Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/51511
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDuff, C Jen
dc.contributor.authorVan Der Werf, J H Jen
dc.contributor.authorParnell, P Fen
dc.contributor.authorClark, S Aen
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-01T02:12:44Z-
dc.date.available2022-04-01T02:12:44Z-
dc.date.issued2021-01-
dc.identifier.citationTranslational Animal Science, 5(1), p. 1-11en
dc.identifier.issn2573-2102en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/51511-
dc.description.abstract<p>The improvement of carcass traits is an important breeding objective in beef cattle breeding programs. The most common way of selecting for improvement in carcass traits is via indirect selection using ultrasound scanning of selection candidates which are submitted to genetic evaluation programs. Two systems used to analyze ultrasound images to predict carcass traits are the Pie Medical Esaote Aquila (<b>PIE</b>) and Central Ultrasound Processing (<b>CUP</b>). This study compared the ability of the two systems to predict carcass traits for genetic evaluation in Australian Angus cattle. Genetic and phenotypic parameters were estimated using data from 1,648 Angus steers which were ultrasound scanned twice with both systems, first at feedlot entry and then following 100 d in the feedlot. The traits interpreted from ultrasound scanning included eye muscle area (<b>EMA</b>), rib fat (<b>RIB</b>) rump fat (<b>RUMP</b>), and intramuscular fat (<b>IMF</b>). Abattoir carcass data were collected on all steers following the full feedlot feeding period of 285 d. For all ultrasound scan traits, CUP resulted in higher phenotypic and genetic variances compared to the PIE. For IMF, CUP had higher heritability at feedlot intake (0.51 for CUP compared to 0.37 for PIE) and after 100 d feeding (0.54 for CUP compared to 0.45 PIE). CUP predicted IMF also tended to have stronger correlations with the breeding objective traits of carcass IMF and marbling traits, both genetically (ranging from 0.59 to 0.75 for CUP compared to 0.45-0.63 for PIE) and phenotypically (ranging from 0.27 to 0.43 for CUP compared to 0.19-0.28 for PIE). Ultrasound scan EMA was the only group of traits in which the heritabilities were higher for PIE (0.52 for PIE compared to 0.40 for CUP at feedlot intake and 0.46 for PIE compared to 0.43 for CUP at 100 d of feeding), however with similar relationships to the breeding objective carcass EMA observed. For subcutaneous fat traits of ultrasound RIB and RUMP, the heritabilites and genetic correlations to the related carcass traits were similar, with the exception being the higher heritability observed for CUP predicted RUMP at feedlot intake at 0.52 compared to 0.38 for PIE. The results from this study indicates that the CUP system, compared to PIE, provides an advantage for genetic evaluation of carcass traits in Angus cattle, particularly for the IMF and associated marbling traits.</p>en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.relation.ispartofTranslational Animal Scienceen
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.titleComparison of two live-animal ultrasound systems for genetic evaluation of carcass traits in Angus cattleen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/tas/txab011en
dc.identifier.pmid33748681en
dcterms.accessRightsUNE Greenen
dc.subject.keywordsphenotypic parameters ultrasounden
dc.subject.keywordsAngusen
dc.subject.keywordsbeef cattleen
dc.subject.keywordscarcassen
dc.subject.keywordsgenetic parametersen
dc.subject.keywordsAgriculture, Dairy & Animal Scienceen
dc.subject.keywordsAgricultureen
local.contributor.firstnameC Jen
local.contributor.firstnameJ H Jen
local.contributor.firstnameP Fen
local.contributor.firstnameS Aen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Environmental and Rural Scienceen
local.profile.emailcduff2@myune.edu.auen
local.profile.emailjvanderw@une.edu.auen
local.profile.emailsclark37@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeUnited States of Americaen
local.identifier.runningnumbertxab011en
local.format.startpage1en
local.format.endpage11en
local.identifier.scopusid85111139904en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume5en
local.identifier.issue1en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnameDuffen
local.contributor.lastnameVan Der Werfen
local.contributor.lastnameParnellen
local.contributor.lastnameClarken
dc.identifier.staffune-id:cduff2en
dc.identifier.staffune-id:jvanderwen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:sclark37en
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-3072-1736en
local.profile.orcid0000-0003-2512-1696en
local.profile.orcid0000-0001-8605-1738en
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/51511en
local.date.onlineversion2021-01-25-
dc.identifier.academiclevelStudenten
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleComparison of two live-animal ultrasound systems for genetic evaluation of carcass traits in Angus cattleen
local.relation.fundingsourcenoteMeat and Livestock Australia through MDC matching funds (project PSH.0528)en
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorDuff, C Jen
local.search.authorVan Der Werf, J H Jen
local.search.authorParnell, P Fen
local.search.authorClark, S Aen
local.uneassociationYesen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.identifier.wosid000672781000015en
local.year.available2021en
local.year.published2021en
local.fileurl.closedpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/0aa53786-d158-493f-8bb6-e1fb3e24572aen
local.subject.for2020300305 Animal reproduction and breedingen
local.subject.seo2020100401 Beef cattleen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
checked on Sep 21, 2024

Page view(s)

1,350
checked on Apr 14, 2024

Download(s)

2
checked on Apr 14, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons