Meeting Consumer Demands through Genetic Selection:

The NCBA Carcass Merit Project

Dan W. Moseron behalf of the CMP Team

Project TeamPrincipal Investigators:

Dr. Michael Dikeman, Kansas State UniversityShear Force Measurement, Sensory Panel Dr. John Pollak, Cornell UniversityDatabase Management Dr. Dan Moser, Kansas State UniversityBreed Association Liaison Dr. Clare Gill, Texas A&M UniversityDNA Marker Validation Dr. Mark Thallman, US Meat Animal Research CenterDNA Marker Validation Dr. Steve Koontz, Colorado State UniversityEconomic Analyses

Project TeamCollaborators:

Dr. Tom Holm, MMI GenomicsMarker Genotyping/DNA Analyses

Project Coordinators (NCBA):Ms. Elizabeth Dressler, NCBA Project CoordinatorDr. Bo Reagan, NCBA Executive Director of Science & Technology

Project TeamSteering Committee:

James Bennett, VirginiaJim Bradford, Iowa

Rob Brown, Texas John Grande, Montana

Kathleen Hawkins, MichiganDavid Nichols, Iowa

CMP GoalsTo collect data for calculation of tenderness and other carcass EPDTo validate previously identified genetic markers for tenderness and other carcass traits

CMP ProceduresProject began in 1998, completed in 2004All US beef breed associations were invited to participateCosts in the project were shared by the breed associations and the $1 per head beef checkoff

Participating BreedsAngusBrahmanBrangusCharolaisGelbviehHerefordLimousinMaine-AnjouRed AngusSalersShorthornSimmentalSimbrahSouth Devon

CMP BullsEach breed selected:10 DNA sires50 progeny each5 sires also had sensory data collectedAdditional EPD siresNumber based on registrationsAbout 25 progeny each

CMP ProceduresCattle were generated or identified by breed associationsFed in commercial feedlotsDNA sampled at first processingAssociations determined management, days on feed, implants, etc.Harvested in commercial packing facilities

Participating PackersCaldwell Packing (MN)Central Packing (FL)ConAgraExcelGreater OmahaIBPMoyer Packing (PA)Sam Kane (TX)Washington Beef

CMP ProceduresCarcass data collected, steaks retrievedSteaks sent to K-State meats laboratoryShear steaks were aged 14 daysSensory panel steaks were frozen after aging

CMP ProceduresDNA samples from sires, progeny on feed and carcasses were used to confirm identity and paternityA significant number of identity and paternity errors were detected

CMP ProceduresThe project was designed to allow comparison of sires within each breed, but not sires across breeds, or breed meansThe average shear force of each breed in this study is as much the result of management as it is genetics

Project Results7200 progeny of 279 sires measured for shear force2400 progeny evaluated by sensory panel70 sires generated enough progeny for marker analysis2500 progeny used in marker analysis

Phenotypic ResultsCarcass traits were representative of the industry26% of the progeny exceeded 11 lb. for WBSF20% were rated less than slightly tender by sensory panelSire progeny means within a breed varied by 1.90 to 6.62 lb.

Genetic ParametersShear force is:Highly heritable in most breedsStrongly correlated with sensory panel tendernessThe genetic correlation of shear force and marbling is:Moderate to low, but favorableBreed dependent?

Shear Force EPDCurrently published by:SimmentalSimbrahShorthornHerefordOver 200 sires in allAll breeds have received data

Evaluation of Marker DataEleven QTL discovered in previous checkoff funded researchInitial evaluation was simple and conducted on an individual sire basisSignificant collaborative efforts by a number of scientists led to a state of the art project-wide analysis of these data

Evaluation of Genetic Markers1234

Significant QTL Effects

Marker Evaluation ResultsAll eleven QTL were evaluated for effects on nine carcass and meat quality traitsFive QTL had highly significant (P < .01) effects on at least one traitTwo other QTL had significant (P < .05) effects on at least one trait

QTL 6Highly significant for shear force and overall tendernessAccounts for 12 and 13% of phenotypic variance (VP), respectivelySignificant for ribeye areaAccounts for 7% of VP Significant for shear force and overall tenderness in previous research

QTL 7Highly significant for ribeye area and carcass weightAccounts for 7 and 6% of VP, respectivelySignificant for juicinessAccounts for 7% of VP

QTL 8Highly significant for carcass weightAccounts for 10% of VPSignificant for shear force, tenderness, ribeye area and flavorAccounts for 6, 9, 3 and 4% of VP, respectivelyEffects among all five traits are favorably correlated

QTL 10Highly significant for overall tendernessAccounts for 4% of VPSignificant for juicinessAccounts for 5% of VP

QTL 11Highly significant for marblingAccounts for 8% of VP

Other Promising QTLQTL 4, significant for fat thicknessAccounts for 5% of VPQTL 5, significant for fat thicknessAccounts for 6% of VPSignificant for fat thickness in previous research

QTL Effects by Trait

Further DetailsDr. Mark Thallman will lead a discussion of the CMP marker analysis in the Emerging Technologies subcommittee, this afternoon

Economic ConsiderationsUSDA Quality Grade does not adequately segregate steaks by level of tendernessEconomic impacts of improving tenderness vary by grade

Impact of Tenderness on Retail Price**Impact of a 10% improvement in tenderness

How Can Producers Use These Results?Use Shear Force EPD in selectionUse of the marker results requires commercialization by a partner companyCommercial tests could be in the form of linked markers (now) and/or direct tests (later)

Implementing Marker-Assisted SelectionCollect DNA on sireCollect DNA and phenotypes on (50?) progenyDetermine markers that have significant effects for that sireSelect future progeny of sire based on marker resultsCurrently used in dairy and swine

QTL Effects by Trait

Disadvantages ofLinked MarkersNeed some phenotypes on progeny of sire before selectionOnly progeny of heterozygous sires are testableIdentify progeny that received favorable allele from sire, but does not identify homozygous favorable animals

Direct TestsData from CMP and previous research could be useful in further development of these linked QTL into direct testsTime?Cost?Linked markers could be used until direct tests are available

Other Benefits of CMP

Other Benefits of CMPCooperation among breed associationsRaised awareness and visibility of marker-assisted selectionAdvancement of statistical approaches to marker analysis

Other Benefits of CMPMulti-breed database of DNA and phenotypes For validation of genetic testsFor further discovery and developmentQuite possibly the greatest benefit of all

Project Team

Dr. Michael Dikeman, Kansas State UniversityShear Force Measurement, Sensory Panel Dr. John Pollak, Cornell UniversityDatabase Management Dr. Dan Moser, Kansas State UniversityBreed Association Liaison Dr. Mark Thallman, US Meat Animal Research CenterDNA Marker Validation Ms. Elizabeth Dressler, NCBA Project Coordinator