0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors important for bull purchasing decisions and management in extensive rangeland production systems of New Mexico: a producer survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There were 463,000 head of beef cows in New Mexico as of January 1, 2021 (NASS, 2020), down roughly 4% from 2020 ( NASS, 2019). Frequent drought often results in herd reduction and loss of valuable genetic progress. Bull selection is critical due to their influence on herd development. A survey was conducted to identify traits important to bull selection in New Mexico. Surveys were collected digitally ( n = 83) and via the mail ( n = 74). Responses were largely by cow/calf producers averaging 57 ± 1 years old with 24 ± 1 years’ experience. Survey respondents represented 4,384,296 acres of private owned, private leased, and leased public rangeland and irrigated pasture meadow in New Mexico and surrounding states. Average cow/calf operation size was 294 ± 39 head and average bull herd size was 21 ± 3 head. Average price paid for a bull in the past 2 years was $3,981 ± 213. Physical characteristics, individual bull performance information, and genetic information are all important traits to New Mexico bull buyers; however, most producers (56%) indicated that structural soundness was the most important factor influencing their selection decisions. Amongst expected progeny differences (EPDs), New Mexico producers consider the calving ease direct (CED) and birth weight (BW) EPDS to be most important (40% and 35%, respectively). Producers also indicated that multitrait selection indexes used by the American Angus Association were important to their selection decisions, with the beef value ($B) and weaned calf value ($W) indexes being cited most often (35% and 31%, respectively). Elements important to bull purchase include the bull’s sale preview (87%), body condition score (86%), feed efficiency/average daily gain information (85%), and actual scrotal circumference (82%). Following purchase of a new bull, most (60%) keep the bull separate from the cow herd until the following breeding season, while the remaining 40% of producers turn newly purchased bulls out within 30 days of purchase. Sixty eight percent of producers evaluate semen quality annually or prior to the start of the breeding season. Interestingly, 39% of producers indicated they used reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and synchronization of estrus while most (80%) test for trichomoniasis. The primary factor influencing culling decisions is age, followed by soundness and fertility.

          Related collections

          Most cited references69

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Genetic Basis for Constructing Selection Indexes.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed efficiency, and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle.

            Records on 1,180 young Angus bulls and heifers involved in performance tests were used to estimate genetic and phenotypic parameters for feed intake, feed efficiency, and other postweaning traits. The mean age was 268 d at the start of the performance test, which comprised 21-d adjustment and 70-d test periods. Traits studied included 200-d weight, 400-d weight, scrotal circumference, ultrasonic measurements of rib and rump fat depths and longissimus muscle area, ADG, metabolic weight, daily feed intake, feed conversion ratio, and residual feed intake. For all traits except the last five, additional data from the Angus Society ofAustralia pedigree and performance database were included, which increased the number of animals to 27,229. Genetic (co)variances were estimated by REML using animal models. Direct heritability estimates for 200-d weight, 400-d weight, rib fat depth, ADG, feed conversion,and residual feed intake were 0.17 +/- 0.03, 0.27 +/- 0.03, 0.35 +/- 0.04, 0.28 +/- 0.04, 0.29 +/- 0.04, and 0.39 +/- 0.03, respectively. Feed conversion ratio was genetically (r(g) = 0.66 ) and phenotypically (r(p) = 0.53) correlated with residual feed intake. Feed conversion ratio was correlated (r(g) = -0.62, r(p) = -0.74) with ADG, whereas residual feed intake was not (rg = -0.04, r(p) = -0.06). Genetically, both residual feed intake and feed conversion ratio were negatively correlated with direct effects of 200-d weight (r(g) = -0.45 and -0.21) and 400-d weight (r(g) = -0.26 and -0.09). The correlations between the remaining traits and the feed efficiency traits were near zero, except between feed intake and feed conversion ratio (r(g) = 0.31, r(p) = 0.23), feed intake and residual feed intake (r(g) = 0.69, r(p) = 0.72), and rib fat depth and residual feed intake (r(g) = 0.17, r(p) = 0.14). These results indicate that genetic improvement in feed efficiency can be achieved through selection and, in general, correlated responses in growth and the other postweaning traits will be minimal.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Invited review: Body condition score and its association with dairy cow productivity, health, and welfare.

              The body condition score (BCS) of a dairy cow is an assessment of the proportion of body fat that it possesses, and it is recognized by animal scientists and producers as being an important factor in dairy cattle management. The scale used to measure BCS differs between countries, but low values always reflect emaciation and high values equate to obesity. The intercalving profile of BCS is a mirror image of the milk lactation profile. Cows lose condition for 50 to 100 d postcalving, because of homeorhetic changes that occur in the somatotropic axis and the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin, and the upregulation of lipolytic pathways in adipose tissue. Management and feeding have little effect on early postcalving BCS loss (wk 1 to 4 postcalving) until the natural period of insulin resistance has passed and the somatotropic axis has recoupled. There is evidence, however, that management and diet can influence the timing of recoupling of the somatotropic axis and the sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin, and gene expression differences in adipose tissue 30 d in milk confirm an effect of energy intake on lipogenic enzymes. The BCS in which a cow calves, nadir BCS, and the amount of BCS she loses postcalving are associated with milk production, reproduction, and health. Body condition score may also be a valid indicator of animal welfare, but further research is required to determine the effect of BCS and BCS change on how a cow "feels." Although the actual strength of the association may vary, there is relative consistency in the associations among calving and nadir BCS, and BCS change on milk production, postpartum anestrous, the likelihood of a successful pregnancy and days open, the risk of uterine infection, and the risk of metabolic disorders. For many production and health variables, the association with BCS is nonlinear, with an optimum calving BCS of 3.0 to 3.25 (5-point scale); lower calving BCS is associated with reduced production and reproduction, whereas calving BCS >/=3.5 (5-point scale) is associated with a reduction in early lactation dry matter intake and milk production and an increased risk of metabolic disorders. Ongoing research into the automation of body condition scoring suggests that it is a likely candidate to be incorporated into decision support systems in the near future to aid producers in making operational and tactical decisions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Transl Anim Sci
                Transl Anim Sci
                tranas
                Translational Animal Science
                Oxford University Press (US )
                2573-2102
                January 2023
                22 December 2022
                22 December 2022
                : 7
                : 1
                : txac167
                Affiliations
                Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources, New Mexico State University , Las Cruces, NM 88001, USA
                Extension Animal Sciences and Natural Resources, New Mexico State University , Las Cruces, NM 88001, USA
                USDA Agricultural Research Service - Jornada Experimental Range , Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
                Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University , Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
                USDA Southwest Climate Hub, New Mexico State University , Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
                USDA Southwest Climate Hub, Agricultural Research Service - Jornada Experimental Range , Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
                Kansas State University , Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
                USDA Agricultural Research Service - Jornada Experimental Range , Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
                Animal Science Department, California Polytechnic State University , San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA
                University of California Cooperative Extension, Plumas-Sierra County , Quincy, CA 96130, USA
                College of Agriculture, California State University , Chico, CA 95929, USA
                Animal Science Department, California Polytechnic State University , San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: cgifford@ 123456nmsu.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5489-9512
                Article
                txac167
                10.1093/tas/txac167
                10007711
                36915384
                1eaa6da8-8d6a-4898-aa9d-d24e0130f2a2
                © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 23 June 2022
                : 21 December 2022
                : 11 March 2023
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: Sustainable Southwest Beef Coordinated Agricultural Project;
                Funded by: National Institute of Food and Agriculture, DOI 10.13039/100005825;
                Funded by: Agriculture and Food Research;
                Funded by: Sustainable Agricultural Systems;
                Award ID: #2019-69012-29853
                Categories
                Special Topics
                AcademicSubjects/SCI00960

                bull selection,expected progeny differences,range bulls

                Comments

                Comment on this article