Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 1
Page 2 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 3
Published by the American Chianina Association
Contents
PO Box 890 • Platte City, MO 64079 816.431.2808 • 816.431.5381 (fax) www.chicattle.org
StAff
In this issue
Features 14 8 11
Improving Efficiency Starts with Understanding Measures
Bob Weaber, Ph.D
New Traits for Fall 2012
Bob Weaber, Ph.D
The Udder Issue: Scoring for culling decisions and selection
Troy Smith
Columns 5 7
Chianina Hybrid Advantage
Stan Comer
Changes on the Horizon
Tyler Humphrey
Cover photo: Talmo Ranch - Wayne & Jill MIller, Talmo, GA
Upcoming Events October 1
entry deadline for aCa national sale
October 6
Four roses open House & Private treaty sale
October 7
Cardinal Cattle Diamonds in the mine online sale
October 7
Green oak Farms online sale
October 7
Ventura Farm annual open House
October 20-21 new Deal alliance Pt sale & open House October 25-27 aCa Board of Directors meeting, Platte City, mo October 27
BPF traditioins of excellence sale
November 3
Winegardener’s 16th annual Harest of excellence sale
November 3
Jones High standards Female sale
November 11
Junior show - naIle
November 12
aCa national sale & social - naIle
November 14
aCa national show - naIle
November 20
ad/Copy deadline for January Chianina Journal
November 25
martin Dream Girls sale
December
Holt/Beare/Ford Black Velvet Female sale
January 20
nWss Chianina Bull & Female sale - Denver
Page 4 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Stan Comer, CEO Jaclyn Upperman, ACJ Editor/Director of Shows & Activities Jennifer Roach, Registrar/Office Manager Tyler Humphrey, Director of Marketing & Performance Programs Cheryl Minyard, Administrative/Membership Services Coordinator
Board of Directors
Rob Sheets, Chairman, At Large 2013 8250 U.S. Hwy W, Lafayette, IN 47906 765.583.4555 • rsheets462@aol.com Dennis Clarahan, Vice Chairman, Northeast Region 2012 19425 280th Ave, Harper IA 52231 641.635.2105 • dclar@iowatelecom.net Ken Culp III, Secretary, At Large 2014, 1065 Durham lane, Nicholasville, KY 40356 859.881.9115 • ken.culp@uky.edu Don Esch, Treasurer, At Large 2012 717 N 22nd Rd. Unadilla, NE 68454 303.709.1595 • don@eschcattle.com John Higgins, At Large 2012 9845 Statesville Rd., Watertown, TN 37184 615.273.2656 • higginjo@realtracs.com Jordan Holt, Northwest Region 2014 13319 378th Ave, Aberdeen SD 57401 605.380.1209 • jordan@midwestag.biz Mark Johnson, At Large 2013 4620 Goldfinch Ave., Maurice, IA 51036 712.567.3986 • mpjchi@mtcnet.net Art Pittman, At Large 2013 PO Box 336, Micro, NC 27555 919.284.5580 • apittman@eastcoastequip.com Ed Miller, At Large 2012 8805 FM 818, Big Spring, TX 79740 432.398.5348 • ecmiller26@hotmail.com
Bryan Schaefer, At Large 2014 Box 28, Des Lacs, ND 58733 701.725.4902 • bschaefer@srt.com Val Shields, Southeast Region 2104 837 Dahms Rd, Falmouth, KY 41040 859.654.4440 • vbsfarms@aol.com Brad Stoppel, Southwest Region 2013 18361 Reservior Rd., Russell, KS 67665 785.483.2753 • jstoppel34@hotmail.com
Column
The Chianina Hybrid Advantage... Myth or Truth?
Stan Comer
T
here seems to be a lot of discussion in the cattle industry today concerning crossbreeding as it relates to heterosis. Some even say that straight British breeds are more comparable to Continental breeds regarding growth rate and therefore there is less heterosis available today compared to 30 years ago. I often wonder if Continental breeds had not been introduced to the US in the 1970’s , would the “straight British” breeds be as large framed and have the mature cow size and mass that we see today? Composite seed stock with documented pedigrees, EPD’S , Carcass Trait Ultrasound & DNA predictions are still the most valueadded beef production available in the US today,(ie …commercial pork and poultry production models). Continental crossed with British breeds that have a complimentary effect such as CHIANGUS have added a great deal of Hybrid Advantage to cattle producers. British breeds that have focused on single trait selection from time to time including yearling weight and marbling have achieved those goals while letting other economically important production traits such as longevity, reproductive efficiency,
udder quality, extra muscular fat and muscle go the other direction. Chianina Hybrid cattle have unique genetic qualities that set them apart from other Continental x British composites. Calving ease is a production trait that many sires are selected for. Over time, if this trait is focused on too heavily, birth weight becomes low and the calf can never make up the performance difference with his contemporaries for weaning weight. The Chianina phenotype has a long narrow head, slender shoulders and a long smooth hip muscle for ease of passage through the birth canal while maintaining an optimum birth weight to weaning weight ratio. Chianina Hybrid calves are thrifty at birth and jump up and start nursing quickly. The relationship of the Chianina breed to Bos Indicus cattle gives them the unique ability to adapt and thrive in hot, humid environments as well as cold, harsh and even arid regions of the US. The Chianina breed also processes a tenderness gene that when combined with the carcass traits of British breed cattle produces an optimum harvest weight carcass combined with an enjoyable eating experience.
While the US cowherd inventory is extremely low and the domestic as well as export demand is high we face a challenge over the next several years to produce more beef. The CHIANINA HYBRID ADVANTAGE regarding feed efficiency and lean muscle production even at heavier carcass weights while not sacrificing yield grade discounts allows beef producers to effectively address the supply issue. THE CHIANINA HYBRID ADVANTAGE… It is the TRUTH… AND YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK! ©ACA
Fall 2012 | Chianina Journal | Page 5 Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 5
Page 6 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Column
Change on the Horizon Tyler Humphrey, Director of Marketing & Performance Programs
F
all is upon us and time to start another show and sale season. Since the spring commercial journal was published many things have happened, both for the good and the bad. As you know, most of the United States experienced some sort of drought this summer. Throughout my travels this summer I have been to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri and Michigan and would say that Indiana and Illinois have suffered the most from the extreme
heat. Despite these less than ideal conditions, I have seen one of the best calf crops overall that I have ever seen. Both commercial and show cattle groups have been outstanding across the upper midwest. This year several new things are taking place within the American Chianina Association (ACA) and Chianina breed. First and foremost would be the inception of the American Chianina Association Foundation. After many years of development, this not for profit organization kicked off with a fundraising event in Lima, Ohio at the Junior National Heifer Show. The inaugural event raised over $50,000 for Chianina youth, education and research. Look for more information coming this fall. Second, after careful deliberation the ACA has made the decision
to fully take over managing the Denver sale this year at the National Western Stock Show. The staff of the Chianina Association looks forward to this event and will continually strive to grow this event. Look for more information about the Denver sale in upcoming issues of the Chianina Journal as well as online. This fall looks to be one of the best to date in terms of great cattle selling and exciting new things happening. At the end of August I will be going to the South Dakota State fair as well as attending live cattle and pasture sales to view Chianina cattle and seeking cattle to sell in the National sale in Louisville, Kentucky. Feel free to give me a call if you would like me to stop by and see your stock. I hope to see you all this fall at the sales and shows! ŠACA
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 7
Feature
New Traits for Fall 2012
ACA to Release Research Report of Multi-breed Genetic Evaluation for Calving Ease and Maternal Calving Ease with Fall 2012 Evaluation Bob Weaber, Ph.D with contributions from American Simmental Association geneticists Lauren Hyde, Ph.D. and Wade Shafer, Ph.D.
T
he Fall 2012 American Chianina Association’s (ACA) genetic evaluation will include results for two new traits: Calving Ease and Maternal Calving Ease. The new trait development is made available through enhancements made to the genetic evaluation system by ACA’s service provider, the American Simmental Association (ASA). The addition of multi-breed direct (CE) and maternal calving ease (MCE) EPDs marks another industry first for the ASA. Now Chianina and Chiangus breeders and other users of ASA’s genetic evaluation system can incorporate calving ease EPDs into their selection toolbox on all cattle, not only purebred and full-blood Chianina, but also Chiangus and all other breeds and breed combinations in the ASA’s 9 million animal database. The new calving ease EPDs will be reported in a stand-alone research report for a subset of sires and will be available for download from the ACA website. The new calving ease (CE) EPD describes the relative differences in additional percentage of a sire’s calves born unassisted. The maternal calving ease EPD (MCE) describes the additional percentage of a sire’s daughter’s calves that are born unassisted. EPD values that
are more positive are viewed as more favorable than negative values. For instance, if bull A has a CE EPD of +7 and bull B has a CE EPD of +2, then when mated to cows of similar genetic background, age and environment, then we’d expect 5% more unassisted births (5% fewer assists) in bull A’s calves than bull B’s. Calving ease EPD should be used instead of birth weight (BW) EPD to manage dystocia in first calf heifers. CE is the economically relevant trait as BW EPD doesn’t describe all the genetic variation in dystocia. Additionally, selection for low birth weight is antagonistic to selection for improved growth rate to weaning, yearling or carcass endpoints. Note that the CE evaluation includes BW as an indicator trait so all the information BW provides about dystocia is included in the CE and MCE EPDs. Breeders should not simultaneously include CE and BW in a selection decision as this double counts the impact of BW. Breeders should exclusively use CE EPD for the selection of service sires to minimize dystocia in first calf heifers. ASA’s new multi-breed calving
Page 8 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
ease evaluation is the culmination of a long-term project conducted by ASA staff and Zhiwu Zhang, Ph.D., of Cornell University. The new evaluation is significantly different from the evaluation that produced EPDs for high percentage Simmental animals in the past and has a number of important features that benefit ACA members as described by ASA geneticists below: uses animal Model Animal model refers to a system in which the population’s entire pedigree structure is accounted for in the evaluation. Consequently, each animal’s evaluation is based on its own record as well as progeny data and maternal and paternal pedigree and performance data. The animal model results in an evaluation for all animals based on all available information.
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 9
on data from the evaluation. be the same trait as calving difficulty Accounts for Breed Differences To improve the prediction on in cows. In a preliminary analysis Just as with ASA’s multi-breed founders, yearly BOF effects are of the data, we found that to be the weight and carcass trait evaluations, computed to account for the genetic case. For that reason, we chose to ASA’s multi-breed calving ease trend that may be present in a breed. limit observations to first-calf heifers. system accounts for breed Founder animals are then assigned This is a common practice in other differences. Because we know that a genetic level based on their year of calving ease evaluations (e.g., Angus, breeds perform at different levels, birth. For example, a foundation Gelbvieh, Limousin). Though we an effective multi-breed evaluation no longer include cow observations, should account for those differences. Angus animal born in 2004 will receive genetic levels consistent with because we now incorporate If breed differences are not the average 2004 born Angus. offspring from all sires in the accounted for, a young Angus sire evaluation, calving ease accuracies with little to no information would Uses External EPDs have increased appreciably. be predicted to have similar calving As with our multi-breed weight ease EPDs to an upstart Belgian Blue Has Updated Heritability bull with little or no information — and carcass evaluations, our multi-breed calving ease system Estimates and Genetic hardly a logical assessment. With has the capacity to incorporate Correlations the capacity to account for breed As part of the multi-breed calving differences, we correctly assign more EPDs derived from data external to our database (i.e., from other ease project, we decided to refavorable calving ease EPDs to the genetic evaluations). The process is estimate the heritabilities for CE and Angus bull. Of course, as data are MCE and the genetic correlations collected on these bulls we may find analogous to adding records from other evaluations to our own. This is between birth weight (BW) and the Belgian Blue to be superior, but a very powerful feature. Though we CE, BW and MCE, and CE and we certainly would not predict that already have the largest multi-breed MCE. Populations change over based on only having knowledge of database in the world by a wide time, and it is necessary to reevaluate breed composition. Breed differences are accounted for margin, by adding information from them periodically. The last time other evaluations we essentially add the parameters for calving ease were by determining the different breeds millions of additional records to our estimated was some time in the that exist in an animal’s pedigree. evaluation. As far as we know, ours late 1980s or early 1990s. Since All pedigrees in the ASA database is the only calving ease evaluation in then, the Simmental population has are traced back to the most remote existence with this capability. changed quite a bit genetically. ancestor in each pedigree. These The parameter estimates are shown distant ancestors are called founders. Uses First-calf Heifer in Table 1 with heritabilities on the The breed composition of an animal Observations diagonal and genetic correlations is determined by the breeds of all In ASA’s previous calving ease below the diagonal. Note the high founders in the animal’s pedigree analysis, calving ease observations genetic correlation (.93) between and the number of generations from all dam ages were used. birth weight and calving ease. This between the animal and its founders. Though this approach uses all indicates that many of the same The expected genetic value of an available data, it presents potential genes that affect one trait also affect animal is the weighted average of problems — most notably that the other. ©ACA the breed of founder (BOF) effects. calving difficulty in heifers may not For example, if we know nothing else about an animal other than it is 75% Simmental and 25% HEritABilitiEs & BirtH CAlvinG MAtErnAl Red Angus, its expected GEnEtiC COrrElAtiOns WEiGHt EAsE CAlvinG EAsE genetic merit is the weighted BirtH WEiGHt 0.43 average of the Simmental and CAlvinG EAsE .93 .19 Angus BOF effects (i.e., .75 x MAtErnAl CAlvinG EAsE .40 .28 .15 SM BOF + .25 x AR BOF). The BOF effects represent the table 1. Heritabilites and gentic correlations for birth weight and calving ease. breed average for a trait based Page 10 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
feature
The Udder Issue:
Scoring for culling decisions and selection Troy Smith
C
ongratulations to those cow-calf producers who have never grappled with udder issues. You may be in the minority, though, for plenty of cow persons do have experience with mandatory mammary manipulation. They might tell you stories, usually set on a dark night, during miserable weather and involving faulty facilities. With only minor embellishments, such recollections can be funny. In reality, milking out a cow’s tight, feverish, balloon-teated bag isn’t much fun. It’s never convenient. Just thinking about it makes Partisover Ranch’s Randy Daniel shake his head and shiver a little. “I can’t make myself like a cow with a bad udder,” says the seedstock breeder from Colbert, Georgia. “I think most of the commercial producers we deal with are the same way. They see udder quality as very important, especially if they run a fairly large number of cows with a limited labor force. They don’t have time to fool with problem udders.” Daniel realizes there are people that seem willing to overlook the inconvenience. Their story may involve a cow with powerful performance potential in her genes. She represents a significant investment. Her bag doesn’t look so bad, after a day or two, and her calf is nursing by itself. It’s a nice calf and she really is a pretty good cow. “It might be a tough call, in certain cases,” admits Daniel, “but a bad udder poses a risk to the calf and can reduce the cow’s productive life. It’s best to remember what her udder looked like at its worst.” Covington, Louisiana, breeder and veterinarian Gary Greene agrees, saying poor udder and teat conformation can potentially lead to increased calf sickness. While selection and culling pressure based on udder quality may be considered
convenience trait selection, it can affect profit potential by reducing calf sickness and helping protect calf performance. “A pendulous udder dragging through the mud can transfer disease-causing organisms to the nursing calf,”
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 11
explains Greene, also noting how oversize teats are difficult for a newborn calf to nurse. That may result in delayed or inadequate consumption of colostrum and poor transmission of passive immunity. And that can result in poor performance throughout the calf ’s life. “Bad udders are at risk to injury and a higher incidence of mastitis. One or more infected quarters means milk production is less. That’s probably going to hurt her calf ’s weaning weight and is likely to shorten the cow’s productive life in the herd,” adds Greene. California State University-Fresno animal scientist Randy Perry says cows don’t have to be “pretty-uddered” to be functional in a commercial beef herd. However, anecdotal evidence suggests udder quality, on an industry-wide basis, may have deteriorated. Certainly, there is considerable variation among and within herds. Breed differences show there is a genetic component to udder quality. It is considered at least moderately heritable and geneticists estimate its heritability is somewhere between .16 and .22. “Historically, buying and using bulls out of gooduddered mothers has been considered a sensible practice,” says Perry. “Of course, it hasn’t always happened. Sometimes, emphasis on selection for increased performance or improved carcass merit may have overshadowed convenience traits, including udder quality. Maybe a producer is willing to look past the inconvenience. Or, maybe the people making breeding decisions aren’t the same people that calve the cows and end up milking out problem udders.” Perry thinks adoption of a scoring system or some method of evaluating udder quality is a good practice. North Dakota State University’s David Buchanan agrees, advising evaluation of both udder suspension and teats. The udder should be snugly attached, symmetrical and quarters should be balanced. Weakness in the ligaments supporting the udder causes it to hang low and the condition generally worsens over time. Teats should be evaluated for size, shape and uniformity. “A producer has to decide what the threshold for acceptability is,” says Buchanan. “If a cow’s udder is acceptable, fine. If it isn’t, get rid of her and don’t look back,” advises Buchanan. “I don’t know what a ‘perfect’ udder is, but we should be able to recognize a bad one. We can identify cows with bad udders and eliminate them.” That will ease management issues related to problem udders, and since those bad-bagged cows won’t contribute any more daughters as replacements, the genetic merit of the herd is improved. That said, Page 12 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Buchanan thinks udder evaluation or scoring is best applied as a tool for culling cows, but not as an aid to selection of replacement heifers. In other words, Buchanan ranks udder quality of the dam well down the list of heifer selection criterion. Consideration of growth rate, calving ease, mature size, heifer pregnancy rate, stayability and probably some other traits would rank higher. Breeder Brian McCulloh, of Woodhill Farms, Viroqua, Wisconsin, suspects many commercial producers sort heifers into the “keeper” pen without considering what their mothers’ udders were like. He thinks seedstock breeders must give due diligence to udder quality when
Scoring TipS The Beef Improvement Federation recommends evaluating bovine mammary systems, using separate numerical scores (1 through 9) for udder suspension and size and shape. In addition to aiding culling decisions, diligent scoring over time may also useful as a selection tool. Producers are advised to consider the following guidelines: >> Assign scores within 24 hours after the cow calves. If the cow has been nursed out, teats, in particular, cannot be scored accurately. >> Scoring is subjective. Greater consistency is achieved when all scoring of all cows in the herd is done by the same person. >> When evaluating udder suspension, a score of 1 would be assigned to a very pendulous udder with broken floor. An udder carried high and tight would be assigned a score of 9. >> When evaluating teats, circumference is generally of greater importance than length. Teats of moderate circumference and medium length are most favorable. Large, balloon-shaped teats would receive a score of 9, while small, well-shaped teats are assigned a score of 1. When teat size and shape varies, assign a score based on the weakest quarter. >> Scores should be assigned without regard for cow age or milk production.
choosing sires and when selecting females. He thinks the industry would benefit if more producers scored udders and applied the results to selection as well as culling decisions. “You have to identify poor udders, cull hard, and be careful of the daughters you keep and the bulls you use. If you do it year after year, and if you don’t let up, you can solve problems,” says McCulloh. “I think it’s a seedstock breeder’s duty to remain diligent. If we use the tools available to us, and if we’re really honest with ourselves when evaluating udders, we can make progress.” McCulloh advises commercial producers to ask their seedstock suppliers about the kind of scrutiny applied to udder quality. It’s for the commercial customers’ own benefit and it’s a way to hold seedstock suppliers feet to the fire.
Illif, Colorado, breeder Ken Amen says that’s what many of his customers do. They provide plenty of feedback, including a clear message that udder quality is more than a convenience trait. Many consider it essential to cow longevity. Consequently, Amen considers udder quality when choosing sires and selecting females too. He thinks it’s necessary to work hard on the cow side, in case a mistake is made on the sire side. “It can happen, because there’s just not much data available to help evaluate sires for udder quality,” says Amen. “Evaluating udders at calving time and recording it in the calving book helps us make culling and selection decisions. Yes, it’s subjective. You have to try to be consistent and persistent to make progress. It takes time, but breeders have a responsibility to keep trying. They have to raise the bar and keep it high.” ©ACA
Scoring Udder Suspension and Teat Size Recommendations provided by The University of Nebraska – Lincoln
T
he ideal time to udder score beef cows is within the first 24 to 48 hours after calving as she begins to freshen. Udder conformation will decline as the female ages, but do not take age into account when assigning an udder score. The following udder scoring system was developed by the Beef Improvement Federation. This scoring system categorizes udder suspension and teat size. A teat score of 9 (very tight, highly desirable) to 1 (pendulous, not desirable) for udder suspension and a score of 9 (very small) to 1 (very large) for teat size. The BIF scoring system doesn’t account for teat and udder pigmentation. Pigmentation is desirable as it is a guard against sunburn of the teat and udder that can be caused by direct sunshine or reflection of the sun off snow. for more information visit http://beef. unl.edu/ ©ACA
udder SuSpenSion Scoring 1. Very tight, very pronounced median suspensory ligament. Udder Suspension score = 9. 2. Tight attachment, pronounced median suspensory ligament. Udder suspension score = 7. 3. Intermediate attachment. Udder suspension = 5. 4. Loose attachment, weak median suspensory ligament. Udder suspension = 3. 5. Very loose attachment, very weakmedian suspensory ligament. Udder suspension = 1.
TeaT Size Scoring 1. Very small and symmetrical. Teat size score = 9. 2. Small and symmetrical. Teat size score = 7. 3. Intermediate in length; still have symmetry. Teat size score = 5. 4. Large, variable in length and symmetry. Teat size score = 3. 5. Very large, variable length and symmetry. Teats appear thick. Teat size score = 1. Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 13
FEaturE
Improving Efficiency Starts with Understanding the Measures Bob Weaber,Ph.D., Cow Calf extension Specialist, Kansas State University
F
or commercial beef producers, the implementation of technologies and breeding systems that increase the quality and volume of production and/or reduce input costs is essential to profitability. Efficiency is a term that refers to the proportion of outputs to inputs and is a frequently mentioned goal of beef producers. There are many different ‘efficiencies’ that affect beef production, especially at the cowcalf level. Some of these efficiencies are observed at the individual animal level and some observed at the system or herd level. The various efficiencies can be categorized into measures of biological or economic efficiency. Improvement in individual animal efficiency, especially during the postweaning growing or finishing phases, may or may not improve efficiency at the herd or system level, and may have an undesirable correlated response in traits of cows. So, why is improvement in feed efficiency important and why does the beef industry focus on it? During the growing and finishing phase of production, a one percent improvement in feed efficiency has the same economic impact as a three percent increase in rate of gain. Assuming 27 million cattle are fed per year and that 34 percent of
cattle in the feedlot are calves and 66 percent are yearlings, the beef industry could save over a billion dollars annually by reducing daily feed intake by just 2 pounds per growing animal. Different Measures of Efficiency There are a variety of measures of efficiency discussed and utilized in beef production. Some may or may not be important to cow-calf producers. For improvements in ‘efficiency’ to positively impact profitability of a cow-calf producer, the efficiency improvement must be realized prior to the marketing endpoint of progeny. In the following sections a variety of ‘efficiency’ measures are discussed including their applicability and limitations for improvement in efficiency of the cow herd. These measures or their component traits have been shown to be heritable, so selection for improvement is possible but anticipated to be slow, requiring a decade or more to move the population a meaningful distance. Feed Efficiency or Feed Conversion Ratio: Many cowcalf producers and, certainly cattle feeders, are familiar with the term feed efficiency (FE; live weight gain per unit of feed consumed) or its reciprocal, feed conversion
Page 14 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
ratio (FCR; F:G or pounds of feed per pound of live gain). Both of these measures are most commonly associated with animals during the growing or finishing phases. Both measures are suitable for managerial use during feeding but are poor selection tools. Their utility is limited in selection due to two issues. First, the measures are ratios of inputs and outputs, so improvement in the ratio can be achieved by changing the numerator, the denominator or both. Therefore breeders don’t have control over which parameter in the ratio changes due to selection. Selection tools like an index that consider each input and output separately are more effective. Second, FCR or FE is strongly related to average daily gain (ADG) and composition of gain. Leaner biological types and larger, faster growing animals tend to have better FE and FCR. Selection based on FE or FCR results in larger, later maturing and leaner cows. This type of cow tends to have higher maintenance energy requirements. Residual Feed Intake: Recently, residual feed intake (RFI; Koch et al. 1963) has been reintroduced as an efficiency measure for beef production. It is computed as the difference between actual average daily feed intake (AFI) and the predicted daily dry-matter intake
Fall 2012 | Chianina Journal | Page 5
based on the animal’s gain and maintenance requirements for its body weight. The actual calculation results in an RFI value that is not correlated with phenotypic ADG and body weight (an advantage over FCR or FE). However, research shows underlying genetic correlations between RFI with FI, ADG and BW as well as measures of composition. Computing RFI on the genetic scale as an index of EPDs assures a selection tool with fewer antagonisms. RFI can and does identify efficient animals that also have slow growth and low feed intake making these candidates undesirable for selection and use in the commercial beef industry. Some research suggests that selection for RFI produces slightly larger and leaner cows over time and cows that have older ages at first calving. In general, selection for favorable Page 6 | Chianina Journal | Fall 2012
(negative) RFI results in animals with equivalent performance, but achieves that output with less feed consumed. Residual Average Daily Gain: A concept closely related to RFI is residual average daily gain (RADG) which was proposed at the same time as RFI as a potential tool for selection for improved feed efficiency. This term is defined as the difference between actual weight gain and the gain predicted based on dry matter intake, maintenance of body weight and fat cover. In the calculation, differences in ADG are controlled/adjusted for differences in AFI and body weight. Like RFI, RADG, is a transformation of the data and can be computed based on either the live measurements alone (phenotypic) or by information from both the individual and relative data (genetic). While RADG is indicative of differences in efficiency of feed utilization for growing animals, it may have limited utility for prediction of differences in maintenance efficiency of cows. RADG should not be used alone in selection for feed efficiency. Data reveals that some animals with favorable RADG have sub-par feed intake and consequently undesirable ADG.
Average Daily Feed Intake: Also known as AFI. AFI is a gross measure of nutrient input. While it cannot be used alone as a predictor of feed efficiency, it provides a useful data input for computation of a selection index. Feed intake represents an economically relevant measure of cost that can be associated with a variety of output or endpoint measures. AFI could be measured on animals during different phases of production and used to capture input:output (efficiency) information. A selection index for AFI or an AFI EPD can be reliably produced analyzing performance records for a variety of growth traits. An AFI EPD produced without actual feed records but based on genetic associations between growth and intake can account for nearly 75% of the variation in observed feed intake. These measures of efficiency are most commonly discussed when considering data that measure individual intake of growing animals in a feedlot setting. Cow/ calf producers that retain an interest or ownership of calves through harvest may be considering them as options to improve profitability of the finishing phase of production. Since growth is not a desired output of the cow, other measures of cow efficiency are needed that account for reproduction, maintenance and milk production. Reprinted with permission from Beef Tips, March 2012, Kansas State Research and Extension. Beef Tips is available online at: http://www.asi.ksu.edu/p. aspx?tabindex=39&tabid=297 ŠACA
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 15
Advertiser’s index 4K Ranch...................................................3 5J Chianina..............................................18 A.B.’s Ranch.............................................22 Ard Ridge Cattle Company......................19 Batten Farm...............................................3 Blankenship Family..................................16 Boone Hill Farms.......................................3 Carlada Farms..........................................19 Circle E Cattle Company.........................22 Circle E Farms.........................................17 Champagne Farms...................................19 Chi-G Farms............................................17 Chianina Assocaition.............................IFC Clarahan Farms...................................11,18 Classic Genetics.......................................21 CK Cattle Company........................17,IBC Cole, Keith...............................................16 Coward, Danny........................................19 Davis, Tim...............................................20 Dill Family...............................................16 Foster Brothers Farms..............................22 Four Roses Cattle.....................................18 Garrett’s Show Cattle...............................18 Gehrke Farms...........................................17
Gettinger Chi Angus................................17 Graham Chiangus...............................16,21 Grassland Farms....................................9,21 Higgins Farms..........................................16 Hunt Farms..............................................20 Johnson Chiangus....................................17 Kevin Wendt Auctioneer...........................16 Lees Cattle Company................................20 Little Creek Farm.......................................3 Looney, Tom............................................16 Mallard Creed Farms..................................3 McHale Farms..........................................22 Melroe Farms.......................................15,20 Miller, Jeff................................................18 Ohlrichs, Wayne & Barb..........................20 Ramsey Chiangus............................IFC, 20 Rancho La Mesa.......................................22 Ritchy Livestock.........................................7 Riverbend Farm..................................16,21 Riverview Farm........................................20 Rogers, Mark, Caralee..............................18 Ron Kreis, Auctioneer...............................21 RSE Farms, Inc........................................17 Schaefer Chiangus....................................20
Page 16 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Schrick Land & Cattle..............................22 Sears Marketing Services...........................17 Smoky Mountain Farm............................16 Swafford, John & Eric..............................16 Talmo Ranch............................................17 Trennepohl Farms.....................................18 Turkey Run Cattle Company....................19 VBS Farms...............................................19 VKR Cattle Company..............................19 Ventura Farms..........................................19 Walter G. Mizes Ranches..........................22 White Cattle Company.............................21 Whitten Chiangus....................................22 Willow Oak Cattle Ranch...................16,21 Wilstem Guest Ranch...............................18 Woodhaven Farms........................16,21,BC Woodlawn Farms..............................16, BC Wyatt, Bryan............................................16
Chi GenetiCs DireCtory
Talmo Ranch Chiangus & Chiford Cattle
AlAbAmA
Ned Ellis
Home (334) 227-4446
Office
Chuck Madaris Cell: (334) 657-5833
Wayne & Jill Miller, Owners P.O. Box 68 • Talmo, GA 30575 Phone: (706) 693-4133 or Fax: (706) 693-4359 Email: talmoranch@aol.com
illinois
(334) 288-5049 232 Cruise Rd. • Hope Hull, AL 36043
“Professional Sale Management & Marketing Services” Alan Sears 61 Westward Way • Eaton, CO 80615 Home/Office: (970) 454-3986 • Mobile: (970) 396-7521 aksears8@msn.com • www.searsmarketingservices.com
GeorGiA
CHIANGUS Tim & Judy Gilstrap
1355 Wright’s Mill Rd. Commerce, GA 30530 (706) 335-7448 Home (706) 336-8258 Barn
Johnson
C h i a ng us
Terry Johnson, Owner 309.337.8440
GF
Gehrke Farms
Gehrke Farms Beef ( 877) LEANBEEF • gehrke.farms@yahoo.com Freezer Beef & Beef Snack Sticks Troy Gehrke, Manager Delavan, Illinois (309) 244-7819 • Barn (309) 846-1614 • Cell
Garland & Kathie Gehrke Hartsburg, Illinois (217) 642-5862
inDiAnA
Selling Bulls, Heifers & Steers
Farms, Inc.
P.O. Box 330 Stephens, GA 30667
mobile (770) 372–0400 office (770) 921–3207
Drew Johnson 309.337.5700
Gettinger Chi Angus
rse Roddy Sturdivant
Web site: www.talmoranch.com
Rob Postin
home (706) 759–2220 barn (706) 759–2209
Barb Gettinger 3464 S. 325 E. Rushville, IN 46173 (765) 938-1971
Jeff & Lisa Gettinger 4858 E 200 S Rushville, IN 46713 (765) 561-4434 jlgett@yahoo.com
Sam Gettinger (765) 561-3130 s.gettinger@yahoo. com
www.gEttINgERchIaNguS.com Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 17
ChI GeneTICS dIReCToRy
IndIana Guest Ranch
Jeff Miller Grand Champion Pen of Heifers 2010 North American International Livestock Expo
Bulls & Females for sale at all times. P.O. Box 189 French Lick, IN 47432 (812) 630-4850
6863 S. 200 E. Cutler, IN 46920 (765) 268-2409 (765) 414-4547 – cell
Home of WRL Tracken
Iowa Mark L. & CaraLee rogers R.R. 1 • Douds, IA 52551 (641) 936-4682
Chiangus Chimaine Club Calves Larry and Barb Garrett
Chis Made Right Today
C M R T
Chi-Maine Breeding Stock Quality alfalfa for Sale CHiMaiNeS
4496 N. Round Barn Rd., Richmond, IN 47374 (765) 935-7384 Email: bgarrett@globalsite.net
Clarahan Farms Dennis • Ryan • Neil
Breeders of Chiangus Cattle Scott Trennepohl
6591 W 625 N • Middletown, IN 47356
(765) 620-1700 • cell (765) 779-4528 • home sttrennepohl@yahoo.com
Jeff Trennepohl
5487 N 525 W • Middletown, IN 47356
(765) 620-0733 • cell (765) 533-4644 • home
19425 280th Avenue • Harper, IA 52231 (641) 635-2454 – office Dennis: (319) 330-6377 • Ryan: (641) 660-2713 Neil: (641) 660-2257
Raising champion caliber Chianina half bloods, purebreds, and full bloods. WGM Jeff I Semen: $15/unit 31/32 Blk. PB
5J Chianina 2gthr Chianina
Mike & Teresa Logansport, Indiana Rose (574) 753-4652
Gary & Bev Rose
Page 18 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Jerry & Jean Johnson (515) 314-8939 jeanshubby2003@gmail.com
Jim Johnson (515) 984-6952 • (515) 745-3649 jjncj1962@gmail.com
chi genetics DiRectORy
KentucKy
CF Carlada Farms
Michigan
V VK KR
Chiangus Cattle
Home of FBF Nevada Nights 2CA
Johnny & Jane Mounce (606) 871-7922 (H) (606) 305-7880 (C)
591 Warner Rd. Nancy, KY 42544
E-mail: jmounce@dishmail.net
John & Sue Mounce (606) 871-7505 Visitors Always Welcome
814 Ard Ridge Rd. Nancy, KY 42544 Office & Fax: (606) 871-9454 Owners: Leonard & June Branscum: (606) 871-7859 Neal & Rebekah Branscum: (606) 872-5395
Home of Quality Chiangus Cattle
The Vander Kolks Carl, Gail, Craig, Kim & Susan Dorr, Michigan
(616) 896-9190 (office) • (616) 896-9433 (Carl & Gail) (616) 896-1637 (Brady & Susan Ostrom)
Ventura Farm
Chiangus, Chimaine & Angus Bulls Available by Private Treaty
Ken, Deb & Christina Geuns 4995 Sleight Rd. Bath, MI 48808 (517) 641-7152
Harlan & Leah Ritchie 4537 Comanche Dr. Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 333-0649
VF New Edition 201 1CM 2003 ACA National Champion Chi Bull
Mississippi
Danny Coward Home of WOCR Ozzie 67M, sire of the winning Beef Derby Calves
Val B. & Vicky B. Shields 837 Dahms Rd. Falmouth, KY 41040 (859) 654-4440 or (859) 391-0758 Web site: www.VBSFarms.com
For Sale: Semen on RDD Mr VRD 105N utilizing genetics from Willow Oak Ranch & circle e Farms 501 Russell Rd.• Noxapater, MS 39346 (662) 724-2685 (home) • (662) 325-2675 (work) • coward@ cvm.msstate.edu
MissOuRi
Champagne Farms Fullblood Chianina Bulls & Females Available
Chris & Brandhi Howard 5365 West Highway 36 Sharpsburg, KY 40374 606.247.2154 chris.howard@bath.kyschools.us www.champagnefarm.com
Turkey Run Cattle Co. Bulls, Bred Females & Open Females for sale private treaty. Jeff, Jill & Carson Faes 29527 Hwy J • Dalton, MO 65245 660.676.9501 (cell) • 660.544.2931 (home) trcjfaes@gmail.com
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 19
chi Genetics Directory
missouri
Lees Cattle Company Fullblood Chianina Chiangus Breeding Bulls & Heifers Brad Lees
3437 Co. Rd. 2560 • Higbee, MO 65257 (816) 213-3941 • lees7832@yahoo.com
Follow us on Facebook – Lees Cattle Co
north carolina
Carolina Chiangus Tim Davis & Kids P.O. Box 1347 • Huntersville, NC 28070 (704) 361-3098 tdavis4886@aol.com
north Dakota
nebraska
Wayne & Barb Ohlrichs
55943 U.S. Hwy. 275 Norfolk, NE 68701 (402) 371-0695 Cell (402) 649-5804
Chi's, Maines & Angus
Club Calves & Breeding Stock 2009 NWSS Champion Chianina Pen
the brand of quality
Visitors Always Welcome! E-mail: ohl@conpoint.com
Visit us at www.schaeferchiangus.com
Melroe Farms
Ramsey Chiangus Lincoln, Nebraska
Steve, Barb, Tyler & Bethany 8005 Hwy. 32 Gwinner, ND 58040 (701) 678-2225 Tyler (Cell) (605) 695-3295
Customer Focused on Value Traits And Services Producers of Chiangus and Chimaine Breeding Cattle Breeding Heifers, Breeding Bulls and Club Calves Now Available For Viewing and Sale Private Treaty • Call for Directions Bill & Linda Ramsey 5125 South 75th Street • Lincoln, NE 68516 Cell: (308) 380-1549 www.ramseychiangus.com
BFW Hot Iron 1CM
Form to Function ohio
new Jersey
RIVERVIEW FARM
Bryan, John & Jerry Schaefer P.O. Box 28 • Des Lacs, ND 58733 Bryan: (701) 721-8091 bschaefer@srt.com John: (701) 720-7220 Jerry: (701) 720-2061 schaeferchiangus@srt.com
Hunt Farms
FULL BLOOD CHIANINA NOW AVAILABLE: Bulls & Cows Cow/Calf Pairs Open & Bred Heifers Bull Calves
Adam F. Ambielli 412 Trimmer Road Califon, New Jersey 07830 (908) 832-2526 ambielli@earthlink.net
Page 20 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Home Phone (937) 548-3050
Tom, Deanna and Megan 2505 Weavers Station – Ft. Jefferson Rd. New Madison, OH 45346
Chi geneTiCS DireCTory
ohio
TenneSSee
Ron KReis, AuctioneeR 2005 World Champion Livestock Auctioneer Specializing in Purebred & General Livestock Auctions Ron Kreis Adamsville, OH (740) 796-5242 (740) 683-3235 rtkreis@hughes.net
Jan, Jeff & Brandon Johnson P.O. Box 337 Dunlap, TN 37327 Office (423) 949-2434 Home (423) 949-3559 email: janbj@bledsoe.net www.riverbendcattle.com
“Come visit us in the beautiful Sequatchie Valley”
oklahoma
John Coble, Consultant • (406) 254-2548 Scott Coble, Herd Manager • (423) 921-4221 Business office: Old Mills Square • 215W. Broadway St., Ste. D, Rogersville, TN 37857 (423) 272- 0225 richard alan arnold, President & Manager
Classic Genetics
Willow Oak Chiangus Ranch
Chase Comer P.O. Box 705 • Ardmore, OK 73402 (580) 504-1716 Purebred Chiangus
We breed for oPTimUmS. Not extremes. Performance tested bulls and females • Show prospects
oregon
Bottom line genetics For Profit minded Cattlemen
WoodhavenFarms Sponsor of
John & Debbie Woodroof 1264 Young Rd. Lebanon, TN 37090 (615) 444-3519
White Cattle Company Your West Coast Chi Connection Mary Lee & Doris White 74138 Turnout Road • Burns, OR 97720 (541) 589-1476 – Mary Lee (541) 573-6566 – Doris www.whitecattleco.com • maryleewhite@centurytel.net
Tennessee Chianina Steer & Heifer Futurity
Tom Gunn & Family R.R. 3, Box 120 Decherd, TN 37324 (615) 467-3254
Graham ChianGus Breeders of Quality Chi Cattle
Pete, Debra, Taylor & Blythe Graham
2355 Peavine Firetower Rd. • Crossville, TN 38571 (931) 484-4666 Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 21
chi genetics Directory
E
texas
Jody & Shawnda Rt. 2, Box 36 Lockney, TX 79241 (806) 652-2383 (806) 983-7225 cell
David & Dar Lee HCR 4, Box 93 Lockney, TX 79241 (806) 652-3824 (806) 983-7221 cell
Circle E Cattle Company Mineral Wells, Texas
Raising Quality Chi Cattle Shawn Ethridge (940) 328-4723
BW Ethridge (940) 452-1100
Jered Shipman • Herdsman/Consultant • (806) 983-7226 Fax: (806) 652-3738 www.fosterbrosfarms.com fosterbros@att.
Walter G. Mizes Ranches
Fullblood Chianina bulls and females always available. Charles McDonald Ranch Manager/Herdsman Hwy. 281 North Hico, TX 76457 (254) 796-4070 • Fax (254) 796-2330
Call for video. west virginia
McHale Farms Lewisburg & Union, West Virginia Land & Cattle Club Calf & Chiangus
Keith & Dana Schrick Business: (817) 613-0724 Cell: (817) 366-6435
Jason Schrick Business: (817) 596-0799 Cell: (817) 366-8511
Certified Brucellosis & TB Free Herd ID #20020090310
Steve McHale P.O. Box 302 • Union, WV 24983 (304) 772-3389 • (304) 667-1962 whomadewho1@frontier.com
mexico
Chiania Fullbloods Rancho La Mesa
(01152) 811-155-6799 (Trabajo) (011521) 818-396-9380 (Movil) adolfo@chianina.com.mx chianinamx@skype Alvarez 430 sur 64000 Monterrey, N.L. Mexico Page 22 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012
Fall 2012 | Chianina Connection | Page 23
Page 24 | Chianina Connection | Fall 2012