Brahman Crossbred Performance in Multiple Beef Industry Segments

February 11, 2013 By

David Riley

Department of Animal Science
Texas A&M University

Introduction

Brahman crossbred cows comprise a large portion of the U.S. cow-calf industry, producing calves of generally ¼ or less Brahman inheritance.  Brahman cattle are well-adapted to conditions across the Southern United States.  Some calves are managed as stockers in the South and some are fed in South Texas or Southern Arizona, but the majority of Southern cattle enter the stocker and feeder segments on the Great Plains.  The obvious environmental differences between that region and the South are climatic and nutritional.  Climatic differences are seasonal, as temperatures greatly differ in fall, winter, and spring of most years; humidity is generally lower for most of the year in the Southern Great Plains region than for the Southeastern United States but similar to South-central or Southwestern regions.  The nutritional and social world of these Southern calves changes completely in conjunction with long-distance transportation.  This results in enormous stress associated with the demand to shift from living and growing in an environment they to which they are well-suited (especially for calves with ½ or more Brahman background), to an environment to which they are not well-adapted.  This unusual combination of requirements surely has no equal in the natural world.  After completing this feeding process and conversion to product, there is equal market competition with beef from animals not subjected to this routine.  It is not surprising that there are difficulties encountered by the calves in this very un-natural process.  The purpose of this review is to examine experimental results associated with performance of Brahman crossbreds in multiple environments, that is, in the Southern cow-calf environment and in the stocker and feeder segments, as well as their carcass and end product traits.  The way Brahman crossbred animals were produced may dramatically influence experimental results for many traits.  The presence of maternal heterosis (dependent upon the cross) will greatly affect performance of ¾ Brahman calves.  Probably of greater importance is the fact that calves produced from matings of Brahman bulls to Bos taurus cows are much heavier at birth than calves produced by reciprocal matings; we are accumulating research evidence of this difference for other traits.

 

Brahman Crossbred Cows in the Southern United States

 

The Bos indicus ancestors of the Brahman breed were originally imported and used in the Southern United States (and in similar or harsher areas around the world) because of their adaptation to the extreme conditions characteristic of the region.  The ability to survive and reproduce in harsh tropical and subtropical conditions was almost certainly the initial reason that the Brahman breed became an important part of the U.S. beef production system.  There is ample research that documents the ability of Brahman purebred and crossbred cattle to live and perform in such subtropical conditions.  Brahman cattle have the ability to maintain lower body temperatures and respiration rates under heat duress; they produce less heat than Bos taurus cattle, and may be better able to dissipate that heat.  They cope better with parasites such as ticks and horn flies than most cattle of European origin.  Brahman and Brahman crosses have been documented with better performance in a variety of traits including a superior ability to minimize the toxic effects of grazing certain fescue varieties in the upper South.  Adaptation will continue to be of great importance in beef production.

 

Almost as important as adaptation today is Brahman contribution to heterosis.  Heterosis is the difference between averages of crossbreds and straightbreds for a trait.  Substantial levels of heterosis have been experimentally documented for almost all traits of relevance for beef production for Brahman crosses in multiple research settings.  Brahman-Bos taurus levels of heterosis are generally much larger than heterosis in crosses of Bos taurus breeds.  This heterosis is especially effective for improving traits that are not easily influenced by selection, including critical reproductive traits of cows.  Every crossbreeding study in the Southern United States that has involved Brahman has reported tremendous superiority of Brahman crossbred cows.  These have included estimates of heterosis for traits like calving rate or weaning rate from 10 to 45% of the weighted straightbred average.  Brahman crossbreds have also been highly productive on in colder regions.  They have ranked at or near the best for calving rates, weaning rates, weaning weights of their calves and weaning weight per cow exposed to breeding in the GermPlasm Evaluation (GPE) multi-year multi-cycle project in Nebraska (Cundiff, 2005).  Excellent performance of F1 Brahman-British cows has been documented in Alberta (Peters and Slen, 1967).

 

In Florida, an experimental cow herd was built using straightbreds and crossbreds of Brahman, Angus, and Romosinuano (Criollo Bos taurus breed).  These cows were born from 2002 through 2005 and were then evaluated through 2010.  F1 cows (reciprocal crosses included) were bred to bulls that were of the third breed; straightbred cows of each breed were divided into 2 groups and bred to bulls of the other 2 breeds.  Table 1 documents the superior calving rates and weaning rates of the F1 Brahman-Angus and Brahman-Romosinuano (this is a popular South American cross because of the reputation for high fertility) cows in this project.  Estimates of heterosis were 22% and 16% for Brahman-Angus and Brahman-Romosinuano, respectively, for weaning rate (Table 1).  This work extended the confirmation of this hybrid advantage to Brahman crossed with Criollo cattle—Brahman had previously been documented as having high levels of heterosis with every other evaluated Bos taurus breedtype.

 

Crossbred Brahman cows excelled in performance on the harsh conditions presented by endophyte-infected tall fescue.  In the work of Brown et al. (2005) Brahman-Angus cows (reciprocal crosses included) grazing bermudagrass had calving rate 13% greater than the purebred average; the corresponding estimate for cows grazing endophyte-infected tall fescue was 49% greater than the purebred average.  It seems (particularly in this case) that the severity of the environment appears to augment the effects of heterosis.

 

The advantages in heterosis and adaptation offered by Brahman crossbred cows are too big to ignore in the Southern United States.  These advantages support their widespread use throughout the that region.  Approximately 35 to 40% of the calves that enter the U.S. beef production chain have some Brahman background.  This large fraction is notable considering market pressure against calves with visible Brahman background (Barham and Troxel, 2007); however, as crosses with Angus (F1 Brahman Angus and ¼ Brahman ¾ Angus) sale price per hundred lb was very high relative to other crossbred groups (Troxel and Barham, 2012).

 

Transportation/Receiving

 

                There are at least 3 major stressors for cattle moved from the Southeastern United States to the Great Plains for stocker and feedlot phases.  Those include weaning, long-haul transportation, and the potential for large change (decrease) in ambient temperatures.  Many of the cattle moved from the South or Southeast to the Great Plains are freshly weaned in the fall of the year and are consequently very susceptible to health problems, exacerbated by the long transport and the colder weather encountered after arrival.  Tropical adaptation that is an advantage in the South becomes a detriment on the Great Plains through the winter.  Cattle of any breed or type would find these a challenging set of scenarios.

 

Brahman F1 steers were heavier than all other steers in Florida at weaning at 7 months of age; they also gained more in the 21 to 35 day period immediately after weaning compared to purebred Brahman and Angus (Table 2; Coleman et al., 2012).  Heterosis for ADG in this period was enormous (64%, Table 3).  These steers were shipped each year to a research location in Central Oklahoma.  F1 Brahman steers had greater shrink on that 24-hour ride than the other breed groups and unfavorable heterosis for shrink (Table 2), but they had greater daily gain in the 28 days after arrival in Oklahoma (relative to receiving weight), with heterosis of 43% (Table 3).  This large estimate may in part represent recovery of water lost in transit.  There was no death loss during transportation and the receiving period.   These steers were not commingled with steers from other locations, which may have helped minimize potential problems.

 

Brahman on Winter Pasture

 

Among those steers (Coleman et al., 2012), ADG of F1 Brahman-Angus steers grazing winter wheat did not differ from that of Angus steers (Table 2).  Brahman-Angus heterosis was 11% (0.2 lb) for ADG during this phase (Table 3).  These steers grazed wheat from November through May; the lower ADG of straightbred Brahman and Romosinuano and F1 Brahman-Romosinuano probably is due in part to their inability to cope well with cold weather, since each of these breed groups would be expected to have minimal adaptation to winter conditions of temperate areas.  Straightbred Brahman steers had lower ADG than F1 Brahman-Angus, F1 Brahman-Tuli (African Bos taurus breed), and ¼ Brahman ¼ Hereford ½ Simmental steers on winter pastures in Oklahoma and Texas (Rouquette et al., 2005); ADG of F1 Brahman-Angus steers and ¼ Brahman ¼ Hereford ½ Simmental steers did not differ (Table 4).  Ferrell et al. (2006) evaluated steers with fractions of 0, ¼, ½, and ¾ Brahman inheritance in Nebraska; the complementary fraction within each group of steers was MARC III composite (¾ British ¼ Continental).  These steers were produced by artificial insemination of MARC III cows and F1 Brahman-MARC III cows to Brahman bulls (½ and ¾ Brahman steers) and F1 Brahman-MARC III cows bred to MARC III bulls (¼ Brahman steers).  Steers were fed either bromegrass hay (as a low-gain, forage-based diet) or corn silage (as a high-gain, forage-based diet) in a 119-day growing period in dry lot in order to measure intake.  Dry matter intake, crude protein intake, metabolizable energy intake (metabolizable energy is that energy available for maintenance or growth above that required to digest the source from which it was obtained), and ADG of ½ Brahman steers were highest but did not differ from MARC III steers (Table 5).  There were no breed group differences in these intakes per pound of gain; that is steers with different fractions of Brahman background responded to these different growing diets similarly.  These steers were evaluated in winter, which may have influenced results.

 

Brahman in Feedlot

 

Gain

 

In the evaluation of Florida steers, the feedlot phase occurred from May through September in Oklahoma; summers on the Great Plains often have high temperatures.  Straightbred Brahman had lower ADG in the feedlot phase than all other breed groups (Table 2), which were similar to each other (Coleman et al., 2012).  Brahman-Angus heterosis for ADG was 14% (0.26 lb, Table 3).  Feedlot ADG of F1 Brahman-Angus steers did not differ from ¼ Brahman ¼ Hereford ½ Simmental steers (Table 4); these steers were fed during Texas Panhandle summer conditions (Rouquette et al., 2005).  Huffman et al. (1990) reported the highest ADG for Angus steers, followed by ¾ Brahman, ½ Brahman, and ¼ Brahman steers (Table 6).  Pringle et al. (1997) evaluated steers with fractions 0, ¼, ⅜, ½, ¾, and 1 Brahman (with Angus as the complementary fraction).  Days of feeding to reach target backfat end points were lowest for straight Angus, ¼, and ⅜ Brahman steers (Table 7).  Steers in both those studies (Huffman et al., 1990; Pringle et al., 1997) were fed in Florida.  Sherbeck et al. (1995) reported the highest ADG for Hereford steers as compared to ¼ Brahman ¾ Hereford and ½ Brahman ½ Hereford that were fed in Eastern Colorado (Table 8).

 

Steers from Cycle V of GPE were evaluated to assess the different aspects of gain while being fed a high concentrate diet (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1998).  F1 steers sired by Brahman, Angus, Hereford, Boran, and Tuli sires and out of MARC III cows were assigned to one of 3 groups:  1) an initial (prior to test) slaughter group, in order to facilitate regression estimates of various types of gain; 2) a limit-fed group; and 3) a group fed ad libitum.  Table 9 shows means for intake and gain by breed group for these steers.  Among the steers in the limit-fed group, Angus and Hereford F1 steers had greater energy gain than the Brahman F1 steers.  In the ad libitum group, however, there were no differences in energy gain among these 3 breed groups; all were greater than Boran and Tuli F1 steers.  There were no differences for carcass traits within breed and feeding group combinations.  Angus F1 steers had greater carcass weight, backfat, and yield grades than Brahman and Hereford (Table 10).  Quality grades were lower for Brahman F1 steers, but ribeye area was similar for these 3 breed groups.  At low intakes, Brahman F1 steers organ weights were lower than Angus F1 steers, but were similar at high intakes, indicating greater adaptability or responsiveness to increased feed intake than Angus F1 steers.  Brahman F1 steers had greater fasting heat production (that is, independent of the heat production associated with digestion) than Angus, and consequently they required a higher metabolizable energy intake for maintenance.   Brahman F1 steers had the highest efficiency of use of metabolizable energy for gain; Angus had the lowest.  This work did not support the notion that Brahman cattle have lower energy requirements for maintenance than Bos taurus cattle under those conditions.  The influence of the winter feeding conditions of this project was not assessed.  Brahman F1 steers seemed to respond and gain to a greater extent than the Bos taurus steers when permitted the higher intake associated with ad libitum feeding.

 

Intake

 

Intake of straightbred Brahman cattle has been reported to be low relative to other breeds or crosses (e.g., Elzo et al., 2009; Table 11); intake of F1 Brahman cattle has often been reported to be high relative to other groups.  Dry matter intake means of F1 Brahman-Angus and Angus were essentially the same (Table 2, Coleman et al., 2012).  F1 Brahman-Angus and ¾ Brahman ¼ Angus steers had greater dry matter intake than Angus (Table 6; Huffman et al., 1990); these steers were fed in Florida under conditions which may have depressed the appetites of straightbred Angus steers.  Among steers and heifers fed in North Florida, Elzo et al. (2009) reported intake means of animals grouped by residual feed intake (RFI) values.  Residual feed intake is daily dry matter intake of an animal adjusted to the average size (metabolic weight) and growth rate (ADG) of cattle evaluated together; low (that is, negative values, since by definition the mean RFI = 0) RFI values are considered to be favorable.  Among those calves (from the work of Elzo et al., 2009) that were in the high RFI group (that is, inefficient) and the medium RFI group, F1 Brahman-Angus, ⅜ Brahman ⅝ Angus and ¼ Brahman ¾ Angus all had higher daily intake than Angus (Table 11).  However, the breed group daily intake differences were much lower among the low RFI (efficient) group of calves.  In their comparison of F1 steers, Ferrell and Jenkins (1998) reported greater F1 Angus-MARC III intake (dry matter and metabolizable energy) than that of F1 Brahman-MARC III steers when fed ad libitum; Brahman F1 steer intake did not differ from F1 Hereford-MARC III intake (Table 9).  They reported no breed differences when steers were limit-fed.  Ferrell et al. (2006) reported that dry matter intake, crude protein intake, and metabolizable energy intake of F1 Brahman-MARC III steers and MARC III steers did not differ in a growing phase when fed a high roughage diet or when fed a high concentrate feed diet; these were higher than ¼ Brahman and Brahman steers (Table 5).  Estimates of heritability for intake or RFI are as large as those for weight traits, which are easily altered with selection.  Selective improvement of efficiency by lowering RFI of steers would almost certainly result in decreased intake in their half siblings that will become the cows on pasture in the South (C. L. Ferrell, J. O. Sanders, personal communication).  This seems counter to the best interests of a producing cow in order to conceive, maintain pregnancy, and perform maternally.  Forbes et al. (1998) reported superior intakes of F1 Brahman cows on pasture relative to other breed types.  There may be heterosis for intake on pasture or for the efficient utilization of nutrients from such a forage diet.  There may be heterosis for intake in steers fed a high concentrate diet; but it was not detected in Brahman-Angus, Brahman-Romosinuano, or Angus-Romosinuano (Coleman et al., 2012).

 

Brahman Carcass Traits

 

In U.S. research trials (Tables 2, 4-8, 10, 12, 13), Brahman F1 steers have generally had better than average carcass traits related to quantity (carcass weight, dressing percentage, backfat thickness, ribeye area, and yield grade; of course under the assumption that less fat is desirable), but generally lower values for traits related to quality (marbling score, Warner-Bratzler shear force, trained sensory evaluation of tenderness).  Results of Brahman (and other Bos indicus breeds) across the duration of the GPE cycles in Nebraska were similar (Wheeler et al., 2005).  Experimental results have indicated that ¼ Brahman steers did not differ from straightbred Bos taurus for marbling score/quality grade or Warner-Bratzler shear force/sensory panel tenderness (Tables 5, 6).  Exceptions to this included the results (Tables 7 and 8) of Sherbeck et al. (1995) and Pringle et al. (1997).  However, Pringle et al. (1997) reported no difference between quality grades of ¼ Brahman and Angus groups, as well as no marbling score differences of F1 Brahman-Angus and straightbred Angus steers.  No interaction of sire breed and dam breed (representative of breed type) was detected in analyses of marbling score, Warner-Bratzler shear force, and sensory panel tenderness (Riley et al., 2012), but Brahman sire breed means were lower than Angus and Romosinuano for these traits (Table 12).  Results from one of the largest comparisons of steers with differing backgrounds of Brahman (Elzo et al., 2012) indicated no difference in tenderness of steaks from ¼ Brahman, F1 Brahman-Angus, and Angus steers, but Warner-Brazler shear forces of Angus were slightly better than either.  All breed groups with any proportion Brahman had lower marbling scores than Angus steers (Table 13).  The differences between straightbred Brahman and Bos taurus shear force are real and confirmed by most research to date.  Much of the research results involving F1 Brahman, and really almost all of the ¼ Brahman results (especially when carcasses were electrically-stimulated) reported Warner-Bratzler shear force averages of 10 lb or less, which fits into at least a category of ‘slightly tender’ (see Platter et al., [2005]; Boleman et al. [1997] and Miller et al. [2001] also presented different assessments of consumer acceptability and Warner-Bratzler shear force values in which this threshold of 10 lb appears consistent).  Within GPE, F1 Brahman steers had higher Warner-Bratzler shear force and lower sensory panel tenderness means than F1 Hereford-Angus, F1 Hereford-MARC III, and F1 Angus-MARC III, and were more variable (Wheeler et al., 2005).  Marbling score of crossbred Brahman steers has been consistently reported to be lower than Angus or British crossbreds.  There appears to be substantial additive genetic variation to permit selective improvement of marbling score in the Brahman breed (Smith et al., 2009).

 

 

Summary

 

  1. Brahman crossbred cows continue to be used in the Southern United States because of superior adaptability to rough conditions and the high levels of heterosis for most traits (but especially reproductive traits) as crosses with really any Bos taurus breed.
  2. The movement of Brahman crossbred calves from the South to the Great Plains represents an enormous stress on these animals.  Calves with as much as ½ Brahman background appear to grow and perform very well in the stocker and feeder phases on the Great Plains, especially during the summer.  Stocker programs in the South may be advantageous for cattle to recover from the stress of weaning and gain weight, but also to avoid spending winter on the Great Plains.  Crossbreds with more than ½ Brahman would likely perform better in feedlots in areas with milder winters, e.g., South Texas or Southern Arizona.
  3. After feeding, Brahman crossbred carcasses generally have very good values for traits related to quantity of beef.  Most research has documented lower marbling scores (as well as all fat content) and therefore quality grades of carcasses from Brahman crossbreds.  There appear to be selective opportunities to improve marbling score in the Brahman breed, should that become an appropriate goal.
  4. Steers of ¼ Brahman inheritance and to a lesser extent, F1 Brahman steers, are the most likely Brahman crossbreds to enter the conventional beef production process, especially the feedlot segment on the Great Plains.  Cattle that are ¼ Brahman will qualify for many premium carcass programs.  There is substantial research that indicates that both types will perform acceptably for most traits of economic importance.
  5. Selection for reduced RFI as a method of improving efficiency during the feedlot stage is discouraged within the breed, as anything that would suppress intake of Brahman crossbred cows on pasture conditions would be undesirable.

 

References

 

Barham, B. L., and T. R. Troxel.  2007.  Factors affecting the selling price of feeder cattle sold at Arkansas livestock auctions in 2005.  J. Anim. Sci.  85:3434–3441.

Boleman, S. J., S. L. Boleman, R. K. Miller, J. F. Taylor, H. R. Cross, T. L. Wheeler, M. Koohmaraie, S. D. Shackelford, M. F. Miller, R. L. West, D. D. Johnson, and J. W. Savell. 1997.  Consumer evaluation of beef of known categories of tenderness.  J. Anim. Sci. 75:1521–1524.

Brown, M. A., A. H. Brown, Jr., and B. A. Sandelin.  2005.  Genotype × environment interactions in Brahman, Angus, and reciprocal cross cows and their calves.  Pages 182 to 197 in:  A Compilation of Research Results Involving Tropically Adapted Beef Cattle Breeds.  Southern Coop. Series Bull. 405.  http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/breeding_genetics/tropical+breeds.htm.

Coleman, S. W., C. C. Chase, Jr., W. A. Phillips, D. G. Riley, and T. A. Olson.  2012.  Evaluation of tropically adapted straightbred and crossbred cattle:  Postweaning gain and feed efficiency when finished in a temperate climate.  J. Anim. Sci.  In press.

Cundiff, L. V.  2005.  Performance of tropically adapted breeds in a temperate environment:  Calving, growth, reproduction and maternal traits.  Pages 131 to 143 in:  A Compilation of Research Results Involving Tropically Adapted Beef Cattle Breeds.  Southern Coop. Series Bull. 405.  http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/breeding_genetics/tropical+breeds.htm.

Elzo, M. A., D. D. Johnson, J. G. Wasdin, and J. D. Driver.  2012.  Carcass and meat palatability breed differences and heterosis effects in an Angus-Brahman multibreed population.  Meat Sci.  90:87–92.

Elzo, M. A., D. G. Riley, G. R. Hansen, D. D. Johnson, R. O. Myer, S. W. Coleman, C. C. Chase, J. G. Wasdin, and J. D. Driver.  2009.  Effect of breed composition on phenotypic residual feed intake and growth in Angus, Brahman, and Angus × Brahman crossbred cattle.  J. Anim. Sci.  87:3877–3886.

Ferrell, C. L., E. D. Berry, H. C. Freetly, and D. N. Miller.  2006.  Influence of genotype and diet on steer performance, manure odor, and carriage of pathogenic and other fecal bacteria.  I.  Animal performance.  J. Anim. Sci.  84:2545–2522.

Ferrell, C. L., and T. G. Jenkins.  1998.  Body composition and energy utilization by steers of diverse genotypes fed a high-concentrate during the finishing period:  II.  Angus, Boran, Brahman, Hereford, and Tuli sires.  J. Anim. Sci.  76:647–657.

Forbes, T. D. A., F. M. Rouquette, Jr., and J. W. Holloway.  1998.  Comparisons among Tuli-, Brahman-, and Angus-sired heifers:  intake, digesta kinetics, and grazing behavior.  J. Anim. Sci.  76:220–227.

Huffman, R. D., S. E. Williams, D. D. Hargrove, D. D. Johnson, and T. T. Marshall.  1990.  Effects of percentage Brahman and Angus breeding, age-season of feeding and slaughter end point on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics.  J. Anim. Sci.  68:2243–2252.

Miller, M. F., M. A. Carr, C. B. Ramsey, K. L. Crockett, and L. C. Hoover. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3062–3068.

Peters, H. F., and S. B. Slen.  1967.  Brahman-British beef cattle crosses in Canada.  I.  Weaned calf production under range conditions.  Can. J. Anim. Sci.  47:145–151.

Platter, W. J., J. D. Tatum, K. E. Belk, S. R. Koontz, P. L. Chapman, and G. C. Smith. 2005. Effects of marbling and shear force on consumers’ willingness to pay for beef strip loin steaks.  J. Anim. Sci. 83:890–899.

Pringle, T. D., S. E. Williams, B. S. Lamb, D. D. Johnson, and R. L. West.  1997.  Carcass characteristics, the calpain proteinase system, and aged tenderness of Angus and Brahman crossbred steers.  J. Anim. Sci.  75:2955–2961.

Riley, D. G., C. C. Chase, Jr., S. W. Coleman, W. A. Phillips, M. F. Miller, J. C. Brooks, D. D. Johnson, and    T. A. Olson.  2012.  Genetic effects on carcass quantity, quality, and palatability traits in straightbred and crossbred Romosinuano steers.  J. Anim. Sci.  In press.

Rouquette, F. M., Jr., J. J. Cleere, C. R. Long, and R. D. Randel.  2005.  Birth to harvest attributes of Brahman and Brahman-influenced steers.  Pages 40 to 59 in:  A Compilation of Research Results Involving Tropically Adapted Beef Cattle Breeds.  Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 405.  http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/breeding_genetics/tropical+breeds.htm.

Sherbeck, J. A., J. D. Tatum, T. G. Field, J. B. Morgan, and G. C. Smith.  1995.  Feedlot performance, carcass traits, and palatability traits of Hereford and Hereford x Brahman steers.  J. Anim. Sci.  73:3613–3620.

Smith, T., J. D. Domingue, J. C. Paschal, D. E. Franke, T. D. Bidner, and G. Whipple.  2007.  Genetic parameters for growth and carcass traits of Brahman steers.  J. Anim. Sci.  85:1377–1384.

Troxel, T. R., and B. L. Barham.  2012.  Phenotypic expression and management factors affecting the selling price of feeder cattle sold at Arkansas livestock auctions.  Prof. Anim. Sci.  28:64–72.

Wheeler, T. L., S. D. Shackelford, and M. Koohmaraie.  2005.  Carcass and meat traits of tropically adapted breeds evaluated at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center.  Pages 154 to 161 in:  A Compilation of Research Results Involving Tropically Adapted Beef Cattle Breeds.  Southern Coop. Series Bull. 405.  http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/livestock/beef_cattle/breeding_genetics/tropical+breeds.htm.

 

Table 1.  Brahman, Angus, and Romosinuano straightbred and crossbred cow reproductive traits

 

N

Pregnancy rate

Calving rate

Weaning rate
Straightbred
Brahman

175

0.76

0.76

0.70
Angus

161

0.84

0.84

0.82
Romosinuano

194

0.82

0.82

0.78
F1
Brahman-Angus

420

0.95

0.95

0.93
Brahman-Romosinuano

462

0.89

0.89

0.86
Romosinuano-Angus

397

0.87

0.86

0.81
Heterosis
Brahman-Angus

0.15 (18%)

0.15 (19%)

0.17 (22%)
Brahman-Romosinuano

0.10 (13%)

0.10 (13%)

0.12 (16%)

 

1Cows were born from 2002 to 2005 and were first exposed to bulls as yearlings.  First calves as 2-year olds not included in these results.  Records through 2010 were included in these results.

2Cows were exposed to bulls annually:  F1 cows were exposed to bulls of the 3rd breed.  Straightbred cows of each breed were exposed in approximately equal numbers to bulls of the other 2 breeds.

3Reciprocal F1 cows combined into single groups.

4Heterosis was not detected for Romosinuano-Angus cows for these traits.

5Numbers represent numbers of cows in each breed group for palpation.  Cows in excess of 40 for each breed group were sold as bred 3-year olds.

6Cows were culled after 2 failures to wean a calf.

 

 

Table 2.  Growth of straightbred and F1 steers weaned in Florida and transported to Oklahoma

 

Brahman

Angus

Romosinuano

F1 BA

F1 BR

F1 RA
N     48     38     74     77   113   118
Prewean ADG, lb/day       1.9       1.7       1.7       2.0       2.0       1.8
Weaning BW, lb   518   441   465   537   524   487
Postwean recovery
ADG, lb/d (21 to 35 d)       0.8       0.7       0.6       1.2       0.9       0.9
Transition
Shipping BW, lb   545   465   483   579   555   518
Ship loss, %       8.5       9.5       8.7       9.1       8.7       9.4
Receiving ADG, lb/day (28 d)       0.4       1.0       0.4       1.0       0.5       0.5
Wheat pasture
Final BW, lb   811   853   784   951   864   872
ADG, lb/d       1.5       2.1       1.7       2.0       1.7       2.0
Feedlot
Final BW, lb 1045 1100 1062 1217 1121 1159
ADG, lb/d       1.8       2.1       2.1       2.2       2.1       2.2
Overall ADG, lb/day (wean to final)       1.4       1.9       1.6       1.9       1.7       1.8
Intake/efficiency
N     27     30     29     57     61     57
DMI, lb/d     17.5     18.9     18.7     19.2     18.0     19.5
Feed:Gain       7.75       8.26       7.58       7.91       7.84       7.97
Residual feed intake     –0.37       0.66     –0.01     –0.20     –0.44       0.60
Carcass
N     48     38     72     79   109   118
Carcass wt, lb   657   695   671   778   721     738
Dressing percentage     61.5     61.5     61.5     63.1     62.1     62.5
Fat thickness, in       0.42       0.63       0.41       0.63       0.48       0.52
Ribeye area, in2     11.1     12.1     12.0     12.4     12     12.6
Ribeye area, in2/100 lb carcass       1.70       1.75       1.81       1.61       1.68       1.72
Yield grade       2.9       3.3       2.7       3.5       3.2       3.1

 

1Means of F1 steers include reciprocal crosses.

2Postwean recovery period was from 21 to 35 d.  Steers were weaned at average of 7 months of age.

3Steers were weighed immediately prior to loading in Florida and immediately after unloading in Oklahoma.  Steers were kept in a grass paddock with access to feed for the 28-day receiving period.

4Steers grazed wheat pasture for an average of 120 days.

5A subset of steers (n = 90) from all breed groups was evaluated for intake and efficiency each year (2003, 2004, 2005) using Calan feeding system.

6Steers were randomly assigned to feeding periods which averaged 101, 129, and 157 days (summer feeding), and were slaughtered commercially in the Texas Panhandle.

7Adapted from Coleman et al. (2012) and Riley et al. (2012).

 

 

Table 3.  Estimates of heterosis, direct and maternal breed effects for steer traits

 

 

Heterosis

Brahman-Angus

Brahman-Romosinuano

Romosinuano-Angus
 

Amount

%

Amount

%

Amount

%
Prewean ADG, lb/day     0.20 11   0.13   7.2   0.13     7.8
Wean BW, lb   57 12 33   6.7 35     7.8
Postwean recovery ADG, lb/day     0.46 63.6   0.29   46
Shipping BW, lb   75 14.8 39.7   7.7 44     9.3
Ship loss, lb     8.4 18.5   5.5 12.5   6.2   14.4
Arrival BW, lb   66.1 14.4 35.3   7.5 37.5     8.7
Receive ADG, lb/day     0.29 42.6   0.15 42.4 –0.20 –30
Winter wheat
Initial BW, lb   81.6 15.5 44.1   8.4 35.3     7.1
Final BW, lb 119.1 14.3 66.1   8.3 52.9     6.5
ADG, lb/day     0.20 11   0.13   8.3   0.07     3.4
Feedlot
Final BW, lb   29.5 13.4 66.1   6.3 77.2     7.1
ADG, lb/d     0.26 13.6
Overall  ADG, lb/day     0.26 16.1   0.13   8.6   0.11     6.3
Feed:Gain     8.17 14.1
Carcass wt, lb 102 15.1 57   8.6 56     8.1
Dressing percentage     1.7   2.7   1.1     1.7
Fat thickness, in     0.10 19.9   0.06 15.6
Ribeye area, in2     0.82   7.1   0.39   3.3   0.56     5
Ribeye area, in2 / 100 lb  –0.11 –6.6 –0.08 –4.3 –0.06   –3
Yield grade     0.4 13.6   0.3   9.5

 

1Adapted from Coleman et al. (2012).  Trait details correspond to those described in Table 1.

2Empty cells indicate that effects were not statistically different from 0.

3Traits from Table 2 are omitted here if no heterosis was detected.

4Adapted from Coleman et al. (2012) and Riley et al. (2012).

 

 

Table 4.  Growth and carcass traits of Brahman straightbred and crossbred steers

 

  ¼ Brahman ¼ Hereford

½ Simmental

½ Brahman

½  Angus

½ Brahman

½ Tuli

 Brahman
N   47   35   37   30
ADG winter, lb/day     2.5     2.4     2.0     1.7
ADG feedlot, lb/day     3.2     3.4     2.6     2.9
Carcass wt, lb 889 848 685 672
Backfat, in     0.37     0.48     0.33     0.25
Ribeye area, in2   14   13.5   12.3   11.4
Yield grade     2.78     3.06     2.44     2.47
Marbling score 366 392 367 342
Shear force, lb     7.9     8.1     8.1   10.3
Tenderness score     6.0     5.8     6.0     5.3

 

1Weaned steers grazed cool-season annuals in East Texas or Central Oklahoma from December to mid-May.

2Steers were commercially-fed in the Texas Panhandle in the summers of 1993 and 1994 to a target of 0.4 inches of backfat.

3Marbling score 300 to 399 = Select.

4Tenderness scores evaluated by a trained panel using values from 1 (extremely tough) to 8 (extremely tender).

5Adapted from Rouquette et al. (2005).

 

 

Table 5.  Comparison of intake, growth, and carcass traits of steers with different fractions of Brahman inheritance in Nebraska

 

Fraction of Brahman inheritance

0

¼

½

¾
N

15

20

7

9
Growing period
Initial weight, lb   602   562   708   604
Final weight, lb   796   717   906   747
ADG, lb/day       1.6       1.3       1.7       1.2
Dry matter intake lb/day     16.1     13.7     17.6     14.6
Crude protein intake, lb/day       1.7       1.5        1.9       1.6
Metabolizable energy intake, Mcal/day     18.1     15.2     19.7     16.2
DMI/gain lb/lb     13.2     13.9     13.2     19.2
Crude protein intake/gain, lb/lb       1.3       1.4       1.4       1.9
Metabolizable energy intake/gain lb/lb     30.8     32.5     31     44.3
Residual ADG     –0.02       0.03       0.02     –0.03
Residual metabolizable energy intake       0.46     –0.44     –0.03     –0.13
Finishing period
Initial weight, lb   796   717   906   747
Final weight, lb 1241 1213 1268 1246
Days to finish   155   196   134   199
ADG, lb/day       2.9       2.6       2.6       2.6
Dry matter intake lb/day     18.5     17.0     18.5     15.0
Crude protein intake, lb/day       2.2       2.0       2.2       1.8
Metabolizable energy intake, Mcal/day     26     23.8     25.9     21
Dry matter intake/gain lb/lb       6.5       6.6       7.1       5.9
Crude protein intake/gain lb/lb       0.75       0.74       0.82       0.68
Metabolizable energy intake/gain lb/lb     20.1     20.5     21.9     18.3
Residual ADG       0.04     –0.05     –0.01       0.05
Residual metabolizable energy intake       0.46     –0.44     –0.03     –0.13
Final wt, lb 1243 1213 1268 1248
Carcass
Carcass wt, lb   750   745   792   769
Dressing percentage     60.4     61.6     62.3     61.6
Marbling score   470   490   390   364
Quality grade     16.2     16.2     15     14.3
Fat thickness, in       0.40       0.59       0.51       0.57
Adjusted fat thickness, in       0.35       0.51       0.43       0.53
Ribeye area, in2     12.4     11.5     12.2     11.8
Yield grade       2.86       3.45       3.38       3.29

 

1The complementary fraction of steers in each breed group was MARC III (¾ British ¼ Continental).

2Steers were fed through the winter either diets of bromegrass hay or corn silage during the growing period of 119 days.

3Steers were fed to a target body weight of 1,235 lb.

4Marbling score:  Slight = 300; Small = 400; Modest = 500.

5Quality grade:  Selecto = 14, Select+ = 15, Choice– = 16.

6Adapted from Ferrell et al. (2006).

Table 6.  Growth, efficiency, and carcass means for steers of different fractions of Brahman inheritance

 

Fraction of Brahman inheritance

0

¼

½

¾
Feedlot
N     41     42     41     41
Days on feed   121   103   102   107
Slaughter wt, lb 1012   990 1087 1100
ADG, lb/day       3.5       3.6       3.9       3.9
Dry matter intake, lb/day     19.4     19.4     21.6     21.8
Feed:Gain       5.6       5.4       5.6       5.6
Carcass
N     31     32     31     31
Carcass wt, lb   637   624   683   701
Dressing percentage     63     62     62.6     63.4
Ribeye area, in2     11.6     10.9     11.3     11.6
Ribeye area, in2/100 lb       1.83       1.76       1.69       1.69
Yield grade       2.8       3       3.1       3.1
Marbling score   Sm13   Sm11   Sl70   Sl30
% Choice     55     66     29       7
% Select     45     34     65     74
% Standard       0       0       6     19

 

1The complementary fraction of breed inheritance was Angus.

2Steers were either fed as calves or grazed winter pastures until June and were then fed in Florida in 1985 and 1986.  There were fed to 2 backfat end point targets: 0.4 or 0.6 in.  Intake was assessed using the Calan system.  No breed by age-season interactions detected.

3Adapted from Huffman et al.  (1990).

 

 

Table 7.  Growth and carcass traits for steers with different fractions of Brahman inheritance

 

Fraction of Brahman inheritance

0

¼

⅜

½

¾

1
N   11   13   10   12   12   11
Days on feed 156 156 157 172 168 202
Carcass            
Carcass wt, lb 692 728 679 739 697 712
Dressing percentage   60.7   61.8   60.5   63.1   61.9   62.7
Fat thickness, in     0.47     0.51     0.39     0.43     0.47     0.39
Ribeye area, in2   12.4   11.6   11.3   12.4   11.3   73
Ribeye area, in2/100 lb     1.83     1.62     1.69     1.69     1.62     1.62
Yield grade     2.8     3.2     2.8     2.8     3.1     3
Marbling score 436 418 416 366 354 315
Quality grade 607 594 595 556 547 521
% Choice   82   54   60   25   17     9
% Select   18   46   40   58   58   64
% Standard     0     0     0   17   25   27
Shear force (14 days aging), lb     9.5   11.0     9.3   10.4   10.6   13.4
Tenderness     5.9     5.3     6.1     5.6     5.5     4.4
Connective tissue amount     6.1     5.9     6.3     6     6     5

 

1The complementary fraction of inheritance in these steers was Angus.

2Steers grazed winter pastures until approximately 1 year of age.  They were contract fed in Florida through the winter to backfat end points of either 0.4 or 0.6 inch and slaughtered at University of Florida facilities.

3Marbling score:  Slight = 300 to 399; Small = 400 to 499.

4Quality grade:  Select– = 500 to 549; Select+ = 550 to 599; Choice– = 600 to 633.

5Detectable amount of connective tissue and tenderness scores evaluated by a trained  panel using values from 1 (extremely tough; abundant amount) to 8 (none detected, extremely tender).

6Adapted from Pringle et al. (1997).

 

 

Table 8.  Growth and carcass traits of steers with different fractions of Brahman inheritance

 

Fraction of Brahman inheritance

0

¼

½
N   77   80   79
ADG, lb/day     4.0     3.5     3.3
Carcass wt, lb 699 703 719
Fat thickness, in     0.45     0.44     0.41
Ribeye area , in2   11.8   12.4   12.4
Yield grade     3.11     2.91     2.92
Marbling score   Sl91   Sl47   Sl45
Shear force,  (6 days aging), lb     7.9     9.0   10.1
Tenderness, (6 days aging)     4.9     4.7     4.1
Shear force,  (18 days aging), lb     6.4     7.3     8.4
Tenderness, (18 days aging)     5.5     5.3     4.8

 

1The complementary fraction of breed inheritance was Hereford.

2Steers had grazed native Great Plains pasture or had been fed a backgrounding diet in a dry lot; time of year not reported.  Steers (11 or 12 months of age) were fed to 1 of 4 days-on-feed (84, 98, 112, or 126 days) in Eastern Colorado in 1994.  Purebred Hereford were from temperate areas of the United States.  Crossbred Brahman steers were from Texas and Mississippi.

3Adapted from Sherbeck et al. (1995).

 

Table 9.  Intake and growth on feed of F1 steers

 

Dry matter intake

 Metobolizable energy intake  
 

N

lb/d

lb/(wt0.75 /d)

Mcal/d

kcal/(wt0.75 /d)

Days on feed

Initial wt, lb

ADG, lb/d
Limit-fed
Angus

4

7.5

0.097

10.7

137

137

780

0.93
Boran

8

6.7

0.095

9.5

134

139

657

0.73
Brahman

8

7.0

0.097

9.9

137

140

690

0.66
Hereford

4

6.9

0.097

9.9

138

143

685

0.71
Tuli

8

6.8

0.099

9.7

141

138

666

0.44
Ad libitum
Angus

4

18.1

0.204

25.8

290

137

796

2.87
Boran

8

12.7

0.164

18.1

233

139

637

2.25
Brahman

8

16.2

0.190

23.0

270

140

708

2.80
Hereford

4

16.7

0.197

23.7

280

143

717

2.78
Tuli

8

14.4

0.177

20.0

251

138

677

2.14

 

1Steers were out of MARC III (¾ British ¼ Continental) dams.

2Fed as calves through the winter in Nebraska.

3Adapted from Ferrell and Jenkins (1998).

Table 10.  Carcass traits of F1 steers

 

Initial slaughter group

N

Carcass wt, lb

Ribeye area, in

Fat thickness, in

Yield grade

Quality grade
Angus

4

434

9.0

0.16

2.0

12.5
Boran

8

348

7.8

0.11

1.8

11.9
Brahman

8

401

8.6

0.11

1.8

11.5
Hereford

4

366

8.2

0.07

1.6

12.3
Tuli

8

357

8.5

0.09

1.6

12.0
Limit-fed
Angus

4

520

8.9

0.09

2.1

14.0
Boran

8

443

8.7

0.11

1.9

12.4
Brahman

8

463

8.5

0.09

1.9

12.1
Hereford

4

459

9.3

0.11

1.8

13.0
Tuli

8

430

8.5

0.09

1.9

12.5
Ad libitum
Angus

4

710

11.3

0.56

3.6

16.0
Boran

8

564

10.4

0.27

2.6

13.4
Brahman

8

679

10.5

0.46

3.4

13.9
Hereford

4

661

11.1

0.49

3.2

16.0
Tuli

8

589

11.3

0.34

2.6

14.5

 

1Steers were out of MARC III (¾ British ¼ Continental) dams.

2Fed as calves through the winter in Nebraska.  Limit-fed steers were fed approximately 77 kcal ME/lb0.75

3Quality grade:  Standardo = 11, Standard+ = 12, Select– = 13, Selecto = 14, Select+ = 15, Choice– = 16.

4Steers in the initial slaughter group were slaughtered after an adaptation period of 3 months. Steers in the other groups were slaughtered after 140 days on feed.

5Adapted from Ferrell and Jenkins (1998).

 

 

Table 11.  Postweaning efficiency traits in steers and heifers with varying fractions of Brahman inheritance

 

RFI group/fraction Brahman

N

Gain, lb

Feed:Gain

Intake, lb/day

RFI

High RFI

1

21

154

11.24

24.1

2.24

¾

14

170

10.96

25.4

2.51

½

37

183

11.05

27.0

2.42

⅜

20

197

10.08

27.7

2.95

¼

22

208

  9.69

27.3

2.33

0

30

180

10.43

25.8

2.34

Medium RFI

1

23

154

  9.53

18.9

-0.04

¾

27

207

  7.41

21.0

-0.16

½

44

208

  7.77

21.4

-0.13

⅜

63

228

  6.93

21.6

-0.11

¼

33

224

  7.16

21.9

-0.02

0

72

210

  7.36

20.8

-0.10

Low RFI

1

47

156

  6.94

14.0

-2.21

¾

  8

191

  6.86

18.1

-1.35

½

34

186

  6.70

16.8

-1.92

⅜

24

211

  6.14

18.1

-1.58

¼

11

198

  6.49

17.2

-2.34

0

51

186

  6.81

16.8

-1.70

 

1Calves were evaluated in a 70-day trial after 2 weeks of acclimation to procedures in a GrowSafe feeding system.  Calves were an average of 8 months of age and had been weaned for approximately 1 month.

2After adjustment of intake for body weight and ADG (RFI = residual feed intake) during the test period (which was from November through early January), calves were ranked by intake from lowest to highest and divided into

low (RFI < overall mean – 1 standard deviation),

medium (overall mean – 1 standard deviation < RFI < overall mean + 1 standard deviation), and

high (RFI > overall mean + 1 standard deviation) groups.

3Adapted from Elzo et al. (2009).

 

 

Table 12.  Sire breed averages for carcass traits of steers produced by crosses of Brahman, Angus, and Romosinuano

 

Breed

Brahman

Angus

Romosinuano
Marbling score 360 475 393
% Choice   31   75   46
% Standard   23     5   10
Shear force, lb     9.7     8.6     9.3
Tenderness     5.4     5.8     5.8
Connective tissue amount     6.1     6.5     6.5

 

1Steers were commercially slaughtered after averages of 101, 129, or 157 days on feed.  All steers previously grazed wheat pasture for an average of 120 days through the winter in Oklahoma.

2Dam breed was also significant as a main effect for these traits and means were similar to these.

3Marbling score:  Slight = 300 to 399; Small = 400 to 499.

4Tenderness scores and detectable amount of connective tissue evaluated by a trained panel using values from 1 (extremely tough; abundant amount) to 8 (extremely tender; none detected).

5Dam breed means were similar to the sire breed means.

6Adapted from Riley et al. (2012).

 

Table 13.  Carcass traits of steers with different fractions of Brahman inheritance

 

Fraction of Brahman inheritance

0

¼

⅜

½

¾

1
N 216 182 224 341 206 198
Carcass wt, lb 713 753 751 793 756 719
Dressing percentage   61.7   62.4   62.6   63.2   63.2   63.3
WBSF, lb     7.6     7.9     8.1     8.3     8.7     9.2
Tenderness     5.8     5.6     5.5     5.5     5.1     4.6
Connective tissue amount     6.1     6     5.9     5.9     5.5     5.1
Marbling score 446 420 407 394 367 341
Ribeye area, in2   12.6   12.9   12.8   13.2   12.6   12.0
Fat thickness, in     0.51     0.51     0.51     0.51     0.43     0.35

 

1Fractions of Brahman inheritance reported here are categories—actual fractions were ranges.  The complementary fraction was Angus.

2From 1989 to 1995 steers were fed in a South Texas feedyard.  From 2006 to 2009 they were contract fed in North Florida.  Steers were fed as calves through the winter to a target of 0.5 inch backfat and slaughtered commercially in South Texas.

3Detectable amount of connective tissue and tenderness scores evaluated by a trained  panel using values from 1 (extremely tough; abundant amount) to 6 (none detected) or 8 (extremely tender).

4Marbling score:  Slight = 300 to 399; Small = 400 to 499.

5Adapted from Elzo et al. (2012).

 

Filed Under: Adaptability, Crossbreeding, EAR Articles, Feed Efficiency Tagged With: , , , ,

Breeding Drought (Heat) Tolerant Cattle

February 11, 2013 By

by Joe C. Paschal

In early August I received a request from the Texas A&M University Department of Animal Science to field some requests for telephone interviews from some radio stations about breeding drought tolerant cattle. One was in San Antonio and the others were regional NPR and CBS affiliates. I had read in the local paper that morning an Associated Press news article out of Des Moines, Iowa entitled “Animals, plants being bred to withstand heat” and there pictured on the front page was my boss, Dr. Ron Gill, looking over his herd of cattle in Wise County, near Boyd, Texas! The article reported on cattle being bred to withstand drought by adding genes from their African (and Indian) cousins who are accustomed to hot weather. It reported that Dr. Gill had incorporated some Beefmaster into his herd and is experimenting with Hotlanders™, a composite developed by the R. A. Brown Ranch in Throckmorton in the 1980s. The Hotlander™ includes Angus/Red Angus, Brahman, Simmental and Senepol (a breed created in the Virgin Islands from crosses of Red Poll from England and N’Dama cattle from Senegal in West Africa almost 200 years ago).

Being an astute guy I put two and two together and realized that the radio interviews were going to be about our breeding drought tolerant cattle, the long history of that in the southern US and, knowing something about Beefmasters (and Hotlanders™ and Senepols), I started making the phone calls. All of those called were polite and the interviews went well (I never heard any on my radio but Dr. Tommy Perkins of Beefmaster Breeders United said the one he listened to did) but it was obvious that all the interviewers were interested in two things – were the cattle researchers doing this because they thought the climate was changing and how were we modifying these cattle genetically?  These questions were never asked directly but I could tell that since the article originated in Iowa and none of the stations had any idea of where Wise County was it was plain that they were wondering why hot climate adapted cattle would be being developed in Iowa. I also emphasized that a hot drought was very different than a cool one and that under no circumstances could any type of beef animal survive a drought unless it had something to eat and drink, no matter how “drought tolerant” it might be!

I started out each interview saying this wasn’t new, that ranchers in the southern US had been using hot climate (not necessarily drought) adapted cattle nearly a hundred years, and that many heat tolerant breeds had been developed within the last 80 years or so and were widely accepted and used in the area. No novel genetic procedures were used except crossbreeding with Bos indicus or Brahman and selection of the crosses for many generations. I also went on to discuss that these cattle, were not only hot climate adapted but had many other attributes to offer over non heat adapted breeds. In addition to being adapted and productive in hot climates these new breeds (Brahman, Santa Gertrudis, Beefmaster, Braford, Brangus, Red Brangus, Simbrah and their crosses) improved beef production across the southern US. The increase in beef production was due to increased resistance or tolerance of internal and external parasites, increased longevity, more durable teeth, higher fertility, improved maternal ability, and faster and more efficient growth of these breeds and crosses in those environments compared to the temperately adapted breeds originally used. Of course this required additional explanations of beef cattle breeding and genetics and the cause and effects of hybrid vigor and were necessary to make the interviewer understand these breeds (including the Hotlander™) were not genetically modified in the sense of the glowing mouse with the jellyfish gene but were carefully bred and selected over generations to provide nutritious beef.

There are a number of breeds around the world adapted to the tropics, the land area between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer (or maybe a little further north and south), which represents a significant portion of the Earth suitable for cattle production. These tropically adapted breeds can be divided into two types based on their origin: Bos indicus (probably the greatest number of breeds and the largest number of head) and Bos taurus (cattle in Africa of an intermediate type called “Sanga” and from breeds introduced from Great Britain or continental Europe). Sanga cattle are an intermediate humpless type that probably originated in northeastern Africa over 2,000 years ago and spread south and west. There are numerous African breeds that are included in the Sanga type including Tuli and Africander. Some Sanga cattle, like the Afrikaner, were used in the development of other breeds such as the Bonsmara which was created by Dr. Jan Bonsma in South Africa and is 5/8 Afrikaner and 3/16 Hereford and 3/16 Shorthorn. Some, but not all, of these different tropically adapted breeds have been evaluated by land grant research stations across the southern US and by the USDA Agriculture Research Service in Florida and in Nebraska. The reasons for the interest in these cattle have been primarily for their heat tolerance properties and to see if there are differences between these cattle and the heat tolerant breeds currently used in the US. In most cases the numbers of these cattle are very small and they are not widely used.

Since there were no cattle in the New World, all of the tropically adapted breeds of Central and South America were derived primarily from cattle brought from Spain or from Portugal. Some of the islands in the Caribbean (like the Virgin Islands) were colonized by other countries (like England or Denmark) at some point and their cattle (like the Senepol) influenced by cattle from their homelands. Spain colonized most of the central and South American countries except Brazil which was colonized by Portugal. Spanish cattle were Bos taurus in type and were not tropically adapted (although the Spanish plains can get pretty hot). Portugal had similar cattle but fewer of them, but Portugal also had colonies in India so many of the tropically adapted breeds (Nelore, Indu Brazil, Gyr, etc.), in Brazil owe their origins to the Bos indicus cattle from those Indian colonies. As a result, in Central and South American countries there are many indigenous breeds of tropically adapted cattle of Bos taurus origin as well as Bos indicus. In crossing tropically adapted breeds of Bos taurus origin with nontropically adapted Bos taurus breeds, there is very little or no heterosis or hybrid vigor since the breed origin genetics are too similar.

The main interest in these tropically adapted Bos taurus cattle from either the Western Hemisphere or Africa is to find genetics that convey tropical adaptation without a decline in carcass merit (muscling or cutability but especially high-end marbling) associated with the use of Bos indicus genetics. Most of these breeds are slightly better in crosses for marbling score (Low Select to High Select) but they give up a significant amount of preweaning and postweaning growth. In addition, the breeders of the American breeds of cattle in the US have been selecting their cattle for growth and carcass merit for many generations and most of these new (to the US) tropically adapted breeds have not.  In most cases, like the Hotlander™, those breeds are probably best used in small percentages to convey some hot climate adaptability but used with a healthy dose of other breeds to improve growth and carcass merit.

Filed Under: Adaptability, Crossbreeding, Dr. Paschal, EAR Articles Tagged With: , ,

GENETRUST partners share passion for Brangus cattle, beef industry

February 11, 2013 By

Unique alliance strengthens quality, selection, and consistency for established breeding programs.

By Mark Parker

The drive to maximize genetic outcomes for Brangus cattle cut a fresh trail in 2009 when 10 successful registered Brangus operations decided they could be even stronger by working together.

GENETRUST is a unique genetic and marketing alliance that includes Cavender Ranches, Jacksonville, TX; Chimney Rock Cattle Company, Concord, AR; Suhn Cattle Company, Eureka, KS; The Oaks Farm, Newnan, GA; Cross F Cattle Company, Hearne, TX; Genesis Ranch, Columbus, TX; Johnston Farms, Letohatchee, AL; Double W Ranch, McComb, MS; Schmidt Farms, Texarkana, TX; and Draggin’ M Ranch, El Dorado, AR.

Combining genetic resources with the cumulative cattle savvy of more than 100 years in the Brangus business puts GENETRUST on track to offer customers proven, practical and predictable genetics, according to the group’s president Vern Suhn.

“Commercial cattlemen demand — and deserve — more quality, more data and more selection,” he explains. “We concluded that, collectively, we could breed and develop cattle at a higher level and with more efficiency than any of us could do individually. We share a very similar genetic philosophy and we all have a very positive vision and passion for Brangus cattle and for the beef industry.”

Although each of the 10 operations is unique and autonomous, they share a foundation of Brinks Brangus genetics. Suhn and Marketing Director Craig Green guide all mating selections with input from each ranch owner. Along with proven cow families and elite donors, GENETRUST partners own, or have produced, some of the breed’s top sires such as Next Step, LTD, Alydar, Affirmed, Blackhawk, Csonka, 607L11, Unitas, Patton, Guardian, Abrams, Singletary, Newt, Chisholm, Landau, North Star, Onstar, Swift, Hombre and many more. Additionally, the alliance continually evaluates, analyzes and samples young sires within both the Angus and Brangus breeds which they feel will have a positive impact on the beef industry.

GENETRUST pursues a genetic pathway directed by its customers, Green says. “It’s all about listening to customers,” he explains. “Our goal is to provide what they need at the highest possible level. We run the numbers constantly and we’re seeing steady improvement in all areas. At the same time, we recognize that not all operations have the same needs so we strive to offer an outstanding selection of Brangus and UltraBlack cattle and semen that will excel anywhere in the country and internationally.”

Elite genetics alone, Green adds, is not enough to earn a growing group of repeat customers. The “trust” part of GENETRUST is equally important, he says: “We stand behind these cattle. We call a spade a spade and we’re not going to back up.”

All GENETRUST bulls are developed at one of three sites — Suhn Cattle Company, Eureka, Kan.; Cavender/Neches River Ranch, Jacksonville, Tex.; or Chimney Rock Cattle Company, Concord, Ark. Each location utilizes the same development protocol and similar rations designed to maintain condition after turnout rather than attaining maximum gain. The diverse locations also help bulls acclimate to different environments to better meet customer needs.

More than 85 percent of GENETRUST bulls are either AI-sired or are ET calves and all are balanced-trait selected to positively impact customers’ herds. Each bull meets exacting health standards, including individual state health and trichomoniasis requirements before shipping. All bulls must test negative for PI-BVD, bovine leukosis, and Johne’s Disease. Additionally, all bulls must pass an above average semen test.

Although GENETRUST’s annual bull offering is growing, founding partner Joe Cavender says the alliance is not numbers driven. “Our aim isn’t to be the biggest,” he says. “We’re driven by two things — consistency and quality.”

Extensive use of AI and ET — while constantly measuring the traits important to customers — moves GENETRUST forward, guided by the shared philosophy of its founders. As committed as the partners are to taking advantage of the latest technologies, Bill Davis of Chimney Rock Cattle Company says solid cow sense is a critical ingredient.

“Vern Suhn and Craig Green have a vast knowledge of the industry and it’s a tremendous opportunity to be able to benefit from that,” he says. “They are top-notch cattlemen and they’re in herds all over the country. They see thousands of cattle and thousands of matings and they bring that experience and knowledge to GENETRUST and our customers.”

Davis adds that a tremendous increase in data, as a result of the alliance, provides the tools for building better Brangus cattle. “It’s a win-win,” he explains. “It’s good for us and good for our customers.”

Four sales are held annually at three locations:

•First weekend in November, Brangus and Ultrablack bulls, registered Brangus females and commercial females, Chimney Rock.

•First Saturday in December, Brangus and Ultrablack bulls and commercial females, Cavender Ranch.

•Fourth Tuesday in March, Brangus and Ultrablack bulls, Suhn Cattle Company.

•Fourth Saturday in April, registered and commercial females, Cavender Ranch.

As proud of he is of the cattle GENETRUST offers today, Suhn is quietly confident that tomorrow’s GENETRUST bulls and females will be even better.

“We’re constantly evaluating and researching to better produce a product that will fit the growing needs and demands of our industry.” he concludes.

For more information on GENETRUST visit their website: www.genetrustbrangus.com.

Filed Under: EAR Articles, GENETRUST Tagged With: , , ,

Making EPDs Work in Your Herd

February 11, 2013 By

 by Brad Wright

Fall bull sale season is in full swing and makes this a good time for a refresher course in utilizing EPDs to help you pick your next bulls.  For many of you, this will be pretty redundant to things you have heard and read in the past, but it sure doesn’t hurt to make sure you are using the best breeding predictor available correctly.

What is an EPD?  EPD stands for Expected Progeny Difference.  An EPD is a value that represents an animal’s genetic breeding value for a given trait.  As the name implies, an EPD estimates the difference between the averages of 2 animals’ progeny for any given trait due to the genetic differences in the 2 animals.  An EPD is a comprehensive statistical tool that combines actual performance and contemporary group data with pedigree data, related animal data, and in some breeds, DNA markers.  An EPD is the best predictor of breeding value available to us and should be used for selection over actual data of any animal.

How is an EPD used?  In defining EPD, the word “difference” was used several times.  This word is key to understanding how to use an EPD.  An EPD is a means of comparison to evaluate the difference between an animal and either a) another animal or b) breed average.  To calculate a difference, you must have two values.  I bring this up only to drive the point that a set of EPDs on an animal with no other knowledge is useless.  An EPD cannot be used by itself and it does NOT relate to any value of actual performance (i.e. a BW EPD of 1.8 does NOT mean the calves will be 75 lbs).  An EPD can only be used to estimate the difference of the average of two animals’ progeny.  When you hear someone say something about “good” EPDs or “bad” EPDs on an animal, they are generally comparing to breed average.  Breed average can be found on most breed association websites or printed in most sale catalogs.  The important thing to remember about Breed Averages is they are most often NOT ZERO.  This one simple fact has disappointed many unknowing producers when the realized their +15 WW bull was actually 9 lbs below breed average for WW (IBBA – Average WW 24).  Also, EPDs are calculated within breeds and cannot be compared across different breeds.

BULL A
WW EPD – 24

BULL B
WW EPD – 34

Based on the above information, we would expect the average weaning weight of the calves sired by BULL B to be 10 lbs greater (34-24=10) than the average weaning weight of the calves sired by BULL A, given the same environment and comparable genetic makeup of the dams.

What do you need to help your herd?  Back on this discussion of “good” and “bad” EPDs, this cannot be based solely on the bulls ranking within the breed, and will not be the same for every breeder.  Know your herd and know your environment and utilize the EPDs to best fit your needs to reach your end product goals.  A “good” Milk EPD for a producer in Northern Georgia with 50 inches of annual rainfall may be ABOVE +20.  A “good” Milk EPD for a producer in Southern Arizona with 6 inches of annual rainfall may be BELOW +11.  Even though EPDs are represented with + and – and percentile rankings, doesn’t mean that + is good and – is bad, and 5th percentile isn’t necessarily better than 50th percentile if it doesn’t fit your herd, your environment and your end product goals.

How accurate is an EPD?  Ever wondered what that little number was printed below and EPD?  The accuracy of an EPD, sometimes labeled ACC, is often times printed below the EPD.  The accuracy will be a number between 0 and 1 and is the statistical representation of the confidence in the EPD.  The closer the accuracy is to 1, the more reliable the EPD is and the less likely the EPD will move or shift.  Accuracy increases as progeny are recorded.  A common problem when buying bulls is that most will be unproven bulls with a large percentage having never sired a calf.  This does add a degree of difficulty when evaluating young bulls.  With non-parent bulls, the highest accuracies available will be .25 to .35 and these accuracies will only be available on bulls with data collected in large, high quality contemporary groups with at least some proven AI sires represented in the group.  This magnifies the need to buy bulls from breeders who are diligent in collecting and reporting proper data and contemporary groups.

Do EPDs work?  Figure 1 shows the genetic trend for the growth traits in the Brangus breed since 1970.

EPD Trend Lines for Growth Traits

EPD Trend Lines for Growth Traits

These trend lines are similar to those found in other breeds as well.

 

With the use of EPDs, breeders have been able to increase Weaning Weight and Yearling Weight while keeping Birth Weight essentially the same.  EPDs do work when used appropriately.  They can even work too well if only selecting for one trait.  There will be constant updates to the EPD analysis in the future, whether it is the addition of DNA data to increase the accuracy of these unproven animals, or the creation of new EPDs to help producers better select for economically important traits like fertility, age of puberty or feed efficiency; but quality progeny data will always be the backbone of EPDs because “proof is in the pudding” (or in the cattle industry, “proof is in the progeny”).

Filed Under: EAR Articles, EPD, Records Tagged With: , , ,

Importance of Records, Individual Selection and Breed Choices in Crossbreeding Systems

February 7, 2013 By

Joe C. Paschal

Last month I ended my article with some comments on whether or not crossbreeding was still economically relevant in today’s beef market based on an article written by Dr. Nevil C. Speer of Western Kentucky University. One interpretation was that it is not, that in today’s value based marketing system (read by some as “marbling score driven”), the value of carcasses with high marbling scores somehow outweighs the overall increase in lifelong performance of crossbred cows and their crossbred fed offspring. I doubt that that is case but still crossbreeding is not free. There is a cost to produce the purebreds that form the basis of the cross but this cost is usually passed on to the producer who purchases these females. If both male and female crosses are equally desirable as feeders or replacement females then the additional cost can be recouped equally. If there is a significant discrimination between the crosses based on gender then the more favorable gender will have to pick up more of the cost of production.

A well known example is the production of British x Brahman F1 steers and heifers. The steers will bring a lower price per pound than some other crosses (but less so today than a few years ago) but the heifers will command a premium as replacements. Discounts for crossbred bulls and steers depend on the demand for specific types. In the early years of the Brangus breed a good 3/4 Brahman x 1/4 Angus bull could be worth quite a bit of money to a breeder with Angus cows wanting to produce Brangus cows. On the Gulf Coast of the US there are places where 1/2 and sometimes 3/4 Brahman bulls are very useful, but these represent only a small fraction of the beef cattle produced in the US, but you get my point.

Most of the advantages that are pointed out in different crossbreeding systems come from the increased productivity of the crossbred cow, mainly attributed to heterosis. In animal breeding we define heterosis or hybrid vigor as the difference in level of performance in a trait when comparing the crossbred offspring to the average of the parents. There are parental breeds that are high performing in one trait or another (adaptation, growth, longevity, etc) but no breeds that I know of excel in ALL traits. This is why selection of breeds and individuals within breeds to make the cross is very important. It is equally as important as selection of individuals in a straightbred or purebred herd. In most discussions of why crossbreeding and hybrid vigor is beneficial (or is not) to commercial producers, the selection of breeds (and what they bring as “breed effects” to the cross) and the importance of individual selection are often glossed over or ignored in the larger discussion. I am not going to discuss breeds here, I think most of us have a good understanding of what different breeds have to offer, either as purebreds with some Ear influence (or not) or in a crossbreeding program with Ear influence (or not).

The purpose of selection is to increase, reduce or to maintain performance of the traits that you as a breeder or a producer have an interest. These traits may increase your income, reduce your costs or just lower your stress. These traits may be relatively easy to select for (or against) or not depending on the heritability of the traits, the amount of variation in the breeds being used, and the source and quality (accuracy) of the records that are available. The more information that you can bring to bear on your selection decision, the more likely your breeding or crossbreeding program will be successful. There are a number of efforts underway in the different Eared breed associations to encourage their members to increase the quantity AND quality of the production records that are being collected and reported to them. In this age of genomics and genetic markers we tend to forget that these are not “silver bullets” but aids to selection. The use of these new tools will improve the prediction of an animal’s genetic value, more so for young animals without progeny records. In the future these genomic tools will account for more genetic variation of these traits and others of significant interest (such as longevity, reproduction and health) but right now their best use is to improve the accuracy of the EPDs for animals with no (or few) offspring. It might change their EPD for the trait but the greatest impact will be on the accuracy or reliability of their EPD. The problem is that many of the genetic tests are for carcass merit traits, not for traits earlier in life affecting productivity and economics at the cow calf level.

Collecting Data at JDH. Picture Courtesy of Dr. Paschal.

Collecting Data at JDH. Picture Courtesy of Dr. Paschal.

Now, as in the past, the Eared breeds and their breeders have quickly and roundly embraced new programs and technology. They were among the first to utilize (and continue to do so) ultrasound for carcass merit, to participate in feedyard and carcass merit (including tenderness) data collection programs, and the use of genetic markers and other genomic tools. But these technologies should be used IN ADDITION TO the time consuming and less cutting edge documentation and reporting of calving, weaning and yearling data on all animals in your herd. I am familiar with the concept and the drudgery of record keeping and reporting but it is very important to collect to ensure that the accuracy of your animal’s actual and adjusted within-herd performance records and your breed’s genetic predictions or EPDs.

Collecting ultrasound data at JDH. Picture courtesy of Dr. Paschal.

Collecting ultrasound data at JDH. Picture courtesy of Dr. Paschal.

Eared cattle breeds are raised in a wide range of environments (not just climatic conditions) which affects their performance. If complete records are not collected, this nongenetic environmental influence may not be completely accounted for in genetic evaluations. In addition, there can be considerable “selection bias” injected into the records as only the records of the more/most desirable animals are sent. This bias tends to affect bulls more than heifers since fewer bulls are kept and registered. Selection bias will make the remaining animals look better than they really are because the lower performing (or less desirable) animals have been culled and their performance records were not collected. We all spend a lot of time and money breeding and raising good cattle for our customers, feeder cattle as well as replacements, and we need to collect and report as much data as we can, sometimes even if it is a little onerous. Just do it!

 

Dr. Paschal is a livestock specialist for the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and is based in Corpus Christi, Texas. He can be reached at (361) 265-9203 or j-paschal@tamu.edu

Filed Under: Crossbreeding, Dr. Paschal, EAR Articles, Records Tagged With: , , , ,
« Previous Page