Brief Summary of Minutes of Annual Meeting

Minutes of the S-1064 Multi-State Research Project Meeting Clemson, SC May 27-29, 2015 The S-1064 meeting was called to order on May 27, 2015 by Dr. Brian Bolt at the Clemson University Outdoor Lab in Clemson, SC. Dr. Bolt invited everyone to partake in breakfast and introduced Dr. Thomas Dobbins, Director of Extension at Clemson University, who gave the official welcome to South Carolina and to Clemson University. Dr. Dobbins gave an overview of current extension actions and discussed the importance of research and the application of results to production. Dr. Rhonda Vann, (President) announced that the members assigned to the nominating committee were Dr. Jeremy Powell, Dr. Bob Godfrey, and Dr. Jim Sanders; and members assigned to the resolutions committee were Dr. Trent Smith, Dr. Megan Rolf, and Bryan Kutz. Station Reports for S-1064 projects were presented by objectives: Objective 1. Estimation of genetic variation associated with animal health using classical animal breeding and genomic techniques to facilitate sustainable beef cattle production systems. Objective 1.1 External Parasites Dr. Bob Godfrey presented a report for University of Virgin Islands regarding tick parasites and association with body weight and ADG. Dr. Megan Rolf, OSU, reported fly data is being collected through manual count of flies. Objective 1.2 Eye and facial pigmentation associated with animal health Dr. David Riley, Texas A&M, gave discussion regarding data being collected on eye/face pigmentation and requested images (one face on; one from each side of face) continue to be collected. Dr. Matthew Burns reported that Clemson University will be contributing data to this objective. Objective 1.3 Udder conformation Dr. David Riley led discussion regarding udder confirmation data collection. Udder scores should be recorded the first week after calving. Dr. Rhonda Vann, MSU, and Dr. Bob Godfrey suggested methods of data collection on udder conformation. Objective 2. Meta-analyses of economically important traits of cow productivity and fertility to assess breed and production system combinations. Dr. Bob Godfrey reported that data show that there are some differences in the growth traits between Senepol bull and heifer calves reared under tropical conditions. Dr. Gary Hansen is currently listed as objective 2 coordinator; however, he is no longer a member of the group. Bryan Kutz, University of Arkansas, was nominated and will serve as objective 2 coordinator. Objective 3. Documentation of genetic components pertaining to heat tolerance adaptive traits in sustainable beef cattle production systems. Dr. Trent Smith, MSU, reported on hair coat shedding which indicates the higher the hair coat shedding score the lower the body condition score. Dr. Jeremy Powell, University of Arkansas, reported on hair coat shedding data collected during 2012 through 2014. Data was collected March through July each year. Adjusted calf birth weight and body weight of cow at weaning was related to the month of first shedding of winter hair coat. Dr. Megan Rolf discussed data being collected at OSU on heat tolerance phenotypes. Long term water restriction being tested using a water restricting system. Crossbred steers are being observed and respiratory rates are being taken. Steers receive 50% of their individual baseline of water. HD80K genotype is being processed on steers involved in project. Objective 4 No current reports Mr. Gary Burns led the group on a tour of the Clemson University Beef Cattle Research facilities at the Simpson Station. The group was able to view the Hereford herd, see working facilities, and tour the bull test station. Dr. Joe West, University of Georgia, S-1064 administrative advisor gave an update regarding the S1064 project. He thanked Dr. Brian Bolt, Dr. Matthew Burns, and Amber Starnes for hosting and Dr. Rhonda Vann for her leadership as chair of the committee. Dr. West also congratulated the group on the success of the rewrite from S-1045 to S-1064 and encouraged the group to continue to seek grant opportunities. He emphasized the importance of multiple stations actively collaborating on each objective in the project in order to justify the projects existence. He also reminded the group that a project report will be due 60 days following the meeting. Dr. Vann reminded the group to send electronic copies of station reports to her to put together a final report for this year’s project meeting. The meeting location for 2016 was discussed as a joint meeting with the WERA-1 group to be held in St. Croix. Dr. Trent Smith made the motion to accept the location, Dr. David Riley seconded the motion and no opposing votes were made. Dr. Bob Godfrey will send out dates and more details (dates will be similar to previous years). Dr. Rhonda Vann invited reports from the nominating and the resolutions committee for the S-1064 project group. The nominating committee had nominated Dr. Meghan Rolf as incoming secretary and Amber Starnes as Chairman-Elect for the S-1064 executive board. This nominations were accepted by unanimous vote. The resolution committee report was read by Dr. Trent Smith and was accepted by unanimous vote from the group. The group toured the Yon Family Farm in Ridge Springs, SC. Respectfully submitted, Amber Starnes Resolutions Whereas the S-1064 Technical Committee is committed to improving beef cattle production systems in the southern region and other regions of the United States. And whereas the S-1064 Technical Committee is improved by exchange of research findings and approaches at different institutions and locations as well as observing different beef cattle production systems. Therefore, be it resolved that the S-1064 Technical Committee expresses its gratitude to Dr. Brian Bolt, Dr. Matt Burns, and Amber Starnes for planning and coordinating its 2015 annual meeting in Clemson, SC and for coordinating tours of the research cattle herds at Clemson University and privately owned cattle herds belonging to Joe Davis (J. Davis Cattle Company) and Kevin Yon (Yon Family Farms). We would also like to thank Dr. Thomas Dobbins for welcoming us to Clemson, SC. Be it also resolved that the S-1064 Technical Committee expresses its gratitude to Mr. Rick Wiley and the Clemson Shotgun Team for their hospitality and entertainment at the Pickens Bend shooting range. Be it also resolved that the S-1064 Technical Committee expresses appreciation to Drs. David Riley and Andy Herring for their leadership in organizing and preparing the new S-1064 project. Be it also resolved that the S-1064 Technical Committee extends its thanks to Dr. Joe West for his oversight, leadership, and friendship as administrative advisor of the project. Respectively submitted 5/28/15 Megan Rolf Brian Kutz Trent Smith ACCOMPLISHMENTS As this is the first year of the project, there have been limited analyses conducted on data. This section of the report is presented by objective, and primarily highlights data which have been collected to date. Objectives 1. Estimate genetic variation associated with animal health using classical animal breeding and genomic techniques to facilitate sustainable beef cattle production systems. Objective 1.1: University of the Virgin Islands; this study was conducted to evaluate the relationship of tick load between Senepol cows and their calves under tropical conditions. Data was collected on multiparous Senepol cows (n = 127 observations) and their calves (n = 144 observations) born in fall 2010 and 2011 and spring 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. At weaning cow tick load was evaluated using a visual score (1 = clean, 2 = light, 3 = moderate or 4 = heavy) prior to the monthly acaricide treatment. Calf BW and tick load were measured at weaning and yearling. Average daily gain (ADG) was calculated for calves for the periods from birth to weaning and weaning to yearling. Data were analyzed using correlation and GLM procedures with calving season and cow tick load as the main effects and sire as a covariate due to unequal representation of sires across years. Calves born in the spring had greater 205-d adjusted weaning weights (P < 0.002) than calves born in the fall but there was no effect of cow tick loads (P > 0.10). There was no effect of calving season or cow tick load on 365-d adjusted weight of calves (P > 0.10). Spring-born calves had a higher ADG from birth to weaning (P < 0.003) than fall-born calves but there was no effect of cow tick load (P > 0.10). Calves of cows with light tick loads had lower ADG from weaning to yearling (P < 0.0001) than calves of cows with clean, moderate or high tick loads. Spring-born calves had greater tick loads at weaning (P < 0.001) than fall-born calves but there was no difference (P > 0.10) as yearlings. There was no effect of cow tick load at weaning on calf tick load ate weaning (P > 0.10). Calves of cows with high tick loads at weaning had lower yearling tick loads (P < 0.02) than calves from cows with clean, light or moderate tick loads. Cow tick load at weaning had low correlations with calf tick load at weaning (r = 0.24, P < 0.008) and at yearling (r = -0.23, P < 0.04). Calf tick load at weaning was not correlated with tick load at yearling (r = -0.01, P > 0.10). In summary, cow tick load does not affect calf tick load or pre-weaning growth. Because of the low correlation of tick load between cows and calves, and within calves, it may be difficult to select for the trait of tick resistance. Oklahoma State University: To facilitate our ultimate goal of elucidating genetic and genomic control of resistance and resilience to horn flies in beef cattle, we began by developing metrics for measuring fly counts in pasture conditions. For this experiment, 114 beef females of various breeds from the OSU Purebred Beef Center were monitored over two summers (2013 and 2014) from June through mid-August for a total of 7 weeks in year 1 and 11 weeks in year 2. The cows ranged from three to 11 years old, with the majority 3-5 years of age. Every week, in the morning just after sunrise, high-resolution digital photographs were taken of one side of each animal. As the sun rises and the temperature increases, the flies migrate towards the underside of each animal, which results in more tightly packed, less visible groups of flies, so pictures were always taken in the morning. Each photo was then enlarged and overlaid with a grid for ease of counting the flies. The number of visible flies in each square of the grid was totaled to provide the estimate of the number of flies on one side of each animal. Performance data were also collected for each cow from the corresponding breed association, including birthdates, pedigree information, and calf performance information. Currently, W. Shaffer is assembling data for analysis, including the fly counts for all animals in year 1 and 2 (n=114 unique animals), sire and dam, and calf performance information from breed association records. Because of the labor intensity of the data collection, we have more limited numbers of records than desirable to do a genetic analysis, but we will instead analyze the impact of horn fly load on performance. W. Shaffer is working this summer to complete the analysis of this data and develop a manuscript based on his findings. Table 1: Summary of fly count information for years 1 and 2 Angus Hereford Simmental Other Breeds Mean Flies Max Flies Min Flies Year 1 51 19 9 6 224 1961 5 Year 2 53 20 3 2 154 1191 2 We will also attempt to determine simpler methods of data collection (such as a single-time point measurement) that could enable more broad analyses of this trait with a greater number of animals and a less intensive data collection procedure. Development of a protocol that reduces labor would enable us to pursue larger numbers of animals and collaborators and will also enable us to pursue funding opportunities to explore the genetic underpinnings of resistance and resilience to horn flies in beef cattle. Objective: 1.2: Mississippi State University: Photographs of each eye were taken on purebred Hereford and Hereford-cross calves to assess eye pigmentation. Pictures were sent for quantification and contribution to this objective. Objective 1.3: Mississippi State University: Data were collected on 100 Fall calving purebred Angus, Hereford cows and 54 spring calving commercial cows. Udder and teat scores were recorded within 24 hours after calving. Data will be combined with other stations at the end of the project for analysis. At the MAFES-Brown Loam Experiment Station we also collected udder scores on Hereford and Hereford-cross (n=62) calves as well as purebred Brahman cows (n=8). 1. Meta-analyses of economically important traits of cow productivity and fertility to assess breed and production system combinations. Mississippi State University and MAFES-Brown Loam Experiment Station: Cow performance and fertility data will be collected from fall and spring calving herds and combined with other stations at the end of the project for analysis. University of Virgin Islands: This study was conducted to evaluate growth of Senepol bull and heifer calves from birth to a year of age. Data were collected on Senepol bull and heifer calves from birth to a year of age using calves born in spring of 2012 (n = 11 heifers and 10 bulls) and 2013 (n = 17 heifers and 16 bulls). Hip height (HHT) and weight (BW) were measured at weaning and yearling. Pelvic area (PA) of heifers and scrotal circumference (SC) of bulls were measured at yearling. Average daily gain (ADG) was calculated from birth to weaning and weaning to yearling. Data were analyzed using year and sex of calf in the model with sire as a covariate due to unequal representation of sires across years. The yearling data (HHT, ADG, PA and SC) was also adjusted for age because of a significant difference in age when yearling data was collected between 2012 and 2013 (314 vs 366 d of age, respectively). Age of dam was not significant (P > 0.10) for any trait. There was no effect of year or sex on birth weight (P > 0.10). Bulls had a greater 205-d adjusted weaning weight (P < 0.008) than heifers but there was no effect of year (P > 01.0). Bulls had a greater 365-d adjusted yearling weight (P < 0.02) than heifers but there was no effect of year (P > 0.10). Bulls had a greater ADG from birth to weaning than heifers (P < 0.001) but there was no effect of year (P > 0.10). Calves born in 2012 had lower ADG from weaning to yearling (P < 0.003) than calves born in 2013 but there was no effect of sex (P > 0.10). Weaning HHT was greater (P < 0.003) in bulls than in heifers and greater (P < 0.002) for calves born in 2012 than in 2013. Bulls had greater (P < 0.0008) yearling HHT than heifers and calves born in 2013 had greater HHT (P < 0.001) than those born in 2012. Yearling SC of bulls was not different (P > 0.10) between years (24.7 ± 1.3 vs. 24.4 ± 0.9 cm, respectively). The PA of heifers was not different (P > 0.10) between years (145.5 ± 7.7 vs. 136.4 ± 5.5 cm2, respectively). These data show that there are some differences in the growth traits between Senepol bull and heifer calves reared under tropical conditions. 2. Documentation of genetic components pertaining to heat tolerance adaptive traits in sustainable beef cattle production systems. University of Arkansas: Cattle were evaluated for hair shedding scores from March through July (28 day interval scores) of each year. Shedding scores were 1 through 5: where 1 = slick short summer coat (100% shed); 2 = hair coat is mostly shed (75% shed); 3 = hair coat is halfway shed (50% shed); 4 = hair coat exhibits initial shedding (25% shed); and 5 = full winter coat (0% shed). In addition, cow traits related to reproductive performance, behavior, and culling will be recorded. Calf traits to be recorded include sire/sire breed of calf, calf vigor, birth weight and date, weaning weight and date, and post weaning growth. The objective of this study was to measure variation in hair coat shedding and determine if any relationships existed between coat shedding and production traits in cows housed at the University of Arkansas beef research unit near Fayetteville. An Angus-based commercial beef cattle herd was observed during a three year period from 2012 to 2014. Once monthly from March until July, at approximately 28-day intervals, mature cows and replacement heifers were evaluated for shedding on a scale from 1 to 5. A score of 5 indicated the cow/heifer had a full winter coat and a score of 1 represents a slick, short summer coat. For each cow, the first month a score of 3 (approximately 50% shed) or less was reached was considered the month of first shedding (MFS), and 3 levels were recognized reflecting MFS in May, June or July. Phenotypic data for cow age, calf weaning weight, BCS of cow at weaning, BW of cow at weaning, BCS of cow pre-breeding, BW of cow pre-breeding, pregnancy rate, birth weight of calf and age of the cow were collected and analyzed in PROC MIXED of SAS. Cow age was not different (P = 0.6) between MFS groups with mean ages being 5.4, 5.2, and 4.9 for May, June and July, respectively. Adjusted calf birth weight was highest (P < 0.01) for cows exhibiting MFS in May and not different for cows exhibiting MFS in June or July. Adjusted calf weaning weight tended to be greatest (P = 0.09) for cow with MFS in May, least for June and intermediate for July with cows exhibiting adjusted calf weaning weights of 487, 465, 473 lb, respectively. Cow body weight at weaning was highest (P = 0.02) in cows exhibiting MFS in May (1127 lb), intermediate in cows with MFS in June (1089 lb) and lowest in cows with MFS in July (1059 lb). No differences were noted in BCS of cows at weaning or in BCS of cows pre-breeding. Overall pregnancy rate was similar (X2 = .2) for cows exhibiting MFS in May, June or July. In these data, MFS score had a tendency (X2 = 0.08) to impact artificial insemination pregnancy rates with cows exhibiting MFS in May having the greatest AI pregnancy rate (54.5%), intermediate in cows with MFS in June (48%) and lowest in cows with MFS in July (37.5%). In these data, MFS score had a tendency to impact AI pregnancy rates and adjusted calf weaning weight. Shedding of the winter hair coat was noted to affect adjusted calf birth weight and maternal body weight at weaning. Mississippi State University: Hair shedding scores and BCS were collected over a two year period on 5,294 cows across the Southeastern United States, Missouri, and Texas. Data were collected in May by two technicians for hair shedding and given a visual score (VS) of 1 to 5 with a score of 1 indicating completely shed, 2 = 25% shed, 3 = 50% shed, 4 = 75% shed and 5 = no shedding. Heritability estimates for hair coat shedding and BCS were 0.42 ± 0.03 and 0.12 ± 0.03, with a genetic correlation between the traits of -0.25 ± 0.10. Repeatability estimates for hair coat shedding and BCS were 0.46 and 0.35, respectively. The heritability estimates for direct and maternal effects on weaning weight were 0.28 ± 0.05 and 0.05 ± 0.04, respectively. The estimated genetic correlations of hair coat shedding and direct and maternal genetic effects on weaning weight were 0.17 ± 0.22 and -0.30 ± 0.25. In summary, hair shedding is highly heritable and genetically negatively correlated with the maternal effect on weaning weight. Oklahoma State University A total of seven groups of 120 cross-bred steers, at least 240 days of age, with an approximate initial body weight of 284 kg are being used in a 91 day (21d adaptation and 70d test) feed and WI trial to establish baseline measurements, followed by a 35 day water restriction (this restriction will be preceded by a 35 day step-down in WI for a total study length of 161 days for each group of cattle). Only steer calves will be used to facilitate generation of truckload lots and eliminate sex effects. Within groups, all animals are blocked into two groups by weight and randomly allocated in a completely randomized block design to one of four pens (12.2 x 30.5 m) with 30 animals per pen. Due to the capacity of the facility, each replication consists of 120 calves, for a total of seven replications in a ~3.5 year period (n=840). In addition to the cattle involved in the intake trial, at least 20 additional animals per replication will be maintained as a control group, receiving normal management in the feedyard. For the control group, we collect daily pen WI using water meters and carcass data upon harvest. For the cattle in the WI barn, each replication begins with a 21 day acclimation period following arrival at the Willard Sparks Beef Research Center (WSBRC) at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK, in which cattle adjust to the growing ration, experimental facility, Insentec feed system, pen mates, and recover after transport. After the acclimation period, a 70 day feed and WI trial is conducted to assess relationships between WI and genetics, and the health, performance, and behavior of low vs. high WI animals. To be in compliance with feed intake guidelines outlined by the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF, 2012), weights are taken at least every 14 days. At the conclusion of this 70 day intake trial, each individual animal will have a baseline WI established. The Insentec system allows us to reduce WI each week for four weeks until a reduction of 50% of each individual steer’s baseline WI is achieved. Steers are allowed to acclimate to the 50% restriction for one week before being sustained at this level of WI for the final restriction phase (35 days). This restriction phase serves several purposes, including simulation of reduced WI that results from increased water adulterants and decreased water quality. It will also serve to evaluate the possibility of using mild water restriction as a management tool during extreme drought (provided that a relatively easy method for doing so could be implemented on-farm and animal well-being is not significantly impacted). We will monitor the animal’s performance during this time as compared to the control group performance and behavior (social activity and quantitative heat stress measures) as well as their own data from the baseline period related to behavior, performance, health (blood cell counts, hematocrit levels, electrolyte balance), and feed intake. Those animals which exhibit the most consistent performance, show minimal thermal stress during this period, maintain immunity and health status (blood cell counts within a normal range and lack of visible disease), and display the lowest decline in hydration levels (including hematocrit and electrolyte balance), will be deemed those most adaptable. Microbial populations are sampled during both phases of the study and will be evaluated to determine how these populations change during restriction as well as to identify any fixed differences between those animals most efficient and adaptable versus those least adaptable. The water restriction level we chose is moderate compared to some literature estimates (Thornton and Yates 1968), and our procedure was tested on a small group of beef cattle prior to initiating this study to ensure that the level of restriction is appropriate and does not severely impact animal welfare. All animal procedures have been approved by the Oklahoma State University Animal Care and Use Committee. Throughout the study, ambient and pen environmental conditions are monitored using a Davis Vantage Pro 2 weather station and Onset HOBO data loggers which continuously record temperature, humidity, solar radiation, black globe temperatures, and wind speed. Animal behavior is monitored using both live observations and the Noldus© Information Technology camera and software system. At the conclusion of the water restriction phase, animals continue to the finishing phase under normal management, and carcass quality attributes (hot carcass weight, kidney/pelvic/heart fat percentage, 12th rib backfat, ribeye area, marbling score, USDA quality grade, and USDA yield grade) are collected at harvest using camera grading systems. We have begun data collection for the third group of calves to be fed within the Insentec facility. The first group of calves has completed all phases including carcass data collection, and calves in the second group were transitioned to the finishing phase in April. We plan to collect carcass data after a ~100 day finishing period. We have not encountered any significant challenges with phenotyping or collection of environmental data, and we have been successfully building a large phenotypic database and sample database that tracks samples across project years to facilitate data analysis and maintenance of biological samples. We have noticed wide ranges of variability in feed and water intakes on a daily basis, which have not been extensively noted within the literature. We have undergone extensive verification procedures to ensure the quality and reliability of this data, including periodic scale validation, daily and weekly system maintenance and monitoring, and visual and quantitative validations of the data being collected. We have also compared our results to those published in the literature that specifically cite individual intake events (Meyer et al. Livestock Science 103(2006)186-191 and Meyer et al. Livestock Production Science 90(2004)117-121), and have found our levels of daily variation in both feed and water intake are similar. Thus, we are confident that the data we have collected is as representative of true animal intakes as possible, within the bounds of both biological, mechanical, and environmental variance present within any study. We are currently working towards more automated methodologies for the aggregation of data for both daily and cumulative baseline determinations, and this data pipeline will assist in processing the large amount of feed and WI data being collected, and help ensure that all data is handled uniformly across the groups of steers in the project. Blood sample collection prior to and throughout the restriction phase for each animal in groups 1 and 2 to monitor cattle health was completed during the feeding period. Blood samples were also stored for future analysis of electrolyte balance, which will be conducted following completion of the final group in the trial to minimize cost of reagents. To ensure the greatest consistency of cattle handling throughout the trial, human-cattle interactions and movement through our handling facilities was evaluated with a scoring system to ensure that consistent handling interactions and low-stress techniques were practiced. All cattle in groups 1 and 2 were individually and uniquely identified with colored strips in order to differentiate between animals on continuous video recordings of animal social behaviors. The video footage has been stored on a 16 TB RAID 0 array data backup system for future behavioral analysis. Cattle in group 2 were also equipped with accelerometers (IceQubes, IceRobotics Ltd, UK) that automatically log data on the number of steps taken, as well as standing and lying behaviors. Group 1 cattle were equipped with similar activity loggers (HOBO Pendant G data loggers, Onset, Bourne, MA), however the loggers used were not compatible in the pen conditions (i.e., loggers did not remain strapped on the cattle legs due to the presence of mud in the pens). Therefore, new and more rugged loggers were acquired and successfully incorporated into group 2 cattle, and will be used for all future cattle groups. Cattle temperament and exit velocity was also measured for all cattle every time animals were processed or handled in a squeeze chute. Each day during the water restriction period, respiration rates and eye recession scores were collected on all animals twice daily to monitor signs of thermal stress and hydration status. We are currently reprocessing all intake data, and will present summaries when we have additional replication for both summer and winter conditions to validate our previous results. 3. Investigation of early cow-life performance (first four parities) affecting lifetime production in Brahman and Brahman × Angus cows. All participants are collecting data pertaining to this objective and will be compiling data over the following years of the project. IMPACT STATEMENTS Objective 1: Because of the low correlation of tick load between cows and calves, and within calves, it may be difficult to select for the trait of tick resistance. One hypothesis is that the frequent dipping schedule (4-6 wk intervals) is suppressing any innate tick resistance of the cattle. Calves raised on forage in the tropics will have different growth traits that can be influenced by gender and year. The tick load scoring system has been incorporated into data collection as part of the routine management of the herd. The low correlation of tick load between cows and calves, and even within calves, and the frequent dipping schedule may limit the amount of progress that can be made when selecting for the trait of tick resistance. Knowledge of the effect of gender on growth traits of calves raised on a forage based system in the tropics can be used to assist producers when managing and selecting animals. We are currently analyzing data from Objective 1 and should have results by the end of the summer. Developing a one-step data collection procedure should facilitate collaboration and enable us to pursue additional populations for phenotyping and pursue funding to expand the project beyond its current implementation. Objective 3: Hair shedding scores, although subjective, are well within the reach of both commercial and seedstock breeders. Using these scores and understanding their implications in cattle production will aid in the match of genetic resources to production resources. This could easily increase current production by 10%. Hair shedding scores could be taken in May of each year by beef producers in the southeastern U. S. and used to select animals that would be more adaptable to their environment. The animal trial that will contribute to objective 3 is still ongoing. To our knowledge, it will be the largest assembled population of taurine beef cattle with individual animal water intake records and extensive phenotyping on a variety of other traits.