Jeisane fiona mpp final

272 views
249 views

Published on

Published in: Self Improvement, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
272
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jeisane fiona mpp final

  1. 1. Maternal Productivity Project (Southern Aust) Jeisane Accioly, Fiona Jones and Michael Laurence (on behalf of a large team)
  2. 2. WA Maternal ProductivityWA Maternal Productivity TeamTeam Brad Seib John Milligan Tex Hann Nola Mercer Ryan Drage Brian McIntyre Peter Jelinek Leonarda Paszkudzka-Baizert Greg Sawyer
  3. 3. CollaboratorsCollaborators
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Industry Push
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. Key issue in South Maternal efficiency:  Cow feed (75%) • Maintenance • Energy storage & retrieval  Reproductive performance  Calving ease  Calf value  Longevity  Cow salvage value
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Two approaches: 1. Correlations between traits across large range of production systems (Industry herds) 2. Differences between divergent single-trait lines in formal design (Research herds) Project approach
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Vasse (WA) Struan (SA)
  15. 15. 4 Lines High Fat Low FatLow Fat High NFI Low NFI 2 Nutrition High Low 2 Sites Vasse, WA Struan, SA x x Intensive measurements and estimation of food intake Research herds 3 calving seasons
  16. 16. EBV differencesEBV differences between the linesbetween the lines EBV High Fat (n=170) Low Fat (n=170) High NFI (n=81) Low NFI (n=81) Rib fat 1.2 -1.4 3.2 -0.4 Rump P8 1.4 -1.5 3.0 -0.6 NFIP 0.65 -0.47 NFIF 0.77 -0.87 BWt 3.8 4.9 2.9 4.6 Wt200 31.3 36.3 18.9 25.9 Milk 10.8 10.6 7.8 9.0 Wt600 75.9 83.8 47.6 60.6 MCWT 67.7 81.3 42.0 58.6 DTC -3.3 -1.8 -1.2 0.3 EMA 2.40 2.10 0.42 0.48
  17. 17. Heifer managementHeifer management Nutritional treat’s applied 9 week joining Calving SepSep OctOct NovNov DecDec JanJan FebFeb MarMar AprApr MayMay JuneJune JulyJuly AugAug SepSep OctOct NovNov DecDec JanJan FebFeb JuneJune JulyJuly AugAug SepSep OctOct NovNov DecDec JanJan FebFeb MarMar AprApr MayMay JuneJune JulyJuly AugAug SepSep OctOct NovNov 9 week joining Nutritional treat’s applied Calving Weaning Weaning VasseVasse StruanStruan 9 week joining9 week joining
  18. 18. 0 100 200 300 400 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec PastureEnergySupply (MJ/ha/day) 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 CattleEnergyDemand (MJ/head/day) Energy Supply & Demand: Early Calvers & Late CalversEnergy Supply & Demand: Early Calvers & Late Calvers
  19. 19. Rainfall (mm) 2006: 577 mm 2007: 810 mm 2008: 671 mm 2009: 679 mm 2010: 464.1mm 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
  20. 20. Nutritional control
  21. 21. Fat lines
  22. 22. Weight of Fat cowsWeight of Fat cows 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 PM1 W0 PM 2 W1 CowWeight(kg) High Fat Low Fat High Fat High Nut Low Fat High Nut High Fat Low Nut Low Fat Low Nut
  23. 23. P8 FatP8 Fat 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 PM1 W0 PM 2 W1 Cowp8Fat(mm) High Fat Low Fat High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
  24. 24. 11stst calvers pre-matingcalvers pre-mating and pregnancy testand pregnancy test Line Age (days)* Weight (kg) P8 fat (mm)*** Conception rate* Adjusted conception rate* High Fat 473 370 6.5 93.5 93.4 Low Fat 465 367 4.9 85.1 86.8
  25. 25. Pre-mating and pregnancyPre-mating and pregnancy test 2test 2ndnd calvingcalving Line Nutrition Weight (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
  26. 26. Days to calving forDays to calving for heifersheifers 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 High Nutrition Low Nutrition DaysToCalving(days) High Fat Low Fat *
  27. 27. Days to Calving 2Days to Calving 2ndnd calverscalvers 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
  28. 28. 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??
  29. 29. Birth weightBirth weight 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1st calf 2nd calf BirthWeight(kg) High Fat High Nut Low Fat High Nut High Fat Low Nut Low Fat Low Nut
  30. 30. Calf weaning weightCalf weaning weight from 1from 1stst calverscalvers
  31. 31. Messages (calves)Messages (calves) • No effect of fat genotype on birth or weaning weight • Nutrition effect on weaning weight
  32. 32. Net Feed Intake lines
  33. 33. Weight of NFI cowsWeight of NFI cows
  34. 34. P8 Fat – NFI cowsP8 Fat – NFI cows 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 PM1 W0 PM 2 W1 Cowp8(mm) High NFI Low NFI High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
  35. 35. 11stst calvers pre-matingcalvers pre-mating and pregnancy testand pregnancy test Line Age (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
  36. 36. Pre-mating and pregnancyPre-mating and pregnancy test 2test 2ndnd calvingcalving Line Nutrition Weight (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
  37. 37. Days to calving forDays to calving for heifersheifers 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 High Nutrition Low Nutrition DaysToCalving(days) High NFI Low NFI
  38. 38. Days to Calving 2Days to Calving 2ndnd calverscalvers 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
  39. 39. Birth weightBirth weight 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1st calf 2nd calf BirthWeight(kg) High NFI High Nut Low NFI High Nut High NFI Low Nut Low NFI Low Nut
  40. 40. Calf weaning weightCalf weaning weight from 1from 1stst calverscalvers
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. o be continued …

×