Theme%20Graphic%20Walk-in

1
(No Transcript)
2
Meeting Consumer Demands through Genetic
SelectionThe NCBA Carcass Merit Project

• Dan W. Moser
• on behalf of the CMP Team

3
Project Team
Principal Investigators Dr. Michael Dikeman,
Kansas State University Shear Force Measurement,
Sensory Panel Dr. John Pollak, Cornell
University Database Management Dr. Dan Moser,
Kansas State University Breed Association
Liaison Dr. Clare Gill, Texas AM
University DNA Marker Validation Dr. Mark
Thallman, US Meat Animal Research Center DNA
Marker Validation Dr. Steve Koontz, Colorado
State University Economic Analyses
4
Project Team
Collaborators Dr. Tom Holm, MMI
Genomics Marker Genotyping/DNA Analyses Project
Coordinators (NCBA) Ms. Elizabeth Dressler, NCBA
Project Coordinator Dr. Bo Reagan, NCBA Executive
Director of Science Technology
5
Project Team
Steering Committee James Bennett,
Virginia Jim Bradford, Iowa Rob Brown, Texas
John Grande, Montana Kathleen Hawkins,
Michigan David Nichols, Iowa
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
CMP Goals

• To collect data for calculation of tenderness and
  other carcass EPD
• To validate previously identified genetic markers
  for tenderness and other carcass traits

9
CMP Procedures

• Project began in 1998, completed in 2004
• All US beef breed associations were invited to
  participate
• Costs in the project were shared by the breed
  associations and the 1 per head beef checkoff

10
Participating Breeds
Angus Brahman Brangus Charolais Gelbvieh He
reford Limousin Maine-Anjou Red
Angus Salers Shorthorn Simmental Simbrah South
Devon
11
CMP Bulls

• Each breed selected
• 10 DNA sires
• 50 progeny each
• 5 sires also had sensory data collected
• Additional EPD sires
• Number based on registrations
• About 25 progeny each

12
CMP Procedures

• Cattle were generated or identified by breed
  associations
• Fed in commercial feedlots
• DNA sampled at first processing
• Associations determined management, days on feed,
  implants, etc.
• Harvested in commercial packing facilities

13
Participating Packers
Caldwell Packing (MN) Central Packing
(FL) ConAgra Excel Greater Omaha IBP Moyer
Packing (PA) Sam Kane (TX) Washington Beef
14
CMP Procedures

• Carcass data collected, steaks retrieved
• Steaks sent to K-State meats laboratory
• Shear steaks were aged 14 days
• Sensory panel steaks were frozen after aging

15
CMP Procedures

• DNA samples from sires, progeny on feed and
  carcasses were used to confirm identity and
  paternity
• A significant number of identity and paternity
  errors were detected

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
CMP Procedures

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

28
Project Results

• 7200 progeny of 279 sires measured for shear
  force
• 2400 progeny evaluated by sensory panel
• 70 sires generated enough progeny for marker
  analysis
• 2500 progeny used in marker analysis

29
Phenotypic Results

• Carcass traits were representative of the
  industry
• 26 of the progeny exceeded 11 lb. for WBSF
• 20 were rated less than slightly tender by
  sensory panel
• Sire progeny means within a breed varied by 1.90
  to 6.62 lb.

30
Genetic Parameters

• Shear force is
• Highly heritable in most breeds
• Strongly correlated with sensory panel tenderness
• The genetic correlation of shear force and
  marbling is
• Moderate to low, but favorable
• Breed dependent?

31
Shear Force EPD

• Currently published by
• Simmental
• Simbrah
• Shorthorn
• Hereford
• Over 200 sires in all
• All breeds have received data

32
Evaluation of Marker Data

• Eleven QTL discovered in previous checkoff funded
  research
• Initial evaluation was simple and conducted on an
  individual sire basis
• Significant collaborative efforts by a number of
  scientists led to a state of the art
  project-wide analysis of these data

33
Evaluation of Genetic Markers
1
2
3
4
34
Significant QTL Effects
QTL Significant Traits
6 Shear force, Tenderness, Ribeye Area
7 Carcass weight, Ribeye Area
8 Carcass weight, Tenderness, Ribeye Area, Flavor
10 Tenderness
11 Marbling
35
Marker Evaluation Results

• All eleven QTL were evaluated for effects on nine
  carcass and meat quality traits
• Five QTL had highly significant (P lt .01)
  effects on at least one trait
• Two other QTL had significant (P lt .05)
  effects on at least one trait

36
QTL 6

• Highly significant for shear force and overall
  tenderness
• Accounts for 12 and 13 of phenotypic variance
  (VP), respectively
• Significant for ribeye area
• Accounts for 7 of VP
• Significant for shear force and overall
  tenderness in previous research

37
QTL 7

• Highly significant for ribeye area and carcass
  weight
• Accounts for 7 and 6 of VP, respectively
• Significant for juiciness
• Accounts for 7 of VP

38
QTL 8

• Highly significant for carcass weight
• Accounts for 10 of VP
• Significant for shear force, tenderness, ribeye
  area and flavor
• Accounts for 6, 9, 3 and 4 of VP, respectively
• Effects among all five traits are favorably
  correlated

39
QTL 10

• Highly significant for overall tenderness
• Accounts for 4 of VP
• Significant for juiciness
• Accounts for 5 of VP

40
QTL 11

• Highly significant for marbling
• Accounts for 8 of VP

41
Other Promising QTL

• QTL 4, significant for fat thickness
• Accounts for 5 of VP
• QTL 5, significant for fat thickness
• Accounts for 6 of VP
• Significant for fat thickness in previous research

42
QTL Effects by Trait
Trait QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL
Shear Force 6 8
Tenderness 6 8 10
Ribeye Area 6 7 8
Carcass Weight 7 8
Marbling 11
Fat Thickness 4 5
Flavor 8
Juiciness 7 10
43
Further Details

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

44
Economic Considerations

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

45
Impact of Tenderness on Retail Price
USDA Grade Increase in Retail Price
Prime 1.4
Premium Choice 2.5
Choice 3.6
Select 4.2
Impact of a 10 improvement in tenderness
46
How Can Producers Use These Results?

• Use Shear Force EPD in selection
• Use of the marker results requires
  commercialization by a partner company
• Commercial tests could be in the form of linked
  markers (now) and/or direct tests (later)

47
Implementing Marker-Assisted Selection

• Collect DNA on sire
• Collect DNA and phenotypes on (50?) progeny
• Determine markers that have significant effects
  for that sire
• Select future progeny of sire based on marker
  results
• Currently used in dairy and swine

48
QTL Effects by Trait
Trait QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL QTL
Shear Force 6 8
Tenderness 6 8 10
Ribeye Area 6 7 8
Carcass Weight 7 8
Marbling 11
Fat Thickness 4 5
Flavor 8
Juiciness 7 10
49
Disadvantages ofLinked Markers

• Need some phenotypes on progeny of sire before
  selection
• Only progeny of heterozygous sires are testable
• Identify progeny that received favorable allele
  from sire, but does not identify homozygous
  favorable animals

50
Direct Tests

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

51
Other Benefits of CMP
52
Other Benefits of CMP

• Cooperation among breed associations
• Raised awareness and visibility of
  marker-assisted selection
• Advancement of statistical approaches to marker
  analysis

53
Other Benefits of CMP

• Multi-breed database of DNA and phenotypes
• For validation of genetic tests
• For further discovery and development
• Quite possibly the greatest benefit of all

54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
Project Team
Dr. Michael Dikeman, Kansas State
University Shear Force Measurement, Sensory
Panel Dr. John Pollak, Cornell
University Database Management Dr. Dan Moser,
Kansas State University Breed Association
Liaison Dr. Mark Thallman, US Meat Animal
Research Center DNA Marker Validation Ms.
Elizabeth Dressler, NCBA Project Coordinator
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)