Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Commercial DNA Tests NBCEC Validations.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Beef Cattle. Angus Brahman Charolais Hereford.

Advertisements

DNA Testing and Marker Assisted Selection R. Mark Thallman U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE.

Introducing GeneSTAR ® MVP Molecular Value Predictions for Beef Quality and Production Traits.

Coming soon to a genetics lab near you! NBCEC Beef Genetic Workshop Clay Center, NE March 27, 2004 Marker adjusted EPDs.

The Effect of Animal Disposition on Carcass Traits

West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.

Meeting Consumer Demands through Genetic Selection: The NCBA Carcass Merit Project Dan W. Moser on behalf of the CMP Team.

Matt Spangler University of Nebraska- Lincoln DEVELOPMENT OF GENOMIC EPD: EXPANDING TO MULTIPLE BREEDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS.

Multiple Breed Evaluation Can MBE enhance crossbreeding? John Pollak Cornell University Director, NBCEC.

BEEF COW CALF & SEEDSTOCK INDUSTRY By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.

EVOLUTION of USDA FEEDER GRADES By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.

GeneMax™ Mark McCully Certified Angus Beef LLC. Supply challenges for future growth?

Beef Cattle. Black Angus Pictures from Native to Angus (near Scotland) Most popular beef breed in the US Always.

John Genho NBCEC Brown Bagger Series

R.L. Quaas31 Oct. 2006NBCEC Brown Bagger DNA Test Validation Update Dick Quaas Cornell University.

Detection of QTL in beef cattle Eduardo Casas U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska.

Understanding and Managing Variation in Meat Tenderness T. L. Wheeler, D. A. King, and S. D. Shackelford U. S. Meat Animal Research Center, Agricultural.

Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Cow-Calf Extension Specialist Assistant Professor Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry

Effects of  -Calpain DNA Tests on Tenderness R. Mark Thallman U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE.

Carcass EPD: Where are we, and where are we going? Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.

Genetic Selection Tools in the Genomics Era Curt Van Tassell, PhD Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory & Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville,

Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.

Beef Cattle and Industry. I CAN ….. I CAN ….. - Identify the main beef breeds - Explain how important the industry is and how it works. - Describe the.

BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.

Training, Validation, and Target Populations Training, Validation, and Target Populations Mark Thallman, Kristina Weber, Larry Kuehn, Warren Snelling,

Beef Relationships using 50K Chip Information L.A. Kuehn, J.W. Keele, G.L. Bennett, T.G. McDaneld, T.P.L. Smith, W.M. Snelling, T.S. Sonstegard, and R.M.

By Payton Fehringer. Why Red Angus Genetics?  Superior maternal traits  Crossbreeding advantages  Promotional tools  Red Angus Association.

Matt Spangler Beef Genetics Specialist University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

South African Feedlot Association March 12, 2009 Practical Application of Gene Markers and Feed Efficiency Data for Today’s Cattleman By Dr. Roger E. Hunsley.

PowerPoint in part adopted from: Georgia Agriculture Education Curriculum Breeds of Beef Cattle.

DNA Marker Validation Update Dick Quaas Cornell University Beef improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Billings MT, 7-9 July 2005.

Beef Evaluation and Pricing continued. Estimating Yield Grade Visually evaluate animal for differences in fat and muscle Shape.

R.L.Quaas26 Mar Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE.

Milt Thomas, Department of Animal and Range Sciences Identification of Molecular Markers to Improve Fertility of Beef Cattle (USDA-NRI )

Van Eenennaam 11/17/2010 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology.

Steer #4Weight:1225 WDA:2.0 Certified Hereford Beef Scenario Class 1 Steer #3Weight:1120 WDA:1.9 Steer #2Weight:1450 WDA:2.0 Steer #1Weight:1050 WDA:1.8.

Jared E. Decker 1.

The Brown Bagger Beef Cattle Adaptability Current Tools of Assessment John L. Evans Oklahoma State University 1.

As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target? Twig Marston Extension Beef Specialist K-State Research & Extension.

1 Application of Molecular Technologies in Beef Production Dan W. Moser, Ph.D Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Brown Bagger – Beef Cattle Genetics: Fine Tuning Selection Decisions 1 How Do I Decide What Traits are Important? Carcass/Ultrasound EPDs Bob Weaber GRA-Cornell.

MBE, Update John Pollak Cornell University. Objectives Build a national pedigree file and database To achieve a unified national evaluation To migrate.

Beef Cattle and Industry. Take notes on the important information from each of the following slides so you have it in your notes.

NBCEC BROWN BAGGER OCTOBER 8, 2014 Jack Ward AHA, Director of Breed Improvement.

Use of DNA information in Genetic Programs.. Next Four Seminars John Pollak – DNA Tests and genetic Evaluations and sorting on genotypes. John Pollak.

Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education “Economic value of genomic information: Sire and commercial heifer selection" Van Eenennaam 10/19/2011.

B66 Heritability, EPDs & Performance Data. Infovets Educational Resources – – Slide 2 Heritability  Heritability is the measurement.

ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004 L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff MARC-ARS-USDA Lincoln and Clay Center,

Selection of Breeding Program An S 426 Fall 2007.

Beef Cattle Production

Exploring the Beef Industry SECHS Mr. Pullom Fall 2011.

Genetic Evaluation of Carcass Data Using Age, Weight, Fat, or Marbling Endpoints 2003 BIF Selection Decisions Committee May 29, 2003 Janice M. Rumph Montana.

NBCEC Brown Bagger: Economic Selection Index Wade Shafer American Simmental Association.

How Does Additional Information Impact Accuracy? Dan W. Moser Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan

The Five P’s of Marketing Product Packaging Place Price Promotion “The Purple Cow”

It’s A Six Star Steak Debbie McAllister Penn State University 2005.

Breeding Objectives for Terminal Sires Michael MacNeil USDA ARS Miles City, MT.

Beef Cattle. BEFORE THE 1960’s… Approximately 20 different breeds were available in the United States. Today, there are over 70 breeds found in the United.

National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium Brown Bagger Seminar Carcass EPDs Integrating Carcass and Ultrasound October 22, 2008 Sally L. Northcutt Genetic.

Whole genome selection and the 2000 bull project at USMARC Larry Kuehn Research Geneticist.

Jack Ward American Hereford Association October 31, 2012.

Livestock Beef and Dairy Cattle, Pork, and Poultry.

ABIC 2014 – Red Deer, AB February 19-21

Beef Cattle Production

DNA Sire Identification Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE

Use of DNA information in Genetic Programs.

DNA Technology.

Update on Multi-Breed Genetic Evaluation

Have Phenotypic Trends for Carcass Traits Followed Genetic Trends?

Effect of Time of Birth Within the Spring Calving Season on Performance and Carcass Traits of Beef Calves Fed in the Iowa Tri-County Steer Carcass Futurity.

Presentation transcript:

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Commercial DNA Tests NBCEC Validations Dick Quaas, Cornell University Mark Thallman, USMARC Alison Van Eenennaam, UC-Davis

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Home Background Sample Populations Marker Assisted Selection Ancillary Results Glossary The purpose of the NBCEC commercial DNA test validation is to independently verify associations between genetic tests and traits as claimed by the commercial genotyping company using phenotypes and DNA from reference cattle populations. The validation process is a partnership of the owners of DNA and phenotypes (e.g., breed associations) and genomics companies, facilitated by the NBCEC Commercial genetic test validations IGENITY TenderGene TM GeneSTAR ® Quality Grade GeneSTAR ® Tenderness validation

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Marker Assisted ??? Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) Select Breeding Stock NBCEC validation is for MAS Marker Assisted Management (MAM) Sort cattle for management purposes, e.g., Feedlot cattle  optimal endpoint Feedlot cattle  implant regime NBCEC does not validate MAM tools

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Bovigen Marker Validation: Done GeneSTAR Quality Grade ‘05 BIF) TG5 (original GeneSTAR Marbling) + M2 CMP Charolais only (CMP Herefords 99:1 M2 allele freq.) GeneSTAR Tenderness ‘05 BIF) T1 = CAST & T2 = CAPN1 316 CMP Charolais & Herefords

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Merial Marker Validation: Done Igenity TenderGENE UoG-Cast1 + CAPN CAPN CMP Charolais, Red Angus, Brangus & Brahmans

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Bovigen Marker Validation: Near Done GeneSTAR Tenderness T1 = CAST & T2 = CAPN1 316 T3 = CAPN & “Tx” CMP Charolais & Herefords + LSU Brahmans CMP Brahmans Tx is almost fixed in (European) Taurus No association in Brahmans; Bovigen will not include in GeneSTAR Tenderness New

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Quality/Fatness Marker Summary Bovigen: GeneSTAR Quality Grade Results Small, nonsignificant effect on marbling Significant effect on % Choice or better Similar findings w/ TG5 in Simm-Angus Conclusion Modestly effective, primarily due to TG5, Stars aren’t equal; TG5 >>>M2

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Quality/Fatness Marker Summary Merial submitted 4 leptin SNP + GHR UASM1, UASM2, exon2fb, A252T Traits analyzed: Carcass wt, REA, Fat thick., YG, Marbling score Results: Leptin SNP not associated with traits; (A252T not polymorphic) GHR associated with REA & YG but favorable allele rare

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Quality/Leanness Marker Summary Merial (leptin SNP) Not for seedstock selection for carcass traits Possibly for “marker assisted management” Results to be included under Ancillary Analyses on website Future leptin studies of other traits, e.g. female fertility

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Tenderness Marker Summary Bovigen & Merial each market 3 tenderness SNP 2 identical calpain SNP: CAPN1 316 & 4751 from MARC 1 calpastatin SNP Bovigen: CAST-T1 (Genetic Solutions) Merial: UoG-CAST1 (U. of Guelph) Current NBCEC Consensus 3-SNP Tenderness Panels are effective & equally so

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Tenderness Marker Summary Calpastatin SNP (UoG-CAST1 or T1) Taurus: 60-90% favorable alleles Brahmans: ~40-60% favorable Calpain 316 (T2) Taurus: ~20 % favorable Brahmans: ~2% favorable Calpain 4751 (T3) Taurus: ~50 % favorable Brahmans: ~5-10% favorable

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Tenderness Marker Summary Current NBCEC Consensus 3-SNP Tenderness Panels are effective & equally so About 2.25 lbs difference between “best” & ”worst” genotypes Should expect lb. by making herd homozygous depending on breed

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Current Test Conundrum Tenderness: Phenotypes not available for EPDs Tests are effective What’s the economic return? Quality/Yield Grade: Huge economic return Tests are ‘modestly’ effective Ultrasound EPDs available and very effective

Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) (validation tab)