J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crews, D. H.
Right arrow Articles by Quaas, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Crews, D. H., Jr.
Right arrow Articles by Quaas, R. L.
J. Anim. Sci. 2004. 82:661-667
© 2004 American Society of Animal Science

ANIMAL GENETICS

Evaluation of Simmental carcass EPD estimated using live and carcass data1

D. H. Crews, Jr.*,2, E. J. Pollak{dagger} and R. L. Quaas{dagger}

* Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge, Alberta T1J 4B1, Canada and and {dagger} Department of Animal Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853

2 Correspondence: 5403 1st Avenue South (phone: 403-317-2288; fax: 403-382-3156; e-mail: dcrews{at}agr.gc.ca).

Abstract

This study was conducted to compare carcass EPD predicted using yearling live animal data and/or progeny carcass data, and to quantify the association between the carcass phenotype of progeny and the sire EPD. The live data model (L) included scan weight, ultrasound fat thickness, longissimus muscle area, and percentage of intramuscular fat from yearling (369 d of age) Simmental bulls and heifers. The carcass data model (C) included hot carcass weight, fat thickness, longissimus muscle area, and marbling score from Simmental-sired steers and cull heifers (453 d of age). The combined data model (F) included live animal and carcass data as separate but correlated traits. All data and pedigree information on 39,566 animals were obtained from the American Simmental Association, and all EPD were predicted using animal model procedures. The genetic model included fixed effects of contemporary group and a linear covariate for age at measurement, and a random animal genetic effect. The EPD from L had smaller variance and range than those from either C or F. Further, EPD from F had highest average accuracy. Correlations indicated that evaluations from C and F were most similar, and L would significantly (P < 0.05) re-rank sires compared with models including carcass data. Progeny (n = 824) with carcass data collected subsequent to evaluation were used to quantify the association between progeny phenotype and sire EPD using a model including contemporary group, and linear regressions for age at slaughter and the appropriate sire EPD. The regression coefficient was generally improved for sire EPD from L when genetic regression was used to scale EPD to the appropriate carcass trait basis. The EPD from C and F had similar linear associations with progeny phenotype, although EPD from F may be considered optimal because of increased accuracy. These data suggest that carcass EPD based on a combination of live and carcass data predict differences in progeny phenotype at or near theoretical expectation.

Key Words: Beef Cattle • Carcass • Genetic Evaluation • Simmental • Ultrasound






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society of Animal Science.