Genestar Marbling Markers Questioned

Help Support CattleToday:

MikeC

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
7,636
Reaction score
3
Location
Alabama
Relationship among GeneSTAR marbling marker, intramuscular fat deposition, and expected progeny differences in early weaned Simmental steers
C. B. Rincker, N. A. Pyatt, L. L. Berger1 and D. B. Faulkner
Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801

1 Corresponding author: [email protected]

Research has demonstrated that triiodothyronine and thyroxin are correlated with marbling (MARB) deposition in Wagyu cattle. Polymorphisms in the 5' region of the thyroglobulin gene have been associated with an improvement in overall fattening and could be used as a gene marker for MARB. The commercially available GeneSTAR MARB test measures the specific thyroglobulin gene polymorphism and identifies cattle as having 0, 1, or 2 copies of the allele; these are identified as 0-STAR, 1-STAR, or 2-STAR, respectfully. Early weaned Simmental steers (n = 192) of known genetics were individually fed over a repeated 4-yr trial period to determine the correlations between GeneSTAR MARB test [Genetic Solutions/Bovigen Pty. Ltd. (Australia) in conjunction with Frontier Beef Systems, LLC (Louisville, CO)] results and intramuscular fat (IMF) deposition. Yearling weight, MARB, percent retail cuts, and carcass weight EPD were calculated for each steer. Steers were weaned at 88.0 ± 1.1 d, pen-fed a high-concentrate diet for 84.5 ± 0.4 d before allotment, and subsequently individually fed a 90% concentrate diet composed primarily of cracked corn and corn silage for 249.7 ± 0.7 d. Steers were slaughtered at 423.3 ± 1.4 d. Deoxyribonucleic acid samples were used by Genetic Solutions/Bovigen (Australia) for GeneSTAR MARB analysis. Steers with allele types of 0-STAR (n = 47), 1-STAR (n = 95), and 2-STAR (n = 33) had no effect (P > 0.10) on MARB score, chemically determined IMF percentage, quality grade, or percent low Choice and better. There were no differences (P > 0.10) in performance or other carcass parameters among the allele types. GeneSTAR results were not associated with MARB (P > 0.10). Conversely, MARB EPD was correlated (P < 0.01) with MARB score (r = 0.44) and IMF percentage (r = 0.27). Thus, in this management system, MARB EPD is an accurate predictor of IMF deposition. These data suggest that the GeneSTAR MARB marker was not an efficacious predictor of IMF deposition in early weaned Simmental steers fed a high-energy diet.
 
"in early weaned Simmental steers fed a high-energy diet."


Most likely, the expression of the markers was masked due to the above conditions.

The calves were put on feed by 3 months of age, and slaughtered at weights averaging 1430 pounds with 896 pound carcasses.

Most of the studies have indicated that the markers work when cattle are marketed on the "brink" of choice. These cattle averaged well into choice, so the markers don't work as well.

Badlands
 
Badlands":1f5cv99x said:
"in early weaned Simmental steers fed a high-energy diet."


Most likely, the expression of the markers was masked due to the above conditions.

The calves were put on feed by 3 months of age, and slaughtered at weights averaging 1430 pounds with 896 pound carcasses.

Most of the studies have indicated that the markers work when cattle are marketed on the "brink" of choice. These cattle averaged well into choice, so the markers don't work as well.

Badlands

You have totally lost me here. I thought that cattle either "Have" or "Don't Have" the genetic markers for IMF ability.

From what I read, the cattle were fed just to see if the marbling matched the genetic markers?
 
They were fed that way, MikeC, based on the knowledge of the markers at the time they did the trial. Some of the cattle were actually born before the markers were available.

Now we know that when they are all choice, or mostly so, then the markers don't matter too much.

It's similar to "managing them to express genetic potential".

If we feed them to the point that they are mostly Choice, did we need markers to tell us that? Nope.

The "newer" knowledge is now pointing us in the direction of cattle that are on the edge of Choice. If they are on the edge, the ones with the favorable markers will grade choice, and most of the others won't.

Most of these cattle graded choice, so then, the markers don't make much difference.

It doesn't mean the markers "don't work". It points us towards how to use them more effectively.

Badlands
 
Shouldn't the cattle with the markers marble better than those with out whether they are all choice or better or not? The study also showed that there was a correlation with Marb. EPD and quality grade so what is the point of the Gene star test for Marb?
 
Tod Dague":fd5ma60x said:
Shouldn't the cattle with the markers marble better than those with out whether they are all choice or better or not? The study also showed that there was a correlation with Marb. EPD and quality grade so what is the point of the Gene star test for Marb?

That's kinda what I was saying Tod. You said it better than I could.

Are we using Genestar to tell which cattle will grade higher, or are we using it to try and pass those markers on to our future herd?
 
Badlands":6oyc3waj said:
They were fed that way, MikeC, based on the knowledge of the markers at the time they did the trial. Some of the cattle were actually born before the markers were available.

Now we know that when they are all choice, or mostly so, then the markers don't matter too much.

It's similar to "managing them to express genetic potential".

If we feed them to the point that they are mostly Choice, did we need markers to tell us that? Nope.

The "newer" knowledge is now pointing us in the direction of cattle that are on the edge of Choice. If they are on the edge, the ones with the favorable markers will grade choice, and most of the others won't.

Most of these cattle graded choice, so then, the markers don't make much difference.

It doesn't mean the markers "don't work". It points us towards how to use them more effectively.

Badlands

So basically you are claiming that if we feed the cattle for med to high choice we can just completely ignore all those goofy IMF genetic markers?
 
Interesting article Mike. The American Hereford Association has done some testing and the last I checked it showed very little relavance to actual marbling in the cattle. I will see if I can find the information.


Brian
 
smnherf":3l71wlc0 said:
Interesting article Mike. The American Hereford Association has done some testing and the last I checked it showed very little relavance to actual marbling in the cattle. I will see if I can find the information.


Brian
I would sure like to see it. I wrote on here one day that a researcher told me that the Genestar tests were only 6% accurate and got scolded badly for passing "misinformation". :lol:
 
Badlands wrote:
"in early weaned Simmental steers fed a high-energy diet."


Most likely, the expression of the markers was masked due to the above conditions.

The calves were put on feed by 3 months of age, and slaughtered at weights averaging 1430 pounds with 896 pound carcasses.

Most of the studies have indicated that the markers work when cattle are marketed on the "brink" of choice. These cattle averaged well into choice, so the markers don't work as well.

Badlands


You have totally lost me here. I thought that cattle either "Have" or "Don't Have" the genetic markers for IMF ability.

From what I read, the cattle were fed just to see if the marbling matched the genetic markers?

_________________

I am a huge fan of the idea of knowing what you have before you pass it on to the next generation. Ultrasound, epds, past progeny kill sheets, Genestar it all has its place. I look at genestar and see them as a company with a great idea but far from a silver bullet. Look at it Pragmatically, How many good carcass bulls don't score 2 on tenderness and marbling? Lots of them don't, that is just reafirming what we already knew, that marbling and tenderness are quanatative traits meaning that there are several genes that affect these traits. Your best bet would be to linebreed known well performing carcass cattle and do ultrasound work on them to tell who your next great prospect is. Genestar wants you to believe that this is the ultimate carcass test, its good to have but just the beginning.
 
We had a bull buyer a couple of years ago that wanted only to buy bulls with the markers. We tested all our bulls and almost all of them at least one marker. We found out we had one herd sire that was homozygous for all the markers. That bull buyer only bought bulls from us with all the markers. Because his boss saw the tests. We found out later that he bought bulls that were untested and lied to his boss. He is no longer working for that outfit.

It is all interesting but we have never seen where is produces a premium for cattle monetarily. It is also a very expensive test. The guy that bought the bulls from us basicaly ended up with a free bull because it cost so much to test all our sale bulls.

By the time you perform all the tests that are available on one bull, you are out a fortune. We semen test everything right in the early spring so if there is a problem, we can kill them and not have to put more feed in them. That is another thing, most vets don't know the differences between breeds on semen collection. We use a guy that collects everyday. I swear he could get semen out of a rock! A lot of times the first collection on a Hereford is lacking enough mobility because they don't clean out like other breeds do.
 

Latest posts

Top