Using temporal associations to determine maternal parentage in extensive beef herds

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 943 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Menzies ◽  
K. P. Patison ◽  
N. J. Corbet ◽  
D. L. Swain
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Improvement ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Human Intervention ◽  
Data Recording ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Index Method ◽  
Sheep Industry ◽  
Weight Index ◽  
Beef Herds

The assignment of maternal parentage, although time-consuming and expensive using traditional methods, is essential for genetic improvement. Within the sheep industry the recording of time-based (temporal) associations without human intervention has been routinely used to derive maternal parentage, however it has not been researched in extensive beef production systems. To determine whether temporal associations could be used to assign maternal parentage, cows and calves had their identity recorded as they walked to water over a 27-day trial. Two methods of association were investigated, being the half-weight index and the time difference between a cow and calf having their identity recorded. The half-weight index, which is a measure of the number of times two individuals are recorded together, correctly assigned greater than 90% of maternal pairs. When investigating the duration of data recording it was shown that 85% of maternal parentage could be achieved within only 21 days. Further work is required to determine the effect of calf age, herd and paddock size; however, the results showed that the half-weight index method of determining maternal associations is a labour-saving and accurate alternative to traditional methods used to identify maternal parentage.

scholarly journals Dairy vs. beef production – expert views on welfare

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roi Mandel ◽  
Marc B.M. Bracke ◽  
Christine J. Nicol ◽  
John A. Webster ◽  
Lorenz Gygax
Keyword(s):  
Welfare State ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Cows ◽  
Red Meat ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
Meat Production ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Beef Calves ◽  
Beef Herds

AbstractConsumers’ views and concerns about the welfare of farm animals may play an important role in their decision to consume dairy, meat and/or plants as their primary protein source. As animals are killed prematurely in both dairy and beef industries, it is important to quantify and compare welfare compromise in these two sectors before the point of death. Seventy world-leading bovine welfare experts based in 23 countries, were asked to evaluate the likelihood of a bovine to experience 12 states of potential welfare concern, inspired by the Welfare Quality® protocol. The evaluation focused on the most common beef and dairy production systems in the experts’ country, and was carried out separately for dairy/beef calves raised for red-meat, dairy/beef calves raised for veal, dairy/beef calves raised as replacement, and for dairy/beef cows. The results show experts rated the overall likelihood of a negative welfare state (i.e. welfare risk) to be higher in animals from dairy herds than from beef herds, for all animal categories, regardless of whether they were used to produce milk, red-meat or veal. These findings suggest that consuming food products derived from common dairy production systems (dairy or meat), may be more harmful to the welfare of animals than consuming products derived from common beef production systems (i.e. from animals solely raised for their meat). Raising awareness about the linkage between dairy and meat production, and the toll of milk production on the welfare state of animals in the dairy industry, may encourage a more sustainable and responsible food consumption.

Effects of extending the grazing season in beef production systems

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 ◽  
pp. 116-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.J. O’Neill ◽  
M.J. Drennan ◽  
P.J. Caffrey
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Rural Environment ◽  
Environment Protection ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Grazing Season ◽  
Protection Scheme ◽  
Grass Silage ◽  
Feed Costs ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Eu Support

The cost of grazed grass is less than half that of grass silage (O’Kiely, 1994) and incomes from beef production are low and largely dependent on EU support schemes. Thus the income from beef production could be incresed by reducing feed costs through increasing the proportion of grazed grass in the diet and optimising the use of the various support schemes. The objective of this two-year study was to examine the effects on the performance of yearling cattle of turnout to pasture three weeks earlier than normal. This was examined within two suckler beef production systems. One was a standard system similar to that outlined by Drennan (1993) and the second was compatible with the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS).

Life cycle environmental consequences of grass-fed and dairy beef production systems in the Northeastern United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 142 ◽  
pp. 1619-1628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole E. Tichenor ◽  
Christian J. Peters ◽  
Gregory A. Norris ◽  
Greg Thoma ◽  
Timothy S. Griffin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Northeastern United States ◽  
Environmental Consequences

Bioeconomic evaluation of embryo transfer in beef production systems: III. Embryo lines for producing bulls

1992 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 1091-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Ruvuna ◽  
J. F. Taylor ◽  
J. P. Walter ◽  
J. W. Turner ◽  
R. M. Thallman
Keyword(s):  
Embryo Transfer ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production

The Grassland Requirements of Different Breeds in Beef Production Systems

1984 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
J. R. Southgate ◽  
A. W. Spedding
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production

scholarly journals 68 Assessing the Performance of Multiple Grass-fed Beef Production Systems in California

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. 46-47
Author(s):  
Sarah C Klopatek ◽  
Toni Duarte ◽  
Crystal Yang ◽  
James W Oltjen
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Model ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Carcass Quality ◽  
Animal Performance ◽  
Beef Production ◽  
Marbling Score ◽  
Final Body Weight ◽  
Whole Systems

Abstract With demand for grass-fed beef continuing to increase, there is an immediate need to determine animal performance and product quality from varying grass-fed systems. Therefore, using a whole systems approach, we investigated the performance and carcass quality of multiple grass-fed beef systems in California. The treatments included: 1) steers stocked on pasture, then feedyard finished for 140 days (CON); 2) steers grass-fed for 20 months (20GF); 3) steers grass-fed for 20 months with a 45-day grain finish (GR45); and 4) steers grass-fed for 25 months (25GF). The data were analyzed using a mixed model procedure in R. Final body weight (FBW) varied significantly between treatments (P < 0.05) with the CON cattle finishing at 626 kg and GF20 finishing with the lowest FBW of 478 kg. There were no significant differences in FBW between GF45 and GF25 treatments (P > 0.05), with FBW equaling 551 kg and 570 kg, respectively. Dressing percentage (DP) differed significantly between all treatments (P < 0.05), with CON DP at 61.8%, followed by GR45 at 57.5%, GF25 at 53.4%, and GF20 at 50.3%. Marbling scores and quality grades were significantly higher for CON compared to all other treatments (P < 0.05), with a marbling score of 421; 14% of CON animals graded select and 85% graded choice or upper choice. Cattle in the GR20 had the lowest marbling score of 285 (P < 0.05); 59% of the GR20 cattle graded select and 41% graded standard. There was no difference in marbling when comparing the GF25 and GR45 (P > 0.5). In addition, carcasses graded similarly between the two treatments with GF25 grading 13% standard 82% select, and 6% choice, GR45 graded 85% select and 15% choice. The findings from this study indicate that varying CA grass-fed beef production systems results in significant differences in both animal performance and meat quality.

scholarly journals Futuristic Applications for Profitable Beef Production Systems

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Serap Göncü ◽  
Özgül Anitaş ◽  
Gökhan Gökçe
Keyword(s):  
Production Systems ◽  
Beef Production

scholarly journals The Current and Future Uses of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture

Ceiba ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-81
Author(s):  
Alison L. Van Eenennaam
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Genetic Improvement ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Reproductive Technologies ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Breeding Programs ◽  
Animal Products ◽  
Genetic Modifications ◽  
Genomic Tools

Biotechnologies have been an integral part of improvements in animal genetics, nutrition and health over the past century. Many biotechnologies have become fundamental components of efficient livestock production systems. The genetic improvements that have been enabled by biotechnologies have dramatically decreased the environmental footprint of animal protein production in many parts of the world, and continued innovation is required to address the projected increase in demand for animal products in the future. Breeding programs increasingly utilize a combination of advanced reproductive technologies and genomic tools to accelerate the rate of genetic gain by manipulating components of the breeder’s equation. The use of these biotechnologies and breeding methods has met with little public opposition. In contrast, the use of modern biotechnologies, defined as those that employ the use of in vitro nucleic acid techniques, have been highly controversial, especially those involving the use of genetic engineering. This modern biotechnology distinction is somewhat arbitrary as there are a number of biotechnologies that involve the use of in vitro processes, and many result in genetic modifications that are indistinguishable from the naturally-occurring variation that is the driver of both traditional breeding programs and evolution. A number of useful traits including disease resistance and animal welfare traits have been successfully introduced into various livestock species using both genetic engineering and gene editing techniques. Ultimately these techniques complement the genetic improvement that can be accomplished using traditional selection techniques and, if judged acceptable, offer an opportunity to synergistically accelerate genetic improvement in food animal species.

Reducing the cost of beef production through the genetic improvement of net feed efficiency

1998 ◽  
Vol 1998 ◽  
pp. 45-45
Author(s):  
R.M. Herd ◽  
J.A. Archer ◽  
P.F. Arthur ◽  
E.C. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Feed Efficiency ◽  
Genetic Improvement ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Growth Efficiency ◽  
Conversion Ratio ◽  
Feed Conversion Ratio ◽  
Feed Conversion ◽  
Selection For ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Animal Production Systems

Feed is the single largest cost in most animal production systems. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) is a commonly used measure of growth efficiency. Previous research has shown that FCR is moderately heritable and highly related to growth rate. While selection for FCR is beneficial to those feeding growing cattle for slaughter, any associated increase in the size of breeding females will mean this benefit will be at a cost to the calf breeder, as larger breeding cows require more feed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document