In an industry that has been fixated on maximizing weights and carcass traits, producers are quickly becoming aware of the importance of functional traits like soundness, disposition, do-ability, health and vigor, shedding, calving ease and inherent fertility, to name a few.
The release of the American Angus Association’s research udder suspension and teat score EPDs—when added to their genetic predictions for disposition, hoof angle and claw score, shedding, pulmonary arterial pressure, calving ease direct and maternal, heifer pregnancy and functional longevity—has clearly put them in the lead in describing functional traits.
In the 1960s, performance pioneer and cofounder of the Red Angus Association of America, George Chiga, named this group of traits as “convenience traits.” He would rhetorically ask, “How much weight do you need? Enough to make money and after that focus on convenience (i.e. lower costs).” Chiga followed what he preached by working a large herd of seedstock cows almost exclusively by himself. He simply didn’t have the time or patience for trouble cows.
Chiga was a true visionary, and his philosophy has never rung truer than it does today. The commercial databases on the western U.S. have demonstrated that weaning weights in the arid and semi-arid West plateaued nearly 20 years ago. Therefore, continuing to push seedstock with more genetic potential for production past what a producer’s environment will support is a costly mistake. Instead, it is time to follow Chiga’s advice and add genetics for trouble-free cattle that will lower an operation’s costs, labor and the hassle factor of dealing trouble cows.
Dr. Jim Gibb backed this up with science in his presentation, “Functional traits affecting cow efficiency” at the 1984 Beef Cow Efficiency Forum. He indicated there were four fairly common definitions of a functional cow, which were: 1) a cow that does not cost extra time and labor, 2) a cow that works for you instead of you working for her, 3) a cow that is problem-free, and 4) a cow that returns a profit. Gibb demonstrated that functional traits were heritable and would respond to selection. He also introduced the American Polled Hereford Association’s—where he was working at the time—udder suspension and teat scoring system.
Gibb continued: “Some general consequences of functional problems that affect cow herd efficiency are: 1) Lower cow and calf sale weights, 2) higher-than-optimum replacement rates, 3) increased labor, 4) increased death loss, 5) diminished convenience and 6) safety.”
Genetic predictions for teats, udders
Angus Genetics, Inc.’s (AGI)—a subsidiary of the American Angus Association—release of its research EPDs for teat and udder scores is another feather in their cap in describing functional traits. In their recent report on the new genetic predictions, they explained: “In the suite of traits to improve maternal function, good udder structure plays an important role in beef production. Even though milk is not the end product from a beef production system, good udder structure is related to cow longevity and health, as well as calf survival and growth from birth to weaning.”
{{tncms-asset app=”editorial” id=”d5a361d2-6bd7-11ef-8a07-5ff0ff06cfc5″}}
To facilitate the production of the new EPD, AGI adopted a new teat and udder scoring chart, which they feel best reflects the variation seen in the current Angus population. The new system does not reflect the same amount of variation that was seen in the original charts designed by Gibb in the 1980s as they feel the teats and udder have improved since that time.
The teat and udder scorecard are based on a 1 to 9 system, with one representing very large and mishappen teat size and very pendulous udder suspension. Conversely, 9 represents very small teat size and very tight udder suspension.
AGI guidelines are the following: scoring should be done within 24 hours of calving, use the weakest quarter to score both teat size and udder suspension, score both teat size and udder suspension on a 1-9 scale, independently and it’s best if one person scores all females in a management group.
Data collection has gone over very well. AGI had historic records on approximately 50,000 cows from 2020 and all previous years. However, in 2023, they collected teat and udder scores on approximately 45,000 cows, and they are up 14% year to date on data collection in 2024. Once the data was put into contemporary groups and non-informative data was removed, there were over 148,000 records on cows with teat and udder scores, representing more than 87,000 individual cows. The reason the number of records exceeds the number of cows in the data set is because records are generally collected each year a cow remains in the herd, which is commonly referred to as repeated measures.
Teat size and udder suspension are moderately heritable at 0.32 and 0.28, respectively, and the traits are highly correlated at 0.77. For perspective, the teat and udder heritabilities are very similar to weaning weight direct, which is 0.28.
In addition, AGI reports: “A negative correlation exists between teat size and weaning weight direct (-0.14) and maternal [often referred as Milk EPD] (-0.17); this relationship is similar between udder suspension and weaning weight direct (-0.11), and maternal (-0.24).”
The median teat size and udder suspension score were both 7, so on average, the breed is in good shape for the traits. However, like any trait, there are outliers in the population with significant deficiencies for these traits. The average Angus teat size EPD is 0.52 with a range of -0.57 to 1.51, while the average udder suspension EPD is also 0.52 with a range of -0.60 to 1.33. This is enough variation to achieve directional change when needed.
When it comes to describing functional traits, the American Angus Association has taken a clear lead in the industry. Angus breeders also have the highest use of AI and other advanced reproductive tools in the industry, which allows them to make change faster than any other beef breed. This combination bodes well for the future of the Angus breed. — Dr. Bob Hough, WLJ correspondent
