C2-Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 19, 1994 John W. Comerford Beef Extension Specialist UNIVERSITY PARK (Centre Co.) Pennsylvania beef pro ducers tend to be small and part time operators. Many read and hear about tools for genetic improvement in a cow herd, but consider them to be stuff for “the big guys out West.” After all, you can get a whole pageful of num bers describing actual weights, ratios, and Expected Progeny Dif ferences (EPDs) on a single bull. Do all the facts and figures mean anything? How much are they really worth? Some striking new Pennsylvania answers are just in. But first, some background. The bull is targeted for more intensive selection than the females in a herd, first because he represents half of the whole herd’s genetic potential for growth and performance in a calf crop. The true economic potential of a good herd of cows may never be real ized if they produce calves sired TABLE 1. The genetic influence of a bull in a herd for 10 generations 1 Based on a 20% replacement rate from a bull used for four breeding seasons Farm Drainage... the best investment a farmer can make...WHY? • Increased Crop Yields • Longer Growing Season • Improved Plant Quality • Higher Fertilizer Efficiency We are fully equipped and specialize in SOIL CONSERVATION and LAND IMPROVEMENT WORK We install PONDS • New Pond Construction • Reconstruction of Existing Ponds • Seal Leaking Ponds niernuiVT for Jobs Scheduled DISCOUNT befQre March 15 jm COCALICO EQUIPMENT CO. Farm Drainage & Excavating « 323 Reinholds Rd. Denver,, PA 17517 (717) 336-3808 (717) 738-3794 by inferior bulls that don’t have the genetic potential to transmit growth ability. Second, when producers are keeping heifer replacements from the bulls they select, future pro duction in the herd can be either enhanced or stymied for years to come. The following table illus trates the impact that sire selection has on succeeding generations in a cow hod. A lot of research indicates that performance records are useful and that their use is profitable. Three examples are: * A Georgia study evaluated the response over several years to selection for high yearling weight in Hereford cattle. Calves sired by the bulls with the highest yearling weight EPDs in the breed were compared with those from an unselected control herd. The results after five years were that calves from selected bulls were 68 Genetic contribution of a herdsire 1 % calf crop % cow herd % total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Years Years Year 7 Year 10 50 50 50 50 • FREE ESTIMATES • Performance Records Are Useful 10 20 30 40 32 12.8 Older Campbell bull 7 15 77% 372.5 1.98 18.5 Younger Campbell bull 11 7 86% 393.0 2.16 25.6 Slayton bull 1 Weight per day of age (birth to weaning). day of the calving season when calves were born. lb. heavier at weaning, 95 lb. hea vier as yearlings. ♦ Another Georgia study, this time with Angus cattle, asked what happens when you use EPDs to select for more than one trait at a time. Two traits were under selection: high yearling weight and low birth weight, which are known to be antagonistic to each other. The results showed that, in this case, you really can “eat your cake and still have your cake". Fax (717) 866 MEMBER TRUSS PLATE iNSHTUTE All Types of Fasteners AICA, #bulls §heifers because birth weight in the calves was kept below average while yearling weight was increased. * The milk EPD has been poor ly understood by producers because it describes milk produc tion potential but is expressed, not in terms of milk yield, but rather in pounds of calf weaning weight. A South Dakota study found that selection for increased milk pro duction potential through use of the milk EPD did indeed result in higher milk yield as well as in higher weaning weight The aver age response was about a 1-per cent increase in total milk yield over the lactation for each 1 kg milk EPD of the sire. Beef producers, typical of all production agriculture, are inde pendent thinkers who sometimes view controlled research with skepticism. “Our producers often want to know why results in Geor gia or South Dakota should matter to them,” says John Comerford, Penn State beef extension special ist “So we tried to design a prog ram that would prove the value of genetic improvement in a next BUY. SELL. TRADE OH RENT THROUGH THE PHONE: 717-626-1164 or 717-394-3047 FAX 717-733-6058 Mon., Tuea., Wed., Frl. 8 AM to 5 PM; Thura. 7 AM to 5 PM 701 E. Linden St., Richland, PA 17087 MANUFACTURERS OF: Glu-Lam Arches Glu-Lam Beams Glu-Lam Treated Posts Equis Quality Stall Systems Door and Wall Systems Qrillwork Sections Dutch Door Systems Plyco Doors and Windows Cannonball Track and Accessories MEMBER Fabral Roofing and Siding Lumber and Shingles 35 tfears Ser-me, TABLE 2. Project results calves weaning weaning rate 14 80% 474.3 2.47 15.3 WE STOCK: weight WDA 1 date 2 door approach.” Comerford, along with Penn State colleagues Erskine Cash and Lowell Wilson, conducted a demonstration project that tested the production and economic effects of sire selection in Penn sylvania beef herds. “We wanted to identify herds that were typical of our region: part-time producers with SO- to ISO-cow herds used as a secon dary source of family income,” says Comerford. “We were look ing for herds that were being prop erly managed, but simply were not using all available tools for gene tic improvement” With the help of county extep sion agents Bill Kelly and Mary Shick,iwo such herds were identi fied in Westmoreland and Washington Counties. The next step was securing bulls of known genetic value to compare on these farms. “Our purebred breeders have really been helpful,” Comerford says. “We had no trouble finding people willing to donate the use of a bull (Turn to Pago C 3) e (717) 866-6581 Roof Trusses Floor Trusses T/G & V-Groove Decking "The Symbol of Quality In Engineered Timber" calving
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers