missouri Extension beef cattle specialist.

If, the cattle you saw were raised by those into "genetics" (and careful selection) then, yes, Angus could compete with a Simmental as far as mature size. " Mature weight is a highly heritable trait as reported in the present study and in previous studies. This means that mature weight can be altered by selection. http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/77/3/569.pdf



Badlands said:
Interesting responses.

Would it change your mind if I told you I had seen results that nearly duplicate these in Alberta, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, and Argentina?

Is it so hard to believe that the average Angus and Hereford are now larger, and have similar mature size to Continentals?


Badlands
 
I guess when both breeds tried their best to out milk and out grow the exotics why would one expect anything different-it's up to the individuial to determine if it's good or bad but it is what it is.I know one thing thosde 1500 lb yearling anguis bulls that are the flavour of the month aren't coming from 1100 pound mother cows.
 
This not the first time MARC has come out with findings like this. I have also seen results that sat char cross cows are the most fertile for example. These results reflect the limitations of the MARC demonstration herds than anything else. I talked to Larry Cundiff about these findings and some limitations should have been part of the article. The MARC data is taken from limited numbers of each breed and in no way can represent all the variation or even the mean performance level in any trait for an entire breed. Even more importantly the bulls MARC uses are from the 50 most popular bulls used in AI from the previous year for each breed. What this means is that the bulls that MARC uses are seen through the lens of ABS, GENEX, Select Sires etc. Generally the Charolais and Simmental bulls selected by commercial AI studs tend to be of the easier calving and maternal side of things. They are also slower growing and have smaller mature weights. With very few notable exceptions I can buy higher growth and better carcass Charolais or Simmental bulls from a good bull sale than are available from any commercial AI stud. Also the 50 most popular bulls in any breed will reflect the aspirations the breeders have for improvement; for Charolais breeders this always was calving ease and maternal traits, for Angus growth and carcass traits were ans still are very important point to improve.
So take these results with a grain of salt.
 
VLS_GUY said:
For Angus growth and carcass traits were ans still are very important point to improve.
So take these results with a grain of salt.

VLS_ Guy

I appreciate your comments on sire selection and the questionable representation of the breeds. That can make a significant difference in the results.

The comment of yours in quotes above though has me begging the question, when is enough enough with regards to growth specifically, to be fair though I may not be sure about what growth components you are referring to that still require improvement. From the standpoint of yearling, mature weight and frame size, my experience is that the point of diminishing returns if not already passed is staring us right in the eyes. Growth in these terms seems to be an obsession and an unhealthy one at that. Here in the Special Areas dessert, more is not better. The place for Angus is as the brood cow. The cow calf man can get all the growth he needs from the exotics. I really don't feel Angus should be attempting to be all things. Doing so threatens the breeds traditional strength and reputation as the ideal mother cow.

I thought the last half of the article discussed the antagonisms that result with unabated selection for those particular growth traits.

Have a good day!



:) :)
 
I'll confess, I am a fan of the MARC work. I wish we still had some funding for good general/basic research in Canada.
FWIW in my mind how you apply what they find out depends on what/where/why/when and how you ranch.
I didn't see the article as a one size fits all, but I do think it makes some good points about where breeds are going. I am in a luxurious position where I get to see complete datasets from many breeds, and while not all the cattle are going in a particular direction within a breed there are definitely trends that I see in the MARC report.
Where and how you use it is up to you, I know for us , we have made some money applying the parts of research that apply to us. Just wish we had more practical research capacity. The WBDC in Saskatchewan has done some good work as well.
 
RSL said:
I'll confess, I am a fan of the MARC work. I wish we still had some funding for good general/basic research in Canada.
FWIW in my mind how you apply what they find out depends on what/where/why/when and how you ranch.
I didn't see the article as a one size fits all, but I do think it makes some good points about where breeds are going. I am in a luxurious position where I get to see complete datasets from many breeds, and while not all the cattle are going in a particular direction within a breed there are definitely trends that I see in the MARC report.
Where and how you use it is up to you, I know for us , we have made some money applying the parts of research that apply to us. Just wish we had more practical research capacity. The WBDC in Saskatchewan has done some good work as well.

Funding for research in Saskatchewan has been hijacked by the new SCA for core funding. They will be hard pressed to match the previous funding levels by the time they take out their expenses.
 
Dylan Biggs said:
VLS_GUY said:
For Angus growth and carcass traits were ans still are very important point to improve.
So take these results with a grain of salt.

VLS_ Guy

I appreciate your comments on sire selection and the questionable representation of the breeds. That can make a significant difference in the results.

The comment of yours in quotes above though has me begging the question, when is enough enough with regards to growth specifically, to be fair though I may not be sure about what growth components you are referring to that still require improvement. From the standpoint of yearling, mature weight and frame size, my experience is that the point of diminishing returns if not already passed is staring us right in the eyes. Growth in these terms seems to be an obsession and an unhealthy one at that. Here in the Special Areas dessert, more is not better. The place for Angus is as the brood cow. The cow calf man can get all the growth he needs from the exotics. I really don't feel Angus should be attempting to be all things. Doing so threatens the breeds traditional strength and reputation as the ideal mother cow.

I thought the last half of the article discussed the antagonisms that result with unabated selection for those particular growth traits.

Have a good day!



:) :)
I agree with you mister biggs we don't need to be trying to turn the angus breed into all aspects of the beef industry or any other breed for that matter that is why we have crossbreeding. we as producers need to select breeds that complemet each other so we can cash in on heterozys we need to select for moderation in all the breeds .
 
many trials have shown that if you select replacement heifers from the middle weight group your cows will tend to stay the same size when selecting the heavier weight hefiers you are naturally selecting for more growth and larger cows.
 
scout said:
many trials have shown that if you select replacement heifers from the middle weight group your cows will tend to stay the same size when selecting the heavier weight hefiers you are naturally selecting for more growth and larger cows.

Sooooo...... larger cows equals more growth???
 
Silver said:
scout said:
many trials have shown that if you select replacement heifers from the middle weight group your cows will tend to stay the same size when selecting the heavier weight hefiers you are naturally selecting for more growth and larger cows.

Sooooo...... larger cows equals more growth???

Ooohhh, you and your Big Boned Blondes just stay up there in the north and make money. :wink: :lol: :lol: :P :P
 
gcreekrch said:
Silver said:
scout said:
many trials have shown that if you select replacement heifers from the middle weight group your cows will tend to stay the same size when selecting the heavier weight hefiers you are naturally selecting for more growth and larger cows.

Sooooo...... larger cows equals more growth???

Ooohhh, you and your Big Boned Blondes just stay up there in the north and make money. :wink: :lol: :lol: :P :P


hmph :?

:wink:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top