Vasse fd sep10
-
Upload
jeisane2010 -
Category
Education
-
view
205 -
download
0
Transcript of Vasse fd sep10
Maternal Productivity
Project
(southern Aust)
Jeisane Accioly, Fiona Jones and
Michael Laurence(on behalf of a large team)
WA Maternal Productivity WA Maternal Productivity TeamTeam
Brad Seib
John Milligan
Tex Hann
NolaMercer
Ryan Drage
Brian McIntyre Peter Jelinek LeonardaPaszkudzka-Baizert
Greg Sawyer
Western Australia
• Jane Speijers
Other Researchers
South Australia
• Wayne Pitchford• Katrina Copping• Mick Deland• Nick Edwards• Ian Carmichael• Michelle Hebart• Stephen Lee
New South Wales
• Kath Donehue•Robert Herd• Peter Parnell
Victoria
• John Graham
386 kg Start wt 398 kg 1.5 kg/d ADG 1.5 kg/d 1640 kg Expected feed 1670 kg 1880 kg Actual feed 1580 kg + 240 kg Net feed intake - 90 kg
Low Efficiency High Efficiency
1. Adoption of selection
strategies influencing
body composition (e.g.
RBY and NFI) constrained
by industry concerns
about impact on breeding
herd efficiency, especially
in variable nutritional
environments
Key industry issues
2. The seedstock industry
lacks suitable selection
criteria for effective
improvement of
breeding herd efficiency
(kg cow and calf per MJ
energy consumed by
cow & calf)
Key industry issues
Key issue in South
Maternal efficiency:
Cow feed (75%)
• Maintenance
• Energy storage & retrieval
Reproductive performance
Calving ease
Calf value
Longevity
Cow salvage value
Improve breeding herd efficiency in temperate Australia
Impact of selection for body composition on herd efficiency, especially under variable nutrition
Efficient use of available feed resources & body reserves to produce progeny
Full multi-trait index with measure of maternal efficiency & optimally weighted composition traits for variable environments
Project aims
Key research question …
Does selection for improved NFI or RBY% influence breeding herd efficiency* ?
Hypothesis: Selection for reduced NFI and reduced carcass fatness increase
breeding herd efficiency in good, but not in poor
nutritional environments
* Kg of cow and calf liveweight / MJ energy consumed by the
breeding herd
Two approaches:
• Correlations between traits across large range of production
systems (Industry herds)
• Differences between divergent single-trait lines in formal
design (Research herds)
Project approach
Animal Selection• 154 “fat line” yearling heifers arrived Jan-Feb 07
sourced from industry seedstock herds in Vic & SA (‘B’ heifers).
• 62 NFI heifers arrived Jan-Feb 08 Sourced from Trangie NFI Selection Herd, NSW.
• 95 “fat line” yearling heifers arrived Feb-Mar 08 sourced from industry seedstock herds in Vic & SA (‘C’ heifers).
Maternal efficiency herds
Angus
Hereford
Research herds
4 LinesHigh FatLow FatLow FatHigh NFILow NFI
2 NutritionHighLow
2 SitesVasse, WAStruan, SA
x x
Intensive measurements and estimation of food intake
Research herds
3 calving seasons
EBV differences EBV differences between the linesbetween the lines
0.480.422.102.40EMA
0.3-1.2-1.8-3.3DTC
58.642.081.367.7MCWT
60.647.683.875.9Wt600
9.07.810.610.8Milk
25.918.936.331.3Wt200
4.62.94.93.8BWt
-0.870.77NFIF
-0.470.65NFIP
-0.63.0-1.51.4Rump P8
-0.43.2-1.41.2Rib fat
Low NFI (n=81)
High NFI (n=81)
Low Fat (n=170)
High Fat (n=170)
EBV
Heifer managementHeifer management
Nutritional treat’s applied
9 week joining
Calving
SepSep
OctOct
NovNov
Dec Dec
JanJan
FebFeb
MarMar
AprApr
MayMay
JuneJune
JulyJuly
AugAug
SepSep
OctOct
NovNov
Dec Dec
JanJan
FebFeb
JuneJune
JulyJuly
AugAug
Sep Sep
OctOct
NovNov
Dec Dec
JanJan
FebFeb
MarMar
AprApr
MayMay
JuneJune
JulyJuly
AugAug
SepSep
OctOct
NovNov
9 week joining
Nutritional treat’s applied
Calving
Weaning Weaning
Vasse Struan
9 week joining9 week joining
0
100
200
300
400
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pas
ture
En
erg
y S
up
ply
(M
J/h
a/d
ay)
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
Cat
tle
En
erg
y D
eman
d
(MJ/
hea
d/d
ay)
Energy Supply & Demand: Early Calvers & Late CalversEnergy Supply & Demand: Early Calvers & Late Calvers
Rainfall (mm)
2006: 577 mm 2007: 810 mm 2008: 671 mm 2009: 679 mm2010: 464.1mm
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 20072008 20092010
Weight of Fat cowsWeight of Fat cows
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
PM1 W0 PM 2 W1
Co
w W
eig
ht
(kg
)
High Fat Low Fat High Fat High Nut Low Fat High Nut High Fat Low Nut Low Fat Low Nut
P8 FatP8 Fat
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
PM1 W0 PM 2 W1
Co
w p
8 F
at (
mm
)
High Fat Low Fat High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
11stst calvers pre-mating calvers pre-mating and pregnancy testand pregnancy test
86.885.14.9367465Low Fat
93.493.56.5370473High Fat
Adjusted conception
rate*
Conception rate*
P8 fat (mm)***
Weight (kg)
Age (days)*
Line
Pre-mating and pregnancy Pre-mating and pregnancy test 2test 2ndnd calving calving
Line NutritionWeight (kg)***
P8 fat (mm)**
Conception rate
High Fat High 531 8.3 94.9
High Fat Low 488 5.4 88.4
Low Fat High 575 7.6 93.5
Low Fat Low 491 4.2 85.7
Days to calving for Days to calving for heifersheifers
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
High Nutrition Low Nutrition
Day
s To
Cal
ving
(day
s)
High Fat Low Fat
*
Days to Calving 2Days to Calving 2ndnd calvers calvers
295
297
299
301
303
305
307
309
311
313 High Fat - High Nut" High Fat - Low Nut
Low Fat- High Nut Low Fat - Low Nut
MessagesMessages
• Low fat cows were bigger / heavier (ave. 50kg)• Low fat cows were leaner (>3mm)• Fat difference was consistent across seasons• Low fat cows seem to have poorer reproduction??
Birth weightBirth weight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1st calf 2nd calf
Bir
th W
eig
ht
(kg
)
High Fat High Nut Low Fat High Nut High Fat Low Nut Low Fat Low Nut
Messages (calves)Messages (calves)
• No effect of fat genotype on birth or weaning weight
• Nutrition effect on weaning weight
P8 Fat – NFI cowsP8 Fat – NFI cows
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
PM1 W0 PM 2 W1
Co
w p
8 (m
m)
High NFI Low NFI High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
11stst calvers pre-mating calvers pre-mating and pregnancy testand pregnancy test
LineAge
(days)Weight
(kg)P8 fat
(mm)***Conception
rate
Adjusted conception
rate
High NFI 493 306 10.4 91.9 91.8
Low NFI 492 315 8.2 91.6 91.6
Pre-mating and pregnancy Pre-mating and pregnancy test 2test 2ndnd calving calving
Line NutritionWeight
(kg)P8 fat
(mm)***Conception
rate
High NFI High 478 11.9 95.1
High NFI Low 441 8.7 96.1
Low NFI High 488 8.8 87.4
Low NFI Low 438 6.1 88.7
Days to calving for Days to calving for heifersheifers
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
High Nutrition Low Nutrition
Day
s To
Cal
ving
(day
s)
High NFI Low NFI
Days to Calving 2Days to Calving 2ndnd calvers calvers
310
312
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
High NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI High Nut Low NFI Low Nut
Birth weightBirth weight
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1st calf 2nd calf
Bir
th W
eig
ht
(kg
)
High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
MessagesMessages
• No difference in weight of cows• Trend for Low NFI cows to be leaner • No effect of NFI in reproduction• No effect of NFI in birth or weaning weight• Effect of nutrition on weaning weight
Main messagesMain messages
• Genetically fatter cows seem to be more fertile, especially under low nutrition
• Selection for body composition holds across seasons and nutrition treatments
• No effect of cow fatness or NFI EBV on weaning weight of her calf
• Selection for NFI is associated with changes in fatness