DOCSLIB.ORG

Proc1-Beginning Chapters.Pmd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proc1-Beginning Chapters.Pmd Implications of Breed Type Evaluations Larry V. Cundiff Research Leader, Genetics and Breeding Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Clay Center, NE ()(,) Introduction 23.3 Quality, quantity, and cost of feed resources available for beef production vary from one region of the country to another and within regions, depending upon climatic factors and natural 23.3 resources available in specific production 14.8 situations. Diversity among breeds can be exploited by crossbreeding to optimize performance levels 8.5 and to match genetic resources with the climatic environment, feed resources, and consumer Percent preferences for lean and tender beef products. 8.5 Crossbreeding also provides for significant benefits 14.8 of heterosis on components of production efficiency. In this presentation, research results will be reviewed focusing on effects and utilization of 8.5 8.5 heterosis and breed differences, and on the importance of matching genetic potential with Straightbred Straightbred X-bred consumer preferences and the climatic cows cows cows environment. straightbred X-bred X-bred calves calves calves Heterosis Figure 1. Cumulative effects of heterosis for weight of calf weaned per cow exposed to breeding in crosses A crossbreeding experiment involving of Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorns (Cundiff et al., Herefords, Angus, and Shorthorns demonstrated 1974). that weaning weight per cow was increased by about 23% (Cundiff et al., 1974) due to beneficial was significantly greater than that of either effects of heterosis on survival and growth of straightbred Angus or Herefords (Nunez et al., crossbred calves and on reproduction rate and 1991; Cundiff et al., 1992). Crossing of Bos indicus weaning weight of calves from crossbred dams and Bos taurus breeds yields even higher levels of (Figure 1). More than half of this advantage was heterosis, averaging about twice as large as due to use of crossbred cows. Effects of heterosis estimates reported for corresponding traits in are greatest for longevity (Nunez et al., 1991) and crosses among Bos taurus breeds (Cartwright et lifetime production (Cundiff et al., 1992) of cows al., 1964; Turner et al., 1968; Koger et al., 1975). (Table 1). For comprehensive traits such as lifetime production, cumulative effects of heterosis are Rotational Crossbreeding rather large and the performance of each specific cross usually exceeds that of either parent breed. In the experiment involving Herefords, Angus, For example, longevity and lifetime production of and Shorthorns conducted at the U.S. Meat Animal Hereford X Angus and Angus X Hereford cows Research Center (MARC), it was demonstrated that 2004 BEEF CATTLE SHORT COURSE 21 Larry V. Cundiff Simmental, Gelbvieh, Angus, and Hereford; and 1 Composite MARC III was /4 each Pinzgauer, Angus, Hereford, and Red Poll) was compared to performance of the purebreds that contributed to the foundation of each composite population. Effects of heterosis (F1 minus Purebreds) and retained heterosis in advanced generations (F2 = F1 X F1 matings, F3 = F2 X F2 matings, and F4 = F3 X F3 matings) are summarized in Table 2. Heterosis was maintained proportional to heterozygosity in composite populations. Since heterosis is retained Figure 2. Rotational crossbreeding systems. proportional to heterozygosity, significant levels of heterosis can be maintained by rotational crossing significant levels of heterosis were maintained from of F1 seedstock (e.g., F1 cross Gelbvieh X Angus, generation to generation by rotational or Simmental X Hereford) or by rotational crossing crossbreeding of Herefords, Angus, and Shorthorns of composite populations (e.g., Brangus, (Figure 2). The level of heterosis retained was Beefmaster) as well. proportional to expected heterozygosity (Gregory and Cundiff, 1980). It is important to use breeds Uniformity of cattle and greater consistency that are reasonably comparable in rotational of end product can be provided for with greater crossbreeding systems to provide for uniformity precision by use of F1 seedstock or composite in traits such as birth weight to minimize calving populations than by use of rotational crossing of difficulty, size, and milk production to stabilize feed purebreds. For example, with current pricing requirements in cow herds, and carcass and meat systems, cattle with 50:50 ratios of Continental to characteristics. Breed composition fluctuates British breed inheritance have more optimal carcass widely from one generation to the next with characteristics, and experienced fewer discounts for rotational crossbreeding. For example in two-breed excessive fatness (yield grade 4 or more) or for rotation after the sixth generation and on the low levels of marbling (USDA Standard quality average over all generations, 67% of the genes of grades or less) than cattle with lower or higher ratios the cows are of the breed of their sire and 33% are of Continental to British inheritance. This is caused of the breed of their grandsire, the latter being the by a strong genetic antagonism between USDA same as the breed to which they are to be mated. quality grade and percentage retail product (Figure 3). Retail product is closely trimmed (0.0 inches) Composite Populations boneless steaks, roasts, and lean trim (ground beef containing 20% fat). In the Germplasm Utilization Composite populations, developed by inter se Program at MARC, steers representing Continental mating of animals resulting from crossing of two European breeds (Charolais, Simmental, or more breeds, have management requirements Braunvieh, Gelbvieh, Pinzgauer) excelled in retail that are comparable to straight-breeding. Results product percentage but had difficulty grading of a comprehensive experiment involving four USDA Choice because of lower levels of marbling. generations of inter se mating in three composite British breeds (e.g., Angus, Hereford, Red Poll) populations demonstrated that significant levels of excelled in USDA quality grade because of higher heterosis are retained in composite populations levels of marbling but had reduced retail product (Gregory et al., 1999). In this experiment yield due to excessive fat thickness and fat trim. performance of each composite population 1 1 (Composite MARC I was /4 Charolais, /4 1 1 1 Breed Differences Braunvieh, /4 Limousin, /8 Hereford, and /8 1 Angus; Composite MARC II was /4 each Table 3 shows the mating plan for the first 22 MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND INDUSTRY CHALLENGES IN DEFINING TIMES Implications of Breed Type Evaluations Retail Product % Product Retail US Choice Limousin (L), Gelbvieh (G), Charolais (C ), Simmental (S), Braunvieh (B), Pinzgauer (P), Hereford (H), Red Poll (R ), Angus (A), and composites MARC I (M1, ¼ Charolais, ¼ Braunvieh, ¼ Limousin, 1/8 Angus, 1/8 Hereford), MARC II (M2, ¼ Angus, ¼ Hereford, ¼ Simmental, and ¼ Gelbvieh), and MARC III (M3 = ¼ Angus, ¼ Hereford, ¼ Red Poll, and ¼ Pinzgauer). Figure 3. Retail product versus percent USDA Choice in purebreds and composite populations (Gregory et al., 1999). eight cycles of the Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) the 50 most widely used bulls in each breed Program at MARC. Each Cycle is an experiment according to registrations. conducted over a time span of about 10 years. Topcross performance of 34 sire breeds has been Calves were born in the spring and weaned in evaluated in F1 calves out of Hereford, Angus, or the fall at about 7 months of age. Male calves were Composite MARC III (starting with Cycle V) dams. castrated within 24 hours of birth. Following Hereford and Angus sires have been used in each weaning, steers were fed a diet containing about Cycle of the program to provide ties for analysis 2.8 Mcal metabolizable energy per kg dry matter. of data pooled over cycles. Some of the Hereford Data will be presented for steers that were and Angus sires used in Cycle I were repeated in slaughtered in three to four slaughter groups spaced Cycles II, III, and IV (60 to 70s sires). Later, many 21 to 28 days apart. All F1 females were retained to of the Hereford and Angus sires used for the first evaluate growth, age at puberty, reproduction, and time in Cycle IV were repeated in Cycle V (80s maternal performance in three-way cross progeny sires). Similarly, many of the Brahman sires used produced at 2 through 7 or 8 years of age. in Cycle III (70s sires) were repeated in Cycle V and compared to a new sample of Brahman sires Prominent Bos taurus breeds. In Cycle VII born in the 1980s (80s sires). As a general rule in of the GPE Program (Cundiff et al., 2004), the each cycle, about 200 progeny per sire breed were seven most prominent beef breeds in the U.S., produced from artificial insemination (AI) to 20 to according to registrations in breed associations 25 sires per breed. Sires were sampled representing (National Pedigreed Livestock Council, 2002), young herd sire prospects (non-progeny tested were evaluated (Table 4). Angus, Hereford, sires) for each breed. Starting with Cycle VII, about Limousin, Simmental, Charolais, and Gelbvieh had half of the sires sampled were chosen from lists of been characterized in Cycle I or Cycle II of the GPE 2004 BEEF CATTLE SHORT COURSE 23 Larry V. Cundiff Program (Table 3). Red Angus cattle were evaluated Simmental, Charolais, and Limousin sires than for for the first time in Cycle VII. those with Angus and Red Angus sires. Age at puberty was greater in Limousin sired heifers than Sire breed means for final slaughter weight all other sire breeds and younger in Gelbvieh sired (445 days) and certain carcass and meat traits are heifers than in Hereford, Angus, and Red Angus shown in Table 5. The differences for slaughter sired heifers. Breeds that have had a history of weight (445 days) between progeny of Continental selection for milk production (e.g., Simmental and sire breeds compared to British sire breeds were Gelbvieh) reached puberty earlier than breeds that considerably less than when they were evaluated have not been selected for milk production (all 25 to 30 years earlier.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Beef Cattle Genetics to Manage
    Tall Fescue Endophyte Toxicosis in Beef Cattle: Clinical Mode of Action and Potential Mitigation through Cattle Genetics Richard Browning, Jr., Ph.D. Cooperative Agricultural Research Program Tennessee State University Nashville, TN 37209-1561 INTRODUCTION Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) is the most commonly used cultivated grass in the United States to feed beef cattle. Tall fescue is a cool-season perennial grass that many cattle producers ‘can’t live with, but can’t live without’ because of its hardiness and good forage yields, but adverse effects on cattle well-being and yields. The history of this forage and its effects on animal performance have been extensively reviewed (Hemken et al., 1984; Bacon et al., 1986; Stuedemann and Hoveland, 1988; Porter and Thompson, 1992; Stuedemann and Thompson, 1993; Porter, 1994; Bacon, 1995; Paterson et al., 1995). Tall fescue was unintentionally introduced from Europe sometime in the 1800s. Early university research on growing tall fescue in the U.S. began between 1907 and 1918 in Oregon and in Kentucky in 1931 (Alderson and Sharp, 1993). Tall fescue, primarily the Kentucky-31 variety, was planted across the U.S. throughout the 1940s and 1950s because of its excellent growth under various environmental stressors. Tall fescue may be found across the eastern half of the U.S. and the Pacific Northwest covering an estimated 25 to 40 million acres of pasture and hayland. It has been estimated that over 90% of tall fescue pastures in the U.S. are infected with the fungal endophyte Neotyphodium coenophialum (Bacon and Siegel, 1988; Glenn et al., 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Postweaning Growth and Carcass Traits in Crossbred Cattle from Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Beefmaster, Bonsmara, and Romosinuano Maternal Grandsires E
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Center Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska 2010 Postweaning growth and carcass traits in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Beefmaster, Bonsmara, and Romosinuano maternal grandsires E. Casas USDA, ARS, US Meat Animal Research Center, [email protected] R. M. Thallman USDA-ARS Meat Animal Research Center, [email protected] L. A. Kuehn USDA- ARS, US Meat Animal Research Center, [email protected] L. V. Cundiff US Meat Animal Research Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hruskareports Casas, E.; Thallman, R. M.; Kuehn, L. A.; and Cundiff, L. V., "Postweaning growth and carcass traits in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Beefmaster, Bonsmara, and Romosinuano maternal grandsires" (2010). Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. 374. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hruskareports/374 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service, Lincoln, Nebraska at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published December 4, 2014 Postweaning growth and carcass traits in crossbred cattle from Hereford, Angus, Brangus, Beefmaster, Bonsmara, and Romosinuano maternal grandsires1,2 E. Casas,3 R. M. Thallman, L. A. Kuehn, and L. V. Cundiff USDA, ARS, US Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933 ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to char- est marbling scores when compared with other grand- acterize breeds representing diverse biological types for sire breeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Choice Choose the Answer That Best Completes Each Statement Or Question
    Name Date Hour 5 The Beef Cattle Industry Multiple Choice Choose the answer that best completes each statement or question. _______ 1. Early settlers primarily used cattle as ____ . A. work animals B. a source of meat C. a source of milk D. symbols of wealth _______ 2. The modern cattle industry is concentrated in the ____ . A. South and Midwest B. South and Southwest C. North and Northwest D. North and Midwest _______ 3. Cattle drives were necessary in the past because of the lack of ____ . A. retail stores B. refrigeration C. slaughterhouses D. year-round grazing _______ 4. Which beef cattle breed is known for its solid black color and excellent meat quality? A. Angus B. Hereford C. Shorthorn D. Chianina _______ 5. Which beef cattle breed is from northern England and was often called a Durham after the county in which it originated? A. Angus B. Hereford C. Shorthorn D. Chianina Introduction to Agriscience | Unit 5 Test CIMC 1 _______ 6. Which beef cattle breed originated in England and was originally much larger, weighing more than 3,000 pounds, than it is today? A. Angus B. Hereford C. Shorthorn D. Chianina _______ 7. Which beef cattle breed is red with a white face and may also have white on the neck, underline, legs, and tail switch? A. Angus B. Hereford C. Shorthorn D. Chianina _______ 8. Which beef cattle breed is one of the oldest breeds in the world and originated in Italy? A. Angus B. Hereford C. Shorthorn D. Chianina _______ 9. Which beef cattle breed originated in central France and was developed as a dual-purpose breed and is typically white or off-white in color? A.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release Brangus Are Not “Eared” Cattle
    For Immediate Release Contact: Doc or Patricia Spitzer FAIR PLAY, SC [email protected] or November 8, 2011 (864)972-9140 or (864)710-0257 Brangus Are Not “Eared” Cattle First and foremost we need to wrap our minds around the fact that God created cattle, he did not create breeds. And while in some cases natural barriers such as oceans and mountain ranges did affect genetic selection, for the most part it is humans who created breeds. And, if you go back far enough in history there really are no pure breeds, only our inflated misconceptions that they exist. That being said, there are two species that make up all cattle of the world; Bos Taurus cattle are primarily cattle populations that originated in the more temperate climates and Bos Indicus cattle populations developed in the more tropical regions of the world. Generally the US beef industry further subdivides Bos Taurus beef cattle into two groups. Continental Breeds of cattle are those breeds originating on the European Continent while British Breeds were originally from selections of bovine populations from the British Isle. It is also typical of US producers to wrongly lump all Bos Indicus breeds of cattle together. This is rather astounding as there are more recognized different breeds of Bos Indicus derivation scattered around the world than specific breeds of Bos Taurus derivation. Americans have also further compounded the confusion by creating new breeds by crossing a variety of specifically recognized Bos Indicus cattle to create the American Brahman and crossing cattle of Bos Indicus and Bos Taurus origin to create what some refer to as the American Breeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing SNP Panels and Statistical Methods for Estimating Genomic Breed Composition of Individual Animals in Ten Cattle Breeds
    He et al. BMC Genetics (2018) 19:56 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-018-0654-3 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Comparing SNP panels and statistical methods for estimating genomic breed composition of individual animals in ten cattle breeds Jun He1,2†,YageGuo1,3†, Jiaqi Xu1,4, Hao Li1,5,AnnaFuller1, Richard G. Tait Jr1,Xiao-LinWu1,5* and Stewart Bauck1 Abstract Background: SNPs are informative to estimate genomic breed composition (GBC) of individual animals, but selected SNPs for this purpose were not made available in the commercial bovine SNP chips prior to the present study. The primary objective of the present study was to select five common SNP panels for estimating GBC of individual animals initially involving 10 cattle breeds (two dairy breeds and eight beef breeds). The performance of the five common SNP panels was evaluated based on admixture model and linear regression model, respectively. Finally, the downstream implication of GBC on genomic prediction accuracies was investigated and discussed in a Santa Gertrudis cattle population. Results: There were 15,708 common SNPs across five currently-available commercial bovine SNP chips. From this set, four subsets (1,000, 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 SNPs) were selected by maximizing average Euclidean distance (AED) of SNP allelic frequencies among the ten cattle breeds. For 198 animals presented as Akaushi, estimated GBC of the Akaushi breed (GBCA) based on the admixture model agreed very well among the five SNP panels, identifying 166 animals with GBCA = 1. Using the same SNP panels, the linear regression approach reported fewer animals with GBCA = 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Purebred Livestock Registry Associations
    Purebred livestock registry associations W. Dennis Lamm1 COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE no. 1.217 Beef Devon. Devon Cattle Assn., Inc., P.O. Box 628, Uvalde, TX 78801. Mrs. Cammille Hoyt, Sec. Phone: American. American Breed Assn., Inc., 306 512-278-2201. South Ave. A, Portales, NM 88130. Mrs. Jewell Dexter. American Dexter Cattle Assn., P.O. Jones, Sec. Phone: 505-356-8019. Box 56, Decorah, IA 52l01. Mrs. Daisy Moore, Amerifax. Amerifax Cattle Assn., Box 149, Exec. Sec. Phone: 319-736-5772, Hastings, NE 68901. John Quirk, Pres. Phone Friesian. Beef Friesian Society, 213 Livestock 402-463-5289. Exchange Bldg., Denver, CO 80216. Maurice W. Angus. American Angus Assn., 3201 Freder- Boney, Adm. Dir. Phone: 303-587-2252. ick Blvd., St. Joseph, MO 64501. Richard Spader, Galloway. American Galloway Breeders Assn., Exec. Vice. Pres. Phone: 816-233-3101. 302 Livestock Exchange Bldg., Denver, CO 80216. Ankina. Ankina Breeders, Inc., 5803 Oaks Rd,. Cecil Harmon, Pres. Phone: 303-534-0853. Clayton, OH 45315. James K. Davis, Ph.D., Pres. Galloway. Galloway Cattle Society of Amer- Phone: 513-837-4128. ica, RFD 1, Springville, IA 52336. Phone: 319- Barzona. Barzona Breeders Assn. of America, 854-7062. P.O. Box 631, Prescott, AZ 86320. Karen Halford, Gelbvieh. American Gelbvieh Assn., 5001 Na- Sec. Phone: 602-445-2290. tional Western Dr., Denver, CO 80218. Daryl W. Beefalo. American Beefalo Breeders, 1661 E. Loeppke, Exec. Dir. Phone: 303-296-9257. Brown Rd., Mayville 22, MI 48744. Phone: 517-843- Hays Convertor. Canadian Hays Convertor 6811. Assn., 6707 Elbow Dr. SW, Suite 509, Calgary, Beefmaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Breeding Heifer Validation Program Major Livestock Show Breed Eligibility Guide
    Breeding Heifer Validation Program Major Livestock Show Breed Eligibility Guide This document is only to serve as a resource for determining the eligibility of specific breeds at major livestock shows. This is not a complete list of breeds eligible and livestock shows reserve the right to add/remove breeds at the discretion of show management. *Always refer to respective livestock show’s official rules and information. ü 1 ORB – Other Registered Breeds (Bos Taurus type, non-American), ARB – American Registered Breeds (Bos indicus type) ü 2 ORH – Other Recorded Heifer (Bos Taurus type, non-American) ü ARB – American Registered Breeds (Bos indicus type) ü n/a – means not applicable (i.e., breed not eligible for exhibition at show) BREED HLSR 1 SALE 1 SAN ANGELO 1 RODEO AUSTIN 1 FORT WORTH 2 STATE FAIR 1 HOT FAIR Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus Angus Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster Beefmaster ARB ARB ARB ARB n/a ARB ARB E6 Certified (min 50% Beefmaster) Beefmaster ARB ARB ARB ARB n/a ARB ARB Advancer Braford ARB ARB ARB ARB n/a ARB ARB Braford F-1 ARB n/a ARB ARB n/a ARB ARB Brahman Grey Brahman OR Brahman ARB Brahman Brahman Grey Brahman OR Grey Brahman Red Brahman (Red & Grey (Red & Grey (Red & Grey Red Brahman OR Combined) Combined) Combined) Red Brahman Page 1 of 5 Breeding Heifer Validation Program Major Livestock Show Breed Eligibility Guide BREED HLSR 1 SALE 1 SAN ANGELO 1 RODEO AUSTIN 1 FORT WORTH 2 STATE FAIR 1 HOT FAIR Brahman ARB ARB ARB ARB n/a ARB ARB Golden Certified
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Beef Cattle Shortcourses
    Impacts of Beef Cattle Shortcourses Dr. Tim Olson Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville The first Breeder’s and Herdsmen’s Short - probably not such a good idea for the showman Course, the predecessor of the Beef Cattle Short either. Courses that have now been held for 50 years, was held on June 18th and 19th, 1951 at the University Mr. Joe Keefauver, an Angus breeder from of Florida. As the title of this first short course Tennessee, spoke on breeding and commented implies, the emphasis was on the production of that although the best cattle come from purebred cattle and the event was sponsored by linebreeding, most people can’t successfully do it the Florida Angus Breeders’ Association. About and most cattle aren’t good enough to be linebred 75 attended this first short course whose topics without running the risk of bringing out bad included fundamentals of feeding beef cattle by characteristics. A lot of emphasis was placed on Dr. R. S. Glasscock of the UF Animal Husbandry visual evaluation by the speakers, as might have Department, selection of breeding females by Joe been expected for the time, but Mr. Keefauver Keefauver, an Angus breeder from Tennessee and also added “You can’t tell for sure by looking, selection of a herd bull by Rae Ferrell, an Angus production is the ultimate test.” Mr. Keefauver breeder from Georgia. A local Gainesville was ahead of his time. Another speaker, however, veterinarian, Dr. Karl Owens discussed herd made the comment that “You won’t find a bull health issues including Bangs, Blackleg, Scours that is too short-legged.” Unfortunately this and Footrot.
    [Show full text]
  • A Compilation of Research Results Involving Tropically Adapted Beef Cattle Breeds
    A COMPILATION OF RESEARCH RESULTS INVOLVING TROPICALLY ADAPTED BEEF CATTLE BREEDS S-243 and S-277 Multistate Research Projects Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 405 http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/breeding_genetics/trpoical+breeds.htm Contact information: Dr. David G. Morrison, Associate Director Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station P. O. Box 25055 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70894-5055 Phone: 225-578-4182 FAX: 225-578-6032 Email: [email protected] ISBN: 1-58161-405-5 State Agricultural Experiment Stations do not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status in provision of educational opportunities or employment opportunities and benefits. - 1 - Preface The Southern region of the U.S. contains approximately 42% of the nation’s beef cows and nearly 50% of its cow-calf producers. The region’s environment generally can be characterized as subtropical, i.e. hot, humid summers with ample rainfall supporting good forage production. Efficient cow-calf production in the humid South is dependent on heat and parasite tolerance and good forage utilization ability. Brahman and Brahman-derivative breeds generally possess these characteristics and excel in maternal traits. Consequently, they have been used extensively throughout the Southern Region in crossbreeding systems with Bos taurus breeds in order to exploit both breed complementarity and heterosis effects. However, several characteristics of Brahman and Brahman crossbred cattle, such as poor feedlot performance, lower carcass quality including meat tenderness, and poor temperament, whether real or perceived can result in economic discounts of these cattle. Therefore, determining genetic variation for economically important traits among Brahman and Brahman-derivative breeds and identifying tropically adapted breeds of cattle from other countries that may excel in their performance of economically important traits in Southern U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Agriculture Statistical Directory
    Dear Friends of Agriculture, It is my pleasure to present the 2008 Florida Agriculture Statistical Directory. This report presents a wealth of information about Florida’s vast and varied agricultural production through data that details land use, crop yields, commodity prices, crop rankings and more. This yearly report is invaluable to anyone who is involved in this dynamic business or who wants to better understand its complexities. The tables, charts and statistics contained in this report do an exceptional job of measuring the inputs and outputs, and presenting Florida agriculture in the context of “hard numbers.” But there is more to our state’s agricultural industry: our hard-working farmers, whose dedication, hard work and perseverance have made Florida agriculture into the diverse and highly productive industry that is respected throughout the globe. As evidenced by the ever-growing popularity of the “Fresh from Florida” label, consumers worldwide appreciate and seek out the quality products that our farmers provide. Maintaining these standards of excellence seldom comes easily as each year presents new challenges for Florida’s 40,000 commercial farmers. But, whether confronted by hurricanes, freezes, pests, diseases or fierce international competition, our state’s producers continually show that they are up to the test. Enterprising spirit, love of the land, and pride in their products are all hallmarks of the well- earned reputation of Florida’s farmers. In addition to enjoying the quality products that our farmers produce, Florida’s agricultural production benefits our state’s residents in other important ways as well. Florida agriculture has an overall economic impact estimated at more than $100 billion annually, making it a sound pillar of the state’s economy.
    [Show full text]
  • ACE Appendix
    CBP and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: PGA August 13, 2021 Pub # 0875-0419 Contents Table of Changes .................................................................................................................................................... 4 PG01 – Agency Program Codes ........................................................................................................................... 18 PG01 – Government Agency Processing Codes ................................................................................................... 22 PG01 – Electronic Image Submitted Codes .......................................................................................................... 26 PG01 – Globally Unique Product Identification Code Qualifiers ........................................................................ 26 PG01 – Correction Indicators* ............................................................................................................................. 26 PG02 – Product Code Qualifiers ........................................................................................................................... 28 PG04 – Units of Measure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 PG05 – Scientific Species Code ........................................................................................................................... 31 PG05 – FWS Wildlife Description Codes ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Each New GGP Generation Gives You More Advantages
    A New Generation The GeneSeek® Genomic Profiler™ (GGP) portfolio empowers your selection, management and marketing of beef seedstock Each new GGP generation gives you more advantages Our GeneSeek Genomic Profiler (GGP) products and services empower your decisions in selecting, raising and selling elite cattle, enhancing profit and protecting your reputation for high-quality seedstock. Beef genomics is evolving fast. Neogen gives you the most advanced, widest range of DNA testing for the real world of cattle production. Why Neogen? • From partnering with all major breeds…to the industry’s broadest line of genomic profilers • From faster, easier DNA sampling at chute side…to world-class achievements like genotyping embryos • From running millions of DNA samples…to driving down the cost of genomic testing • From advanced data pipelines…to ongoing discovery on the genomic frontier • From field support for your operation…to global collaborations with world-renowned scientists • From defect and condition screening…to customized profiles for your breed If you want to be generations ahead, go with GGP. How to obtain GGP products and services GGP products are available through partner breed associations and genetics companies. GGP data are used to genomically enhance Expected Progeny Differences (GE-EPDs), test parentage and screen for genetic conditions. GGP data are transmitted to partners via secure, industry-leading bio-informatic tools and backed by our data experts and quality control team. October 1990 March 1998 July 2001 July 2001 Human Genome Project begins a National Beef Cattle A Timeline of Abe Oommen and Daniel Pomp Jim Gibb launches 13-year, $2.7 billion effort, world's Evaluation Consortium funded to found GeneSeek Frontier Beef Systems Genomic Milestones largest research collaboration improve beef genetics 2 The generational timelines of GE-EPDs & traditional bull test evaluation Collecting good quality phenotype data is very important.
    [Show full text]