The International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) wishes to
 express its appreciation to the Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali
 and to the Associazione Italiana Allevatori for their valuable
 support of its activities.
 Cover page: 17th century engraving by Pieter Jacobsz van Laer of Haarlem,
 dit Bamboccio, (1599-1642), representing a livestock farm
 in the Latium region of Italy
 Title of the Series: ICAR Technical Series
 Title of the Volume: Beef recording guidelines: a synthesis of an ICAR
 survey
 Editors: H. Simianer, H. T?ubert & K. K?ttner
 Publisher: ICAR, Villa del Ragno, Via Nomentana 134, 00162 Rome, Italy
 Responsible for ICAR Technical Series: Cesare Mosconi
 ISSN:  1563-2504
 ISBN: 92-95014-02-2
 ICAR would like to express its appreciation to the
 National Organisations who participated to this survey
 The designations
 employed and the
 presentation of material in
 this publication do not
 imply the expression of any
 opinion whatsoever on the
 part of the Organisers
 concerning the legal status
 of any country, territory,
 city or area or of its
 authorities, or concerning
 the delimitation of its
 frontiers or boundaries.
 All rights reserved. No part
 of this publication may be
 reproduced, stored in a
 retrieval system, or
 transmitted in any form or
 by any means, electronic,
 mechanical, photocopying
 or otherwise, without the
 prior permission of the
 copyright owner.
 Applications for such
 permission, with a
 statement of the purpose
 and the extent of the
 reproduction, should be
 addressed to the ICAR,
 Villa del Ragno, Via
 Nomentana 134, 00162
 Rome, Italy
 In the same series:
 ? K.R. Trivedi (Ed.), International Workshop on Animal Recording for
 Smallholders in Developing Countries, Anand (India) 20-23 October
 1997. I.T.S. no. 1.
 ? T. Vares, M. Zjalic & C. Mosconi (Eds), Cattle Identification and Milk
 Recording in Central and Eastern European Countries, Warsaw
 (Poland), 23 August, 1998. I.T.S. no. 2.
 ? S. Galal, J. Boyazoglu & K. Hammond (Eds), Developing Breeding
 Strategies for Lower Input Animal Production Environments, Bella
 (Italy) 22-25 September 1999. I.T.S. no. 3.
 ? B. Moioli, J. M?ki-Hokkonen, S. Galal &  M. Zjalic (Eds), Animal
 Recording for Improved Breeding and Management Strategies for
 Buffaloes, Bled (Slovenia) 16-17 May 2000. I.T.S. no. 4.
 ? T. Vares, F. Habe, M. Klopcic & D. Kompan (Eds),The Role of Breeders'
 Organisations and State in Animal Identification and Recording in CEE
 Countries, Bled, Slovenia, 15 May 2000. I.T.S. no. 5
 All the above publications can be downloaded from the ICAR home page:
 www.icar.org
Editors: H. Simianer, H. T?ubert & K. K?ttner
 July 2001
 Beef recording guidelines:
 A synthesis of an ICAR survey
Table of contents
 Preface ................................................................................................................................................. 1
 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4
 2. Principles of data recording ....................................................................................................... 6
 2.1. Invariable animal data .................................................................................................................. 7
 2.2. Life history data ............................................................................................................................. 7
 2.3. Recorded data ................................................................................................................................. 9
 2.4. Calculated traits ........................................................................................................................... 12
 2.5. Data requirements for the estimation of breeding values .................................................. 13
 2.6. Synthesis ........................................................................................................................................ 15
 3. Specific recommendation for data recording........................................................................ 16
 3.1. Animal identification and tagging .......................................................................................... 16
 3.1.1 Summary of the survey results ........................................................................................... 16
 3.1.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 16
 3.2. Identification of farms, locations, institutions, and personnel ......................................... 19
 3.2.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 19
 3.2.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 19
 3.3. Recorded traits related to reproduction and life history ..................................................... 19
 3.3.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 19
 3.3.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 20
 3.3.2.1. Insemination or mating date or mating period ..................................................................................................... 21
 3.3.2.2. Embryo transfer .................................................................................................................................................... 21
 3.3.2.3. Calving ease .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
 3.3.2.4. Stillbirth ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
 3.3.2.5. Birth type .............................................................................................................................................................. 22
 3.3.2.6. Cause of disposal ................................................................................................................................................... 22
 3.3.2.7. Production environment ....................................................................................................................................... 23
 3.4. Live animal weights .................................................................................................................... 23
 3.4.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 23
 3.4.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 24
 3.4.2.1. Birth weight .......................................................................................................................................................... 24
 3.4.2.2. Weaning weight .................................................................................................................................................... 25
 3.4.2.3. Weight at start and end of a testing period ........................................................................................................... 25
 3.4.2.4. Post weaning weights ............................................................................................................................................ 25
 3.4.2.5. Additional live weight records .............................................................................................................................. 26
3.5. Live animal assessments ............................................................................................................ 26
 3.5.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 26
 3.5.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 26
 3.5.2.1. Assessment of muscular development ................................................................................................................... 27
 3.5.2.2. Assessment of body condition ................................................................................................................................ 27
 3.5.2.3. Assessment of skeletal development ...................................................................................................................... 28
 3.5.2.4. Additional traits assessed on live animals ............................................................................................................. 28
 3.6. Carcass assessments .................................................................................................................... 29
 3.6.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 29
 3.6.2. Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 29
 3.6.2.1. Carcass weight ...................................................................................................................................................... 29
 3.6.2.2. Estimated meat yield ............................................................................................................................................. 29
 3.6.2.3. Carcass classification/scoring system .................................................................................................................... 30
 3.6.2.4. Other carcass assessments ..................................................................................................................................... 30
 3.7. Other recorded traits ................................................................................................................... 30
 3.7.1. Summary of the survey results .......................................................................................... 30
 3.7.2. Fertility traits ........................................................................................................................ 30
 3.7.3. Feed intake ............................................................................................................................ 31
 3.7.4. Health traits .......................................................................................................................... 31
 3.7.5. Temperament ........................................................................................................................ 31
 3.7.6. Molecular information ........................................................................................................ 32
 4. Recommendations for calculated traits .................................................................................. 32
 4.2. Calculated growth and weight traits ....................................................................................... 33
 4.1. Summary of the survey results ................................................................................................. 33
 4.3. Calculated fertility traits ............................................................................................................ 34
 4.4. Calculated efficiency traits ........................................................................................................ 34
 4.5. Calculated body composition traits ......................................................................................... 34
 4.6. Longevity traits ............................................................................................................................. 35
 5. The ICAR beef recording survey internet database ............................................................ 35
 6. Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 37
 Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 39
 A1. Information on countries participating in the survey ......................................................... 39
 A1.1. Countries addressed and their response .......................................................................... 39
 A1.2. Trait complexes mentioned by guidelines in the different
 participating countries ................................................................................................................... 40
 A2. Tables on the frequency of recorded traits mentioned in the guidelines ....................... 41
 A2.1. Traits ?start to end? ............................................................................................................... 41
A2.2. Live weight traits ................................................................................................................. 41
 A2.3. Recorded traits from live animal assessments ................................................................ 42
 A2.4. Other recorded traits ........................................................................................................... 43
 A3.2 Fertility traits and maternal ability .................................................................................... 44
 A3. Tables on the frequency of calculated traits mentioned in the guidelines .................... 44
 A3.1. Growth traits ......................................................................................................................... 44
 A3.3. Efficiency traits and herd or sample performance ......................................................... 45
 A3.4. Live animal assessment traits ............................................................................................ 45
 A3.5. Carcass assessment traits .................................................................................................... 46
1ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 The present study would not have been possible without the help and
 financial support of following organisations: Preface
 Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit
 Agricultural Business Research
 Institute
 Australia
 Zentrale Arbeitsgemeinschaft
 ?sterreichischer Rinderz?chter
 Austria
 Minist?re des Classes Moyennes et
 de l?Agriculture
 Belgium
 Landbrugets R?dgivningscenter Denmark
 Institut de l??l?vage France
 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher
 Rinderz?chter e.V.
 Germany
 Irish Cattle Breeding Federation
 Society Ltd.
 Ireland
 Associazione Italiana Allevatori Italy
 F?d?ration des Herdbooks
 Luxembourgeois
 Luxemburg
 Agricultural Research Council South Africa
 Arbeitsgemeinschaft
 Schweizerischer Rinderz?chter
 Switzerland
 Koninklijk Nederlands Rundvee
 Syndicaat
 The Netherlands
 Meat and Livestock Commission United Kingdom
 Beef Improvement Federation USA
2
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 I want to express my deep gratitude to all of the above mentioned sponsors
 for the generous contributions they made to set this project into practice.
 The study was initiated for the following reasons: in milk recording the
 impact of standard setting by ICAR is clear and follows 50 years of history
 and experience.
 In beef recording the relevant national guidelines and rules of the recent
 decades have been developed independently from ICAR, as ICAR did not
 cover this field of activities when the appropriate guidelines were created,
 and so no regular international exchange of beef data occurs at present.
 In 1990 ICAR expanded its activities to any kind of animal recording in
 ruminants and established at that time a working group for beef recording.
 However, when the ICAR Beef Group started to compile some initial
 guidelines, an inherent problem quickly became apparent: in order to avoid,
 where possible, recommendations which might be contradictory to existing
 national schemes, the ICAR guidelines could only be a rough framework
 with a substantial lack of detail.
 For this reason the ICAR beef group guidelines could not be used as a
 comprehensive and detailed instruction manual, which would be necessary
 for practical field application. The consequent risk is that organisations
 and individuals interested in beef recording would not take ICAR beef
 guidelines into consideration when they develop their procedures, and
 undoubtedly further diversification of locally applied beef recording
 schemes would occur.
 The only approach to overcome this risk was to look at all the current
 national guidelines and to draw a synthesis from them which would
 provide both, broad acceptance by national users as well as clear and
 detailed contents. Hence the study reported here was commissioned by
 the ICAR Beef Group.
 The project was executed by Dr. Henner Simianer, Head of Applied
 Genetics Network, Germany. In my opinion the ambitious objective of the
 study was fully achieved and I want, therefore, to particularly thank
 Dr. Simianer with his collaborators Dr. Helge T?ubert and Dr. Karola
 K?ttner for their careful and comprehensive work.
 The key for the present study was a 56 page questionnaire sent to
 48 countries. Although it would have been time and labour intensive to
 work through it, responses were received from 29 major beef breeding
 countries. The response has certainly exceeded our expectations. I would
 like to take this time to personally thank all countries, organisations and
 persons involved who spared the time and made the effort to provide all
 the figures and replies requested.
3ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Much helpful advice and support also came from the ICAR President
 Dr. Joseph Crettenand, Switzerland and from the ICAR Office with
 Dr. Jean Boyazoglu and Mrs. Elena Couto, Italy. A very special thanks to
 them.
 Last but not least I would like to thank my colleagues from the ICAR Beef
 Group for their valuable und untiring advice and help.
 Hans J. Schild
 Chairman of the ICAR
 Beef Performance Working Group
4
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 This study was commissioned by the ICAR beef recording working group
 to define a basis for the development of new international guidelines for
 beef recording to be included in the ICAR set of recording guidelines. The
 whole project is based on a survey which collected information on national
 and internationally applicable guidelines of differing compulsory nature.
 Based on the outcome of the survey recommendations will be made, which
 will form the basis of an updated ICAR beef recording guideline. The
 detailed formulation of this guideline remains the responsibility of the
 ICAR beef group, though. The main operational function of this new
 guideline is to set the stage for joint international genetic evaluations for
 beef performance traits, based on raw data and covering all relevant aspects
 of beef cattle production.
 The primary goal of the ICAR survey of beef recording guidelines was to
 get an overview of the actual (year 2000) state of beef cattle data recording
 and processing in the major beef production countries of the world. An
 extensive questionnaire was sent out to 48 different countries, of which
 29 responded and 19 returned at least one completed questionnaire. In
 total, 36 completed questionnaires were received and analysed (see table
 A1 in the appendix). The outcome of the survey has been to create a data
 base which is accessible through the internet
 (http://pc-howarth.une.edu.au/icar.html). Tables summarizing the most
 important issues of the survey are given in the appendix of this report.
 Based on this survey, a synthesis had to be compiled, which should form a
 base for the development of new international guidelines. Obviously, there
 are a number of difficulties associated with this task:
 ? The global survey covers a variety of different production systems;
 ? Very different types of organisation of beef production (private,
 commercial, herdbook, marketing organisations, etc.) are included;
 ? Breeding and genetic improvement (for which uniform data recordings
 are most important) is not a central aspect of many of the production
 systems considered;
 ? The survey focused only on guidelines affecting beef recording practices.
 In many cases, guidelines will only cover parts of the relevant process,
 or beef breeding practice may even differ from the respective guidelines;
 ? In many cases, similar traits were recorded, but in virtually as many
 (technical) ways as there were countries returning completed
 questionnaires.
 These and other arguments make it difficult, to derive general
 recommendations from the outcome of the survey, but make it necessary
 to weigh and interpret these results. Based on this somewhat subjective
 approach, recommended standards may in some cases not be supported
 by the ?majority? of countries participating in the survey.
 1. Introduction
5ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 In this report, a short summary of the survey results is given at the start of
 each section with recommendations for the different trait complexes. For
 more detailed information, the reader is refered to the tables in the appendix
 of this report and to the mentioned data base.
 In general, an international guideline should fulfill two main purposes:
 ? It should define a minimum set of recorded data that are essential for
 an exchange of data across borders, both for trading and breeding
 purposes (e.g. international breeding value estimations). This set has
 to be limited to the most important trait complexes and indispensable
 (essential) data (like animal identification etc). The respective data
 should be recorded according to a common standard, which includes
 the exact definition of the traits, the way of recording them, the type
 and format of the data to store etc. All countries wishing to participate
 in this type of international exchange of animals should be encouraged
 to comply with this standard and to provide the respective data in the
 suggested form.
 ? It should list additional traits or recordings, which though not essential,
 are in many cases useful for the international exchange of beef animals.
 Often, these traits are considered to be necessary in national or breed
 specific breeding programs or for management purposes. This includes
 traits which are only relevant in certain production systems and/or for
 certain breeds. For this class of additional traits, recommendations are
 given on how they should be defined and recorded. If a country or a
 breeding program decides to record such a trait, it is strongly advised
 to do this in a form which is compatible with the suggested standard.
 Only in this case will it be possible to exchange data internationally on
 this set of additional traits.
 In principle, data recording should provide the basis for an objective
 assessment of the characteristics of an animal, but it should be neutral
 when it comes to ranking animals according to their economic or genetic
 ?quality? or ?value? . In the context of international breeding value
 evaluations, different countries may have different ideas of ?good? and
 ?bad? with respect to quality of beef or beef animals. A good example may
 be the German and US type of beef meat quality standard, where the top
 ranked product in one would be difficult to sell in the other.
 Many of the national guidelines being reported in the survey have been in
 use for a long time and/or are very difficult to change (as e.g. laws).
 Therefore, it is probably unrealistic to expect, that all of the suggested
 standards will be adopted by all the ICAR members immediately.
 Nevertheless, such a guideline with widely agreed common standards
 should be a motivation for countries to develop actual guidelines (or
 recording practices) in the defined direction, which will lead, in the long
 run, to a set of internationally implemented data standards.
6
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 In the survey, many countries have not reacted at all or have answered,
 that no guidelines are existing. A number of mostly Eastern European
 countries are in the process of developing new guidelines. For those
 countries, an international guideline will be most useful since they will
 have the opportunity to adopt all the suggested standards in their national
 guidelines, thus allowing their participation in the international exchange
 of breeding and production animals and the corresponding performance
 data immediately.
 There are some basic principles that guidelines and recording practice
 should conform to in order to facilitate efficient recording, storage, use
 and exchange of animal performance data. These principles require for
 example that each animal should have a unique and permanent
 identification which is the key to all its data, that recording and storage of
 data should be as efficient as possible, and that animal-related recordings
 should follow a standard format etc.
 Due to the ?grown? or evolving structures of animal data recording systems,
 these principles are rarely in place in practice, nor are they generally
 reflected in the current national guidelines.
 Given that data will be used for the assessment of the production or
 breeding potential of an animal, it is essential that data are stored in a
 centralized form, which in many cases will be a national data base, but
 also may be a data base at the level of regions, large farms, commercial
 breeding companies or breed associations etc.. The necessity of a data base
 results from the fact, that performance data of different animals or the
 same animal at different ages have to be combined to retrieve the relevant
 information.
 Ideally, data of one ?breeding population? are stored in one data base or in
 data bases following a common structure with well established links and
 defined interfaces for data exchange.
 It is possible to define a general structure of the data that are to be recorded
 in such a way, that following this recommendation, a very flexible and
 efficient use of these data for a variety of purposes is possible. ?Structure?
 means both the hierarchy of different types of data and a general format,
 in which data should be recorded and stored. The format (not the contents)
 should be independent of the production system. Once this general format
 is defined and accepted, it is possible to develop guidelines for data
 recording in a very standardized form.
 One very general recommendation is, that throughout the recording
 process, four key pieces of information should be attached to any recording
 that is made :
 ? the ID of the animal (or animals, if more than one animal is involved);
 2. Principles of
 data recording
7ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 ? the actual date of recording;
 ? the actual location ( farm, station); and
 ? the person (or institution) doing the recording.
 For practical reasons, it will be useful to define standardized identification
 codes both for locations (farm ID) and recording personnel if required.
 Location data will be essential for any statistical analysis or genetic
 evaluation that takes contemporary group effects into account. The
 information on recording persons may reflect the possibility to use A, B,
 or C methods of performance testing, according to the general ICAR
 standard.
 In principle, the information can be categorised into four different types
 of animal related data:
 This includes all data that are specific for an animal, are available at the
 birth of the animal and do not change during its lifetime. This set of data
 encompasses:
 ? The internationally unique ID of the animal (containing the code
 of the country of origin, see section 3.1)
 ? The breed or breed composition of the animal
 ? Date of birth of animal
 ? Sex of the animal
 ? The ID of the animal's genetic parents
 ? In case of embryo transfer ID of recepient mother
 ? In case of fostering ID of foster mother
 ? If the animal is an identical twin or a clone, the ID of the other
 genetically identical animal(s)
 This class includes information on the status of the animal (alive or dead,
 suckling or weaned etc.) and the farm or management conditions the
 animal is kept in. These data are time-critical in that, for a given animal
 and a given date, it should be possible to retrieve all relevant information
 pertaining to management condition, reproduction status etc. from this
 set of data.
 There are two main areas of information that have to be collected and
 permanently updated in this class of data:
 a) Where is the animal physically?
 With respect to location, it seems most practical that information is
 collected whenever an animal changes its actual localization, i.e. if
 it moves from one farm to another, if it is sold abroad, if it is
 2.1. Invariable
 animal data
 2.2. Life history
 data
8
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 slaughtered etc. Depending on the production system, this can also
 enclose a change of a management group or environmental
 conditions within herd (change to pasture, feed lot etc.).
 A standard format for recording such an event may look as follows:
 ? Animal ID
 ? Date
 ? Recording person
 ? Actual location: farm ID (management-group within farm if
 applicable)
 ? Changing to: farm ID (management-group within farm if
 applicable)
 ? Code(s) for special events (e.g. weaned, died, slaughtered
 etc.)
 It must be decided, whether these data, especially animal movements
 from one herd to another or between management groups within herd,
 are recorded in a separate data collection process or only in combination
 with trait recordings, i.e. that with each recorded trait - like weight - an
 information on the actual location of the animal is collected, which is
 then used to update the life history data.
 In the EU system for cattle recording, animal movements are recorded
 in a redundant form, such that both the herd of origin and the herd the
 animal is moved to report the animal movement, and the record is only
 accepted when both reports match.
 b) What is the animal?s reproductive status
 This describes the general availability of the animal for breeding
 purposes and related information, and thus comprises such events as
 mating, insemination, embryo transfer and birth for females, and
 castration for males. If females are kept with one or several bulls during
 the mating period, this information (basically on ?possible? mates and
 mating dates) should also be included.
 The relevant data can also be collected in a standardized format:
 ? Animal ID
 ? Date
 ? Recording person
 ? Actual location: farm ID (management-group within
 farm if applicable)
 ? Code of the reproductive event
 ? ID of other animal(s) involved (e.g. mating partner,
 calf, foster calf etc.; if applicable)
9ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Having these two types of data of an animal?s life history , it should be
 possible to access all relevant information for the calculation and
 statistical analysis of performance data. The way the data will be used
 and the importance of accuracy and completeness of data for this type
 of use determines the degree of effort that is justified in collecting and
 maintaining these data. This decision should be made in every recording
 system taking cost efficiency criteria into account.
 Recorded data are directly recorded on an animal or animal group, which
 includes both objective measures and subjective assessments. In principle,
 different types of records can be used:
 ? Objective measurements, like weights, heights etc. which are assessed
 with the use of some technical equipment. These measurements, if
 recorded properly have a high degree of accuracy and are easy to
 standardize if the definition is clear. It is strongly recommended to use
 the metric system and kilograms internationally, but this may not be
 practical in all countries. Therefore, respective formats have to be agreed
 upon for the international exchange of data.
 It is often not possible to make the required measurements on the exact
 date when it is supposed to be made. If, e.g. the yearling weight is to be
 recorded, but only monthly or bimonthly weighings are technically
 possible, the expected weight at day 365 has to be calculated using a
 correction routine and will be stored as a ?calculated trait?. Nonetheless,
 basic recorded data should always be retained.
 ? Subjective assessments, like estimated body weight or dressing
 percentage etc. In many cases, subjective assessments are used to obtain
 values on characteristics that could in principle be measured exactly,
 but exact measurements may not be possible because they are too
 difficult or too expensive to get. With well trained personnel, these
 assessments often are sufficiently accurate, nevertheless it is essential
 to verify data quality on a regular basis, e.g. by comparing subjective
 assessments with exact results for samples of animals (Quality
 Assurance Systems).
 ? Counts, like number of inseminations or matings per mating period,
 number of calves born etc. If these data are properly recorded, they are
 also highly reliable.
 ? Dates. Considering recent computer problems, dates should have the
 8-digit numeric format YYYYMMDD.
 It is strongly recommended that for recording purposes, recording dates
 are preferred over the recording of the age of the animal. The reason is,
 that additional information is required to derive the age of an animal,
 2.3. Recorded data
10
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 and this may lead to erraneous recordings, arising from different formats
 (age in years, months, or days) or just deficient information.
 Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the surveyed guidelines
 propose to record the age with the respective trait value.
 The recording date, on the other hand, contains the complete age
 information when combined with the birth date, which should be in
 the data base for any animal. The date of recording also provides
 information on the month or season the recording has been undertaken
 in. This information may be useful for the further interpretation or
 statistical analyses of the recorded data.
 ? Nominal classification. Observations are given in discrete, unordered
 classes, like breed or reason for disposal. Well defined, mutually
 exclusive and comprehensive categories are required to gain as much
 information as possible.
 Often, there is an additional open class for all cases, that cannot be
 attributed to one of the defined classes. For these cases, the possibility
 should be provided to describe the case shortly (e.g. writing down a
 disease that caused disposal of the animal). These remarks can be
 analysed to amend the list of classes by the most frequent nominations.
 ? Subjective scores. This type of records classifies animals on a finite
 ordinal scale in a number of classes. Often these classes are an ordered
 sequence of numeric scores, where the lowest and the highest numbers
 represent extreme phenotypes on a linear scale. Also, descriptions of
 the different classes can be given in text or as pictures/drawings.
 It is suggested that linear scales should be fixed within age/weight
 windows but should not be breed specific. They should primarily be
 determined by the biological range of the population under evaluation,
 i.e. young animals, weaned calves or adult cows.
 It is generally recommended, that scores for a specific assessment should
 not have more than ten increments. If necessary, intermediate values with
 one decimal (e.g. 2.5) can be used. For some traits certain breeds may exhibit
 extreme phenotypes. In this case, a breed specific extension of the scale
 may be considered (e.g. muscularity index of Belgian Blue).
 The main problem with subjective scores is to achieve that values are
 comparable, even if they are assessed by different persons or by the same
 person at different points of time. This requires clear definitions and
 permanent and systematic training of the persons in charge of doing the
 scoring. If such data are used in statistical analyses, the effect of the scorer
 has to be included in the statistical model. However, it is not only the
 mean, but also the variance of the scoring results that should be uniform
 across different persons.
11ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Another aspect is that, although being subjective, scoring should aim to
 give an objective assessment of the animal irrespective of e.g. the
 environmental conditions. That is, two animals which are put in the same
 phenotypic class should be comparable in absolute terms, even if they
 have been kept under very different management conditions.
 Regardless of the type of recorded trait, it is possible to use a standard
 format:
 ? Animal ID (or group of animals if applicable)
 ? Date
 ? Recording person
 ? Actual location: farm ID (management-group within farm if
 applicable)
 ? Trait code
 ? Trait value
 ? Additional information pertaining to the animal
 ? Additional information pertaining to the recording procedure
 It is essential, that for all recordable traits in a given recording scheme, the
 trait is well defined and that a uniform two or three letter trait code is
 specified (like e.g. one code for live weight in kg, another code for carcass
 weight in kg etc.). It is recommended, that trait codes and definitions for
 the main traits are internationally standardized, this is obviously the main
 objective of international beef recording guidelines.
 Note that a ?recorded trait? should strictly be the actual measurement, count
 or subjective score. If a trait e.g. has to be standardized for a given age or
 for environmental factors, the resulting adjusted weight is a calculated or
 derived trait, which is a function of the recorded weight and e.g. age
 derived from the weighing date and the birth date. Thus, ?weight? is a
 recordable trait, but ?weight at 200 days? will in many cases be a calculated
 trait.
 Additional information pertaining to the animal has to be defined trait
 specific and encompasses all relevant factors which are informative for
 the animal?s situation. Many of these factors should be recorded in the
 ?life history data? of the animal, but there may be other factors (like health
 problems, heat, special concentrate feeding etc.) that may be relevant for
 the recorded trait and should be provided together with the record.
 Additional information pertaining to the recording procedure refers to e.g.
 the technical equipment that is used to gain the information (if the trait is
 sensitive to this), or the contemporary group the animal is recorded in etc.
 This information again is only relevant, if it can and will be taken into
 account for a subsequent statistical correction of the recorded trait.
12
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 This type of trait is somewhat different from the other categories, because
 calculated traits are derived from the ?raw? information included in the
 other three categories. In general, there are three different classes of
 calculated traits:
 a) Adjusted traits
 Often, raw data have to be adjusted for a defined age, weight, or length
 of testing period, to comply with the defined standard. If, for example,
 the weight at 365 days is defined as a standard beef trait, but an animal
 which is born on March 1, 2000 is weighed on March 15, 2001, the
 recorded weight is obviously taken at 380 days. Therefore, it has to be
 adjusted to the standard age by using e.g. linear correction factors.
 For this kind of traits it makes sense to use a similar data format like for
 the unadjusted recorded trait, but to use a different trait code.
 Information that already has been accounted for in the adjusting
 procedure can be omitted. This may be the case, if e.g. the type of
 electronic device that has been used to generate the raw data
 measurement has been accounted for when standardizing the trait.
 b) Functions of several recorded traits.
 A number of interesting performance traits are derived from a
 combination of recorded traits. Daily gain in the test period for example
 is the difference between weight at end and weight at start of the test
 period, divided by the difference of age at end and age at start of test
 period, expressed as g per day. This type of data can be derived both
 from raw recorded data and from adjusted traits.
 With these kind of traits, one often has several overlapping additional
 pieces of information. E.g. combined weights are recorded by different
 persons, at different dates, and eventually at different locations.
 Combined traits therefore should be defined to be largely independent
 of this type of additional information. A daily gain in a test period should
 pertain to a standardized test length, but e.g. different weighing
 equipment etc. should not play a role anymore. Trait definitions in
 guidelines have to specify which additional information is needed for
 a later analysis as e.g. age at start (or end) of testing period, test station,
 or contempotrary group.
 The resulting data format may be as follows:
 2.4. Calculated
 traits
13ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 ? Animal ID (or group of animals if applicable)
 ? Date of recording (start/end of test period etc.)
 ? Age of animal
 ? Relevant location
 ? Calculated trait code
 ? Calculated trait value
 ? Additional information pertaining to the animal
 (e.g. contemporary group)
 Note that in this case the age (as a calculated trait) is included, while
 for recording purposes, it is strongly recommended to record exclusively
 dates.
 c) Breeding values and other population-related indices
 This type of data result, if an animal?s performance is related to the
 performance of other animals in the same population, mainly to generate
 a ranking reflecting the production value or the breeding value of the
 animal. This type of statistical analysis includes trait information (raw
 or adjusted), pedigree information, classification of fixed environmental
 effects and covariables etc. Typically such analyses are done for all
 animals of a population simultaneously.
 Estimated breeding values are by definition independent of
 environmental factors, but values change over time. Therefore they
 should be stored with the animal?s ID, the date of estimation, and the
 reliability of the breeding value.
 One of the main objectives of an international guideline for the recording
 of beef production traits is that raw data should be collected in a form that
 can be used for an international estimation of breeding values. Together
 with the performance data it is necessary to collect information on all type
 of factors that may systematically affect performance.
 In principle, these factors can be attributed to three classes:
 a) Genetic factors, which comprise, first of all, the breeding value of the
 animal itself. In BLUP-based systems, effects of related animals (parents,
 sibs, offspring etc.) are properly accounted for by including the
 relationship matrix into the equation system (animal model). An
 alternative is to use hierarchical models, like a sire model or a
 sire-maternal grandsire model, which only account for a part of the
 relationship structure and may or may not include additional
 relationships (e.g. the relationship of sires and maternal grandsires).
 2.5. Data
 requirements for
 the estimation of
 breeding values
14
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 In any case it is essential to record the animal ID and the ID of its parents
 for this purpose. From this information, a complete pedigree file can be
 set up which contains all information on the genetic structure of the
 population. If this is done properly, it is not necessary to record the ID
 of additional relatives (e.g. grandparents, offspring etc.).
 For international evaluations it is absolutely essential, that animals from
 different countries have a uniform, internationally unique, and invariate
 ID. If, say, a sire appears with different IDs in different countries, he
 will get different breeding values, which is not only a conceptionally
 contradictory result for this individual, but also affects the
 connectedness between populations (and therefore all breeding values
 estimated in the system) in an unfavourable way .
 There are some special situations which need to be taken into account:
 - In case of identical twinning and cloning, it is necessary to record
 the fact that two or more individuals are genetically identical, because
 just on base of pedigree information (identical parent IDs), these
 animals would be falsely identified as fullsibs.
 - If a trait is not recorded individually, but for a group of animals, the
 ID of all individuals in this group has to be recorded together with
 the respective parents. Only then it is possible to include this
 information properly in a genetic evaluation procedure.
 - In genetic evaluation systems it is common practice to include
 ?genetic groups? for founder animals. I.e. animals with unknown
 parents are grouped according to age (year born), country of origin
 and/or breed composition (if more than one breed is included).
 Therefore, it is essential to provide these data especially for older
 animals in the pedigree.
 b) Systematic environmental factors on all animals in the population.
 This comprises environmental factors which affect large numbers of
 animals across herd in a similar way, and thus can be accounted for
 either by using a precorrection of the data, or by including them as a
 fixed effect in the model for genetic evaluation. A typical factor in this
 class would be the age at first calving.
 c) Systematic environmental factors on a defined group of animals.
 The main mechanism to account for environmental factors in breeding
 value estimation is to look at the deviation of an individual?s
 performance from the mean of a group of animals being exposed to the
 same environment or management situation, rather than using the
 absolute performance record itself. This can be done by defining
 ?herd-year-season? or similar classes in the model. This means, that an
 animal is compared only to contemporaries in the same management
 unit. However, it is essential that enough individuals are present in
 such a unit, otherwise the information content is poor.
15ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 As a general recommendation, recordings should whenever possible be
 made on all animals in one management unit simultaneously. In certain
 situations it might be necessary to record only a sample, which is acceptable
 if the sample is large enough and drawn at random. For the purpose of
 genetic evaluation it is detrimental, if the sample is defined in a
 non-random selective way, e.g. by selecting the seemingly best animals
 on the trait being recorded and only measuring this sample.
 By defining contemporary groups, all factors affecting a group of animals
 in a similar way will be statistically taken care of. These include climatic
 factors, management, feeding etc. If, say, data from the slaughter house
 are used, the reference group (e.g. animals of the same breed slaughtered
 on the same day) may include both environmental factors as well as
 day-specific features of the people assessing the carcasses or the technical
 equipment used for measuring certain parameters.
 In any case, it is essential that this classification in contemporary groups
 be recorded together with the respective performance data either directly
 or in a way which allows re-construction of the contemporary group (if
 e.g. herd and recording date are stored, the herd-year-season can be
 derived).
 The suggested structure of data recording with four basic types of data is
 one (but possibly not the only) general format to collect and store animal
 data efficiently and in a conceptionally uniform system. If this structure is
 accepted as the basic format, it is still necessary to define the exact contents
 of the four data sections. Based on the suggested format, this can be done
 in a very standardized procedure, though.
 If, say, 365 day weight is a trait to be recorded in a breeding program, the
 following steps must be taken:
 1. Define the group of animals for which recording of 365 day weight is
 desirable
 2. Define the time frame around day 365 in which the raw live weight of
 the animal has to be recorded (to be subsequently adjusted to 365 days).
 If this time frame is 365 days ? 45 days, farms have to weigh animals
 once in three months to meet this requirement.
 3. Define the data format in which the raw weight recording has to be
 transmitted:
 2.6. Synthesis
16
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 ? Animal ID
 ? Weighing date
 ? Recording person
 ? Actual location: farm ID (management-group within farm if
 applicable)
 ? Trait code: live weight in kg
 ? Trait value
 ? Additional information pertaining to the animal (sickness etc.)
 If the B-method applies and the weighing is done by the farmer or his
 nominee, it suffices to record the code of the farm as information for the
 actual location and the recording person.
 4. Define breed or population specific adjustment factors or functions to
 calculate the 365 day weight from the recorded weight within the time
 frame and the age, computed as weighing date minus birth date of the
 animal.
 In the questionnaire it was asked for all aspects related to animal
 identification and tagging. In 20 out of a total of 36 guidelines from
 19 countries a recommendation for the tagging of breeding stock animals
 was found. Production animals are recommended to be tagged in
 12 guidelines. The tagging of a sample of animals, animals with tested
 performance or even all animals were found in only one guideline. The
 way of tagging was recommended very often. Individual tagging of
 breeding stock animals was mentioned in 21 guidelines, individual tagging
 of production animals in 11 and an identification of the farm was
 recommended in four guidelines. The method of identification was
 recommended to be permanent (20) and unique(16). With respect to the
 method of tagging, ear tags (16) and tattoos (9) were mentioned most
 frequently. Two guidelines recommended electronic identification and
 branding, while only one guideline mentioned a sketch or photo for
 identification. Five guidelines recommended to do the tagging within
 7 days from birth, while six guidelines suggested to do this within one
 month. Tagging should be done by the farmer/breeder/owner
 (14 guidelines) or the breeding organisation (5 guidelines). Animal
 identification and parentage control on the basis of blood groups is only
 mentioned in 4 guidelines, while DNA-based approaches are mentioned
 as compulsatory option in the Swedish guideline.
 It is an essential prerequisite for breeding programs, that certain animals
 can be individually identified. This is especially true for breeding animals
 (i.e. animals that are candidates for selection or to become parents of the
 3. Specific
 recommendation
 for data
 recording
 3.1. Animal
 identification and
 tagging
 3.1.1 Summary of the
 survey results
 3.1.2.
 Recommendations
17ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 next generation of breeding animals). If e.g. a testing scheme is based on
 the performance of relatives, e.g. progeny, it may be sufficient to identify a
 group of animals as being progeny of a certain sire, but not with an
 individual and unique identification code. For production animals,
 identification often is only necessary to prove ownership or for purposes
 of herd management.
 Identification can, in principle, be based on two different concepts:
 ? An animal is given a unique identification code and this one is attached
 to the animal in a form, that facilitates the reading of the information
 when needed. The most widely used techniques are ear tags, tattoos,
 or electronic chips. ?Reading? can mean to literally read a number or an
 alphanumeric code, or to use technical equipment (bar code reader,
 electronic chip reading device).
 ? Animals can also be identified through intrinsic characteristics, like e.g.
 a marker based information system, which allows to identify an animal
 as an offspring of a given mating from its marker genotype (given the
 parents? marker genotype is known). DNA based techniques also allow
 multiple sire joining with later identification of parentage. Other
 possibilities are to record special invariable phenotypic characteristics
 of an animal, like coat colour patterns or the special characteristics of
 the iris of an animal. This facilitates the later recognition of the same
 animal. Such systems are in development and clearly have the potential
 to replace tagging techniques, at least where cheap and automatic
 identification systems, presumably mainly for production animals, are
 required.
 Triggered by the BSE crisis in Europe, it is European law that all cattle in
 the EU without exception have to be tagged in a standard form. Based on
 the actual crisis concerning food and mouth disease in the UK and other
 countries, it must be expected that international requirements concerning
 animal identification will be much more strict than they have been until
 now. It is very likely, that major importers of beef or beef cattle will allow
 imports only if animals are properly and reliably identified, allowing to
 trace back their way through the system. Therefore, animal identification
 is a central issue for all countries that wish to export animals or carcasses
 or that wish to take part in the international exchange of breeding material
 (including e.g. also semen or embryos).
 Therefore, at the present stage, it is strongly recommended that all breeding
 animals within a country have to be identified and tagged. For production
 animals, this is also recommended, especially if data from production
 animals are used for breeding value estimation purposes (e.g. in a progeny
 testing scheme).
18
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 If animals are tagged, the tagging within one population has to be:
 ? permanent
 ? done in short time after birth.
 Although ?uniformity? of tagging is mentioned in a number of guidelines
 in the survey, this requirement does not seem to be necessary, since the
 physical technique of tagging may differ between animals. It may, for
 example, be useful, to use electronic devices like chips for a certain part of
 the population and eartags for other animals. What has to be unique,
 though, is the ?soft? ID within country, so that a number or alphanumeric
 code is only used once.
 Under certain conditions additional requirements may be sensible. This
 may be that a tag cannot easily be removed (in situation where live animal
 theft is a problem) or that e.g. ear tags cannot be removed from or
 exchanged between animals without destroying the tags.
 Internationally, an alphanumeric code should be used, being a combination
 of two leading characters or three numerical digits as country identification
 following the ISO standard and a subsequent national alphanumeric or
 numeric sequence, providing a unique identification within country. At
 present, codes with up to 15 alphanumeric characters (including country
 code) are in use.
 This suggestion allows countries to stay with their own internal
 identification and numbering scheme, where national codes either contain
 relevant information (e.g. herd number, breed, or sex) or are just consecutive
 numbers without any meaning. Check digits may be included. The only
 requirement is, that numbers are unique within the country they are used.
 Together with the country code, this makes the identification world-wide
 unique.
 It is strongly recommended, that all animals should keep their identification
 throughout their lifetime. Experience shows, however, that animals often
 get a new ID when they are traded especially across borders. In this case,
 a minimum requirement is that the original identification of an animal
 has to be documented and stored in an accessible form with a link to its
 new ID. This is probably the single most important recommendation that
 has to be followed, if an international evaluation scheme is to be established
 successfully. As a standard, animals in an international evaluation
 procedure should always be identified by the ID they have in their country
 of origin.
 The way of tagging is free to the owner or may be defined by the legal
 body issuing membership regulations as long as it matches the points
 mentioned above and is not in conflict with animal welfare laws or
 regulations.
19ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Recommended ways of tagging are:
 ? ear tag;
 ? tatoo;
 ? chip.
 Tagging can be done by any person e.g. by the farmer or some officer of
 the breeding or recording association etc.. However, reliability of
 identification has to be verified through appropriate measures,
 e.g. parentage control of relevant breeding animals and/or identity control
 of a sample of all tagged animals in the population on a regular basis.
 Where internal electronic devices like chips are used, the animal must be
 marked in a way that indicates the presence of that electronic device.
 Among the 36 guidelines received, 15 guidelines suggest to record the ID
 of the farm and 12 (11) guidelines recommend to record the address of the
 breeder (owner) of the animal.
 For a systematic recording scheme it is essential, that persons and
 institutions involved in the recording process can be identified in a
 systematic, reliable and simple way. Therefore it is recommended that farms
 and institutions being involved in the beef production and recording
 process (e.g. slaughterhouses, traders, markets etc.) as well as persons
 participating in the recording process (e.g. recording officers) are given a
 unique ID (as in some EU National Registration Systems) within the
 respective recording or breeding program. Additional information on the
 persons or institutions (names, addresses etc.) must be accessible through
 the ID as a key. Attached to the ID of the country or the recording or
 breeding scheme, this ID becomes worldwide unique and can be used for
 classification in international evaluations.
 Using IDs instead of names of persons or companies, addresses etc. has
 the obvious advantage of being simple, short, and unambiguous. It also
 allows the retrieval of the complete information on the identified unit from
 a respective data base.
 Recording of the breed or breed composition of breeding animals is
 recommended in 14 of the 36 completed questionnaires. Similar frequencies
 are found for the other essential data such as date of birth (20), sex of the
 calf (18), ID of parents (14), breed of parents (11). Birth type is suggested to
 be recorded for breeding animals in 14 guidelines. With respect to embryo
 transfer, the fact that an ET has taken place and the ID of the recipient is
 suggested to be recorded in 10 guidelines. Other important traits are mating
 type (14) and the respective date (12), the calving ease code (11) and fostered
 yes or no (10). Recording of the date of disposal is recommended in
 11 guidelines, with 9 guidelines suggesting a disposal code.
 3.2. Identification
 of farms,
 locations,
 institutions, and
 personnel
 3.2.1. Summary of the
 survey results
 3.2.2.
 Recommendations
 3.3. Recorded
 traits related to
 reproduction and
 life history
 3.3.1. Summary of the
 survey results
20
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 For production animals, the respective traits are suggested to be recorded
 in a smaller number (7 or less) of guidelines, while uniform farm labelling
 was mentioned in 4 guidelines only.
 As described in section 2.2 of this report, all essential data reflecting life
 history and reproductive status of an animal should be recorded in a special
 section of the data base. Other records are clearly performance related,
 but in practice will be assessed together with relevant life history data
 (e.g. calving date and calving ease in many cases will be reported on the
 same form).
 Especially with reproduction data, we often see that a trait is relevant for
 more than one individual, e.g. birth recordings are relevant for the dam,
 the calf and are also relevant for the reproductive performance of the calf?s
 sire.
 In a recording scheme and data base context it must be decided, for which
 animal(s) the respective data are recorded. In principle a minimum degree
 of redundancy is desirable. In a well-designed data base, it should be
 sufficient to store data on a given birth only with the calf or with the dam,
 and to retrieve the data for other animals (including the sire of the calf) if
 needed. Conceptionally, recording birth-related information primarily with
 the calf seems to be the most sensible solution, because the link to the
 other animals involved is clearly given through the parents? ID information.
 Some situations may cause design problems, particularly twinning, where
 identical information is available for two individuals, abortion, stillbirth
 or death after birth but before registration, where the calf in most cases
 the dead calf, will not get it?s own ID and thus will not appear as an
 individual in the data base. In the latter case, it might be useful to assign a
 ?dummy-ID? to the calf to stay consistent with the data base design.
 A number of the traits described below (calving ease, birth type and
 stillbirth) are essentially recorded when a cow has calved. It is obvious
 that this information (together with other informations like sex of calf,
 abnormalities etc.) should be recorded in one recording procedure, e.g. by
 filling out a ?calving report?, which contains all the essential data. This
 will be used to enter the calf as a new individual in the data base, hence
 the ?invariable animal data? as listed in section 2.1 have to be included in
 the calving report.
 3.3.2.
 Recommendations
21ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 In addition to these basic data, it is recommended to record the following
 data for all breeding animals:
 Trait Recorded as
 Insemination or mating date or mating period Date, type, sire(s)
 Embryo transfer Code, genetic parents
 Calving ease Code
 Stillbirth Yes or no
 Birth type Code
 Cause of disposal Cause or code
 Production environment Classes
 To assess the reproductive performance of males and females it is essential
 to collect data on mating success. Most of the derived parameters used in
 practice, like the non return rate (paternal or direct), service period etc. are
 based on the number and dates of unsuccessful and successful matings or
 inseminations.
 For breeding females it is also essential to identify the true sire of a calf, if
 more than one sire is possible (multiple matings or mating opportunities).
 The most likely mating date then can be derived from the observed calving
 date by subtracting a standard gestation period. Based on this information,
 potential sires can be excluded. For this purpose, it is helpful if the date
 bulls enter and leave a herd or management group of females is recorded.
 It is essential to provide information on the fact, if a calf is born by its
 genetic mother or by a foster mother. Therefore, all embryo transfers (ET)
 have to be recorded when they take place as a record of the recipient female.
 In addition to the fact that an ET has taken place, it is also necessary to
 record the genetic parents of the embryo. When the calf is born, it is essential
 that the information on the genetic parents is provided for setting up the
 pedigree and that the ID of the foster mother is available to model the
 calf?s environment in the pre-weaning phase.
 Calving ease describes the circumstances of the birth of an animal. This
 record is very important and can be used for several analyses. It can give
 hints on the potential of a calf and can also be used to analyze breeding
 ability of the parents, especially with respect to the qualification of a sire
 to be mated to heifers.
 3.3.2.1. Insemination
 or mating date or
 mating period
 3.3.2.2. Embryo
 transfer
 3.3.2.3. Calving ease
22
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 It is recommended to record calving ease with the following five subjective
 scores:
 1) easy calving without assistance;
 2) easy calving with assistance;
 3) difficult (mechanical assistance);
 4) difficult (veterinary assistance); and
 5) caesarean or surgery.
 If a calf is born dead or dies within a given time period (24, 48, or 72 hours)
 after birth, this event is basically a data event relating to the parents?
 performance and therefore should be stored as a record relating to the
 mother, together with the ID of the calf?s sire, the birth type and the sex of
 the calf. A clear definition is required stating the critical duration of
 pregnancy to distinguish between abortion and stillbirth.
 Note, that it is essential to store this information with the dam, since in
 most implemented recording systems the dead calf does not get an own
 ID and therefore will not be represented in the data base as an individual.
 The alternative is that stillborn animals get an individual ID and record in
 the data set. This would be more consistent with the general recording
 philosophy suggested here and therefore is recommended.
 For recording of birth type, a uniform code should be used. Information
 on twin birth affects both the assessment of the dam?s and the calves?
 performances. Therefore, this information has to be available both for the
 dam and the calves. For the latter it is essential to store the ID of the
 respective identical twin, since this information is needed to set up the
 relationship matrix correctly. If growth capacity of the calf and maternal
 ability of the mother in the pre-weaning period is of interest, it is also
 essential to provide information on whether the (identical or non-identical)
 twins both stay with the mother or if they are separated in the pre-weaning
 phase (e.g. by putting one of the twins to a foster mother).
 Non-identical twins genetically are and have to be treated as full sibs. The
 zygosity status (mono- vs. dizygous twins) can only be verified based on
 blood groups or marker techniques.
 The cause of disposal is the reason, why an animal is leaving the herd. It is
 the last record of this animal in this herd, and thus it has a ?dual? function
 in contributing to life history of the animal and, in case of premature death
 of the animal, it provides information for the assessment of productivity
 and longevity of the animal and its relatives.
 3.3.2.4. Stillbirth
 3.3.2.5. Birth type
 3.3.2.6. Cause of
 disposal
23ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 The cause of disposal should be recorded as a code. A standard format
 derived from guidelines in various countries could be:
 1) died at or within 72 hours after birth (if an ID has been assigned to the
 animal; overlap with stillbirth!);
 2) was alive at 72 hours after birth but died before weaning;
 3) died after weaning;
 4) sold for breeding;
 5) sold for commercial use;
 6) slaughter or sold for slaughter within a given period (e.g. one week).
 If an animal is sold, it is essential to record the ID of the farm or commercial
 unit (trader, slaughterhouse etc.) the animal is sold to.
 This list can be extended. Additional classes can be defined to reflect the
 situation of the production system, so e.g. theft or predating may be valid
 classes in some production systems. To achieve greater specificity, different
 sets of disposal codes for pre-breeding animals and replacement animals
 may be considered.
 For the first three classes, information on the reason for disposal should
 be collected. For breeding purposes, it is essential to collect information
 on reasons for a premature disposal due to diseases or lack of performance,
 like e.g. unsuccessful mating or inseminations. However, these animals
 may be ?hidden? in any of the classes 4, 5, or 6. Hence, a separate class
 could be considered for the cows that are removed from the breeding herd
 for fertility or other reasons, like e.g. poor mothering ability.
 Using a clear disposal code forces all farmers in a breeding organisation to
 use a unique code and facilitates the processing and analysis of the data
 subsequently.
 For most recordings, it is essential to have additional information on the
 corresponding production environment of the animal, i.e. if it was kept
 under intensive or extensive conditions, in suckler herds, feed lots etc..
 The possible types of production environment are very different between
 different countries. A uniform definition of possible types of production
 environments that is applicable in all countries is strongly recommended.
 With respect to weight recording, most guidelines recommend to record
 birth weight (11) and weaning weight (13), for the latter, the suggested
 standard age is highly variable, though. Apart from this, a very high
 heterogeneity was found concerning the recommendations, which live
 animal weights should be recorded. The two most frequently recommended
 weights after weaning are the weight at the start of the test period (12 for
 3.3.2.7. Production
 environment
 3.4. Live animal
 weights
 3.4.1. Summary of the
 survey results
24
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 males) and weight at 365 days/yearling weight (9). Apart from that,
 weights at any age between 100 to 730 days are recommended in at least
 one guideline.
 Live weights are essential for the calculation of growth and related
 parameters like growth rates or food conversion rates. There are a number
 of key dates, mainly biologically determined like birth or weaning, which
 also mark the start or end of a certain period of the production system.
 The weights at these dates are essential to assess growth rate and efficiency
 of the respective steps in the production system.
 Breeding programs often have defined test periods where the performance
 of breeding candidates is assessed under comparable environmental and
 management conditions. Weighing of the animals at the beginning and
 the end of this test period is essential, additional regular (like e.g. monthly)
 weighings are a prerequisite if it is intended to modify growth curves
 genetically.
 All these recordings should be done in essentially the same way according
 to the general format for recorded data suggested in section 2.3 of this
 report. The only ?trait-specific? additional requirement is that ?time
 windows? are defined, in which e.g. the weaning weight or the yearling
 weight are to be recorded (to allow a subsequent adjustment on the exact
 age the trait is defined for).
 The following weights should be recorded for all breeding animals:
 Trait Recorded as
 Birth weight Weight
 Weaning weight Weight
 Weight at start and end of the test
 period (if applicable)
 Weight
 Yearling weight Weight
 Birth weight is the weight of an animal at birth or short time after birth. If
 birth weight is not measured directly after birth, the time between birth
 and weighing must be recorded, which is given if birth date and weighing
 date are recorded as separate dates. Birth weights measured more than
 72 hours after birth have to be corrected for the days between birth and
 weighing. Birth weight may be extremely difficult to record in large
 extensive herds, though. If birth weight is not recorded within 72 hours of
 birth the weighing should be considered as a separate weighing event
 from birthweight.
 3.4.2.
 Recommendations
 3.4.2.1. Birth weight
25ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Weaning weight is the weight of an animal taken at, or just before the
 separation from its dam. Weaning weight is essential for the assessment
 of the gain of a calf between birth and weaning and therefore provides
 information both on the maternal ability of the cow and on the growth
 potential of the calf.
 It might also be an option to suggest a weight recording at a fixed age
 prior to weaning to evaluate maternal ability with highest informativeness.
 In some production systems, weight at weaning may be too late for that,
 and an earlier measure should be used. The optimal age should be chosen
 such that the heritability for maternal ability is maximized under the
 respective production circumstances.
 Weaning weight is measured worldwide at different ages of the calf. To
 facilitate comparisons between animals, measuring weaning weight at a
 fixed age would be useful. However, this is only sensible, if weaning
 roughly takes place at a fixed age. If e.g. one calf is weaned after 180 days
 and another calf is weaned after 240 days, correction of both weaning
 weights to a standard age of 200 days may be misleading when used for
 comparisons or breeding value evaluation, since management and feeding
 conditions for these two animals would be quite different.
 For weaning weight recording it is therefore essential to record both the
 date of weighing and the date of weaning. Additional information on the
 situation, e.g. if early weaning was necessary due to certain circumstances
 or if more than one calf was suckling on the cow, have also to be recorded.
 Breeding programs often test their animals in a special period. This can be
 useful for several reasons, e.g. testing the growth rate of a possible bull or
 testing a group of progeny of a bull on testing stations. In testing animals
 over a period the weight of the animals should be recorded at least at start
 and end of the period together with the respective weighing dates. From
 this the age of the animal and the length of the testing period can be derived.
 It may be useful to record the weight of the animals in regular intervals
 during the testing period to fit regression functions to calculate adjusted
 start and end weights.
 For the comparison of animals in the post-weaning growing phase, yearling
 weight is an international standard. Different countries have defined
 different ages (between 280 and 550 days) at which the yearling weight
 should be recorded. It is recommended that yearling weight be defined as
 the weight at 365 days of age. In more extensive production system, a
 ?long yearling weight? recorded at 452 or 550 days may be preferable.
 3.4.2.2. Weaning
 weight
 3.4.2.3. Weight at start
 and end of a testing
 period
 3.4.2.4. Post weaning
 weights
26
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 As for other traits, it must be recognized that the recording schedule is
 largely depending on the production system. With seasonal production
 systems, a 14 to 15 month weight may be more appropriate, since at this
 age females have to be mustered and drafted into mating groups anyway,
 so that for practical purposes it is preferable to take weights at this point
 of time. Another criterion for the identification of the optimum weighing
 date is the informativeness, measured through the heritability of the trait,
 which should be maximized.
 In non-seasonal production systems, the time window for recording a
 weight to be adjusted to the yearling weight should be ? 6 weeks. This can
 be achieved by quarterly weighings.
 Additional weight records are optional. Records are for example regular
 weights (e.g. every 100 days), mature dam weight, live weight at slaughter
 and sales weight. Additional weight recordings should comply with the
 same standard, in that the ID of the animal and the date of weighing are
 recorded with the weight.
 Live animal assessments can be seperated in objective measurements and
 subjective scorings. For measured traits the muscular development is the
 most frequently recommended trait with 10 entries, before mature size
 (5). Apart from that a large variety of possible measurements is
 recommended in at least some guidelines, but every trait only in up to 3 of
 them, so that no uniform recommendation could be derived from the
 survey. For example fat depth is recommended to be recorded in
 6 guidelines but each of them gives a different position to measure this
 trait (rib 4, rib 10, rib 12, rib 13 ...).
 A similar situation can be found in the subjective scorings. Only one score
 is recommended in more than 10 guidelines, this is the body condition
 score, which is mentioned in 11 guidelines, followed by locomotion score
 (9) and scoring for udder (6). A large variety of additional scores are
 mentioned in the guidelines, but there is not one that is recommended in
 more than two of them.
 Besides weight records and traits derived thereof, like daily gain, the other
 major class of traits with a direct commercial impact are traits of the body
 conformation. There are, in principle, two ways to assess respective data:
 ? evaluations on live animals, either by subjective scores, or by using
 electronic devices like ultrasonic equipment;
 ? carcass evaluations, which usually are also based on a subjective
 classification although, in principle, an exact quantification (e.g. of the
 meat yield) would be feasible, though at high costs.
 3.4.2.5. Additional live
 weight records
 3.5. Live animal
 assessments
 3.5.1. Summary of the
 survey results
 3.5.2.
 Recommendations
27ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Besides quantitative traits, quality of the carcass and the meat is also
 relevant for breeding purposes. However it is difficult to define quality
 per se, since different production systems or different cultures may have a
 different idea of quality. Therefore, quality traits should reflect objective
 criteria of quality (like the fat/meat ratio), allowing a different valuation
 of the respective phenotype according to the market preferences.
 The following traits can be found in various breeding and recording
 schemes and are suggested to be considered as desirable traits to be
 recorded in beef production systems, depending however on the relevance
 of the respective trait or trait complex for the population and production
 system.
 Trait Recorded as
 Assessment of muscular development Score
 Assessment of body condition Score
 Assessment of skeletal development or
 Wither height at a given age
 Score
 Measurement
 Muscular development is one of the most important assessments to
 evaluate the carcass of live animals. As all subjective scores the record
 needs to be standardized, such that assessments of different persons or
 the same at different dates are comparable both with respect to the mean
 and the variance of the score. Muscular deveopment should be scored on
 a linear scale. There are different scales in use worldwide, ranging from 9
 scores to as many as 50 scores. It is recommended, that the scale should be
 uniform and should not have more than 10 different scores, going from
 low numbers to high numbers in combination with low muscularity to
 high muscularity (e.g.: 1 - poorly muscled, 10 - extremely muscled). Within
 one breeding scheme (i.e. usually one breed), a unique muscularity score
 has to be used. Given the breed differences in muscular development (e.g.
 Belgian Blue vs. dual purpose breeds), scales have to be breed specific.
 The ICAR beef group has issued a guideline on this trait complex.
 The body condition score (BCS) is the second most used assessment system
 worldwide. Body condition score is related to maintenance, growth,
 milking ability and many more relevant characteristics. A regular recording
 of the body condition of every animal can help to avoid errors in the
 production system, and supports the management in keeping the animals
 healthy to have high performance results. Actually, the BCS is an indicator
 for the nutrition status of the animal. It is often used for cows in suckler
 herds.
 3.5.2.1. Assessment of
 muscular
 development
 3.5.2.2. Assessment of
 body condition
28
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 Different BCS-systems are used. They all have in common, the feature that
 the condition status of an animal is described in a scoring system. The
 scoring systems for BCS presently in use have up to 15 scales. It is
 recommended, that breed specific scales with no more than 10 different
 scales should be used, assigning poor body condition to the lower part
 and good body condition to the numerically upper part of the scale. If
 BCS are to be used for breeding purposes, it is essential that within one
 breeding program the BCS reflects as objectively as possible the condition
 of the animal as it is, without taking into account environmental conditions.
 Thus, two animals with the same BCS should look very similar, even if
 they are kept under very different environmental conditions and indeed
 one of them performs relatively well under unfavourable conditions, while
 the other performs poorly in a good environment.
 Since the BCS is largely dependant on the nutritional circumstances, it is
 recommended that body condition is scored for a whole contamporary
 group to be useful for further evaluation.
 Skeletal development of an animal has finished before the muscular
 development. By estimating the skeletal development it is to a certain extent
 possible to predict the muscular development. For the skeletal
 development, bone thickness, shoulder width and other traits are
 evaluated. A linear score with no more than 10 scores for the development
 is recommended. Within a production system, a unique linear scoring has
 to be used.
 Skeletal development can also be assessed based on a measuremnent of
 wither or hip height. To allow comparisons, it is essential to take this
 measurement also at a standardised age. In five questionnaires in the
 survey, wither height at 13 months is defined as a trait. Given that yearling
 weight is suggested as desirable trait to record, it should be considered to
 assess weight and height for the same standardised age, so that animals in
 general have only to be assessed once.
 There is a long list of additional traits that can be assessed on live animals
 that are mentioned in one or several of the guidelines being reflected in
 the survey. These traits can be classified in:
 ? scores, e.g. for beef type, locomotion, leg quality, general appearance,
 udder etc. All these scores should follow the general requirements for
 subjective scores as pointed out in section 2.3 of this report;
 ? direct measurements, like mature size or pelvic size etc;
 ? ultrasonic measurements, which allow the scoring of carcass quality
 traits on the live animal. Although this type of recording was only
 mentioned in one guideline, it must be expected that this technique
 will become much more important in the near future and therefore
 requires international standardization. This should include scanning
 3.5.2.3. Assessment of
 skeletal development
 3.5.2.4. Additional
 traits assessed on live
 animals
29ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 devices that can be used, body sites, where measurements are taken,
 definition of measurements (areas, depths), additional traits like
 marbling scores etc.
 Only few guidelines recommend some carcass assessments traits. In seven
 of the 36 completed questionnaires, the carcass weight and a carcass
 classification and score are recommended to be recorded. All other possible
 traits are only rarely mentioned in no more than one guideline each.
 The ultimate objective of beef production of course is to produce high
 quality carcasses that sell for a good price. Therefore, carcass weight,
 composition and quality are essential traits to be recorded at the
 slaughterhouse. An essential prerequisite for gaining records in the
 slaughterhouse is that the ID of the live animal stays with the carcass or
 that a system is used, that facilitates the recovery of carcass data with the
 ID of the corresponding live animal.
 The following traits are recommended as desirable traits for breeding
 purposes:
 Trait Recorded as
 Carcass weight Weight
 Estimated meat yield Per cent
 Carcass classification / scoring system Score
 The weight of the carcass is an important parameter with a major impact
 on the financial return for the farmer or breeder. However, in different
 countries or parts of the world, carcasses are defined differently, i.e. there
 is no general agreement concerning which parts of the animal belong to
 the carcass and which do not. Carcass weight definition requires also a
 statement as to when the weight is measured, if it is on one or two halves,
 hot or cold carcass etc.. Direct comparisons of recorded values are only
 possible in systems where carcasses are equally defined.
 The percentage of lean meat in the carcass usually is subjectively assessed
 and also has a major impact on the market price that can be achieved. In
 countries where scoring systems like the EUROP classification are used,
 the estimated meat yield is one of the major parameters determining the
 score of the carcass. Additional records like fat and muscle depth may be
 used for a more objective quantification. Also, the kill out percentage can
 contribute to a more precise quantification of the meat yield.
 3.6. Carcass
 assessments
 3.6.1. Summary of the
 survey results
 3.6.2.
 Recommendations
 3.6.2.1. Carcass weight
 3.6.2.2. Estimated
 meat yield
30
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 The classification of the carcass represents a description of its quality in a
 meaningful code for the consumer (in this case the butcher, processing
 industry etc.). Therefore the score is not only quantitative, e.g. reflecting
 the meat content of the carcass, but should also allow the addition of
 complementary information e.g. of the fat deposition etc. The EUROP
 system is an example for such a scoring system. Together with the carcass
 score, information on the type of animal (e.g. bull, steer, cow, heifer etc.)
 has to be available, which, however, should be extractable from the life
 history data recorded.
 It must be emphasized, that carcass classification scores are not assigned
 primarily for breeding purposes, but are a part of the priceing system in
 the market and therefore have to reflect the market needs in the specific
 production system and for the respective needs of buyers in that market.
 Therefore, it is probably not possible to standardize carcass classification
 systems across countries or production system.
 In a few guidelines, other measurements on the carcass, like the weight or
 percentage of specific cuts, scores for fat quantity and distribution etc. are
 mentioned. Meat quality can be assessed on basis of a subjective score
 (including e.g. a marbling score), through taste panels, or by using technical
 devices to measure the meat colour, tenderness, intra-muscular fat,
 physiological parameters like the pH at different points of time etc.
 Recording of fertility traits is covered by a considerable number of
 guidelines, and the recommendations focus on a few key traits that are
 mentioned in the majority of the respective guidelines. 16 out of
 36 guidelines suggest to record the calving date, other important traits are
 calving ease (14), calf dead/alive (11), birth type (10) and mating/AI date
 (9). For the male fertility, scrotum circumference is mentioned in three
 guidelines.
 Eleven guidelines recommend to record the feed intake, in most cases for
 male animals on station test, but only three countries (Belgium, Ireland
 and Namibia) define this trait to be mandatory.
 Health events and sickness are suggested to be recorded in four different
 guidelines. A score for temperament is mentioned in six guidelines, mainly
 in countries with extensiv suckler production systems, like Australia, South
 Africa and USA.
 Fertility has a considerable economic impact in beef production systems,
 because reproduction is the starting point for any production process. In
 the suggested system of data recording and storage, female reproduction
 3.6.2.3. Carcass
 classification/scoring
 system
 3.6.2.4. Other carcass
 assessments
 3.7. Other
 recorded traits
 3.7.1. Summary of the
 survey results
 3.7.2. Fertility traits
31ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 should mainly be reflected in the ?life history data? section, in that all
 reproductive events, like mating or insemination, ET, calving etc. should
 be recorded there.
 Male fertility traits like scrotum circumference and sperm quality can be
 measured and recorded separately. The scrotum circumference is an
 indicator of the bull?s ability to produce sperm and the sperm quality is an
 indicator for the ability to mate successfully. These traits do not allow
 accurate predictions for fertility and have to be recorded by veterinarians
 or experienced and trained technical personnel.
 High feed intake and feed conversion ratio, for which the feed intake is
 required, is a goal in some breeding programs. It allows to produce more
 meat with limited feeding of expensive high concentrated energy food.
 Accurate measurements of feed intake is only possible in testing stations.
 If this trait shall be recorded, it is essential to conduct an analysis concerning
 the quality of the food. Parameters are the consumption of the quantity of
 dry matter per day or within a testing period.
 Healthiness of the animals is an essential prerequisite for production, and
 its genetic basis, e.g. the animals? constitution, robustness, general or
 specific disease tolerance or resistance etc. therefore is a trait complex of
 considerable economic impact. However, it is difficult to specify traits in a
 standardized form such that data quality is assured and an exchange of
 data is possible. In some countries (e.g. the Nordic countries) veterinary
 diagnoses and treatments are systematically recorded and thus available
 for breeding purposes. Other traits, such as tick counts, can be recorded
 but are restricted to certain environmental conditions and production
 systems. Another approach to consider animal health in a breeding scheme
 is to include functional longevity in the set of breeding objectives (see
 section 4.6)
 This is a trait which is of considerable relevance when it comes to the
 handling of animals in the production process. Overly aggressive animals
 may be excluded from the herds for safety reasons. Thus, temperament
 also has a considerable economic value. The relevance of the temperament
 however depends on the production system and will differ between
 populations. Temperament can only be subjectively scored, where it is
 essential to define certain ?typical? patterns of behaviour or aggressiveness
 for different scores on the scale.
 3.7.3. Feed intake
 3.7.4. Health traits
 3.7.5. Temperament
32
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 Progress in molecular genetics provides information on genes affecting a
 number of mendelian traits, most of which are genetic defects or diseases,
 but others are relevant production or breed criteria, like genes for coat
 colour or polledness etc. Also, anonymous molecular markers can be used
 to collect information on linked QTL with effects on production traits.
 Markers can also be used to carry out parentage and identity control of
 animals.
 At the time of the survey, none of the guidelines mentioned any
 recommendations with respect to molecular data. It must be expected, that
 this type of data will soon form a third class of key basic data, playing a
 major role together with pedigree and performance data. Therefore it is
 strongly suggested that a standard is developed to allow the storage and
 exchange of molecular data in a standardized way. Since the genotype of
 an animal does not change during its lifetime, these data should be linked
 to the invariable animal data described in section 2.1.
 As pointed out in chapter 2 of this report, there is a clear differentiation
 between recorded and calculated traits. To operate a breeding scheme, data
 recording (including invariable animal data, life history data and recorded
 performance data) plays the central role. From these recorded data,
 informative traits can be calculated in a very flexible way, which means
 that it is much more important to find an agreement about which data are
 to be recorded (on which animals, in which way etc.) than to specify the
 calculated traits. Of course, it is useful to find a common definition of the
 most important traits to support the international comparison and
 exchange of animals.
 In addition, calculated traits play a role in that they determine, which raw
 data of the animals have to be recorded. If, e.g., growth until weaning is
 an essential trait, it is necessary to get a record on the birth weight and the
 weaning weight together with the respective weighing dates.
 3.7.6. Molecular
 information
 4.
 Recommenda-
 tions for
 calculated
 traits
33ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Although virtually all recording guidelines in the survey name growth
 rate or average daily gain as one central parameter to be calculated, they
 differ strongly in the time periods this parameter is to be calculated for.
 The following graph shows the variety of time intervals that are mentioned
 in the different guidelines:
 age in days
 For fertility traits age of first calving (14) and average calving interval (14)
 are the most frequently recommended calculated traits. There is also a
 high heterogeneity in the calculated fertility traits. Calving ease (11),
 gestation length (7), maternal ability (6), non return rate (5) and stayability
 (5) are the traits with highest frequency in the survey.
 Efficiency traits are not often recommended. Only feed efficiency (5) and
 live calving percentage are recommended more than once.
 Live aninmal assessments and carcass assessment traits as calculated traits
 are hardly ever recommended in any of the guidelines. The only traits
 mentioned are linear scores, adjusted measurements or carcass
 conformation.
 As was mentioned in section 3.4, weights are recorded as raw weights
 together with the weighing date. If weights should be exchanged in a
 standardized form, e.g. as yearling weight, weaning weight etc., they have
 to be adjusted to the correct age.
 Growth traits are calculated from the age of animals and their live weight
 at this time, the result is usually expressed as daily gain in g per day.
 For the international exchange of data, a standardization of time intervals
 is strongly recommended. Obvious time intervals determined through the
 production system would be:
 ? birth until weaning or fixed age;
 ? weaning until slaughter;
 ? weaning until first mating for females; and
 ? daily gain in a defined test period.
 4.1. Summary of
 the survey results
 4.2. Calculated
 growth and weight
 traits
34
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 To be useful for comparative analyses, intervals should be as much
 standardized as possible, i.e. ?biological? recording dates (like ?weaning?)
 should be replaced by fixed ages (e.g. 200 day weight).
 Additional growth rates can be defined.
 For female fertility, age at first calving and the average calving interval are
 the central parameters that are mentioned in most of the guidelines taking
 part in the survey. In many beef production systems, seasonal mating and
 calving is practiced which leads to an automatic culling of cows having
 fertility problems. However, this information is essential to select bulls to
 inherit high female fertility, i.e. information on female reproduction should
 be collected to allow a progeny testing of the cows? sires. Suitable
 parameters would be the non-return rate, the conception rate, days to
 calving or straws per conception, that are mentioned in some of the
 guidelines.
 Especially in intensive systems using AI, the direct male fertility also plays
 an important role, with the paternal non-return rate (bull as sire of potential
 calf) as the parameter of interest, accompanied by other traits like scrotum
 circumfence or sperm quality traits as routinely measured for AI bulls.
 If feed consumption is measured on the test station, the feed efficiency,
 expressed as consumed food per unit of weight gain in the respective
 periods, can be calculated. In this ratio, consumption can also address dry
 matter or net energy intake, given that the food analysis data are available,
 which accounts for variation in the food quality. It is also possible to
 standardize feed efficiency e.g. for a given body weight or to use a ?net
 feed intake? corrected for growth and maintenance requirements.
 Other efficiency traits used in some countries pertain to a lifetime
 productivity (e.g. calves per cow, total production per productive year or
 lean yield per day of age).
 Based on both live animal assessments and carcass data, a large variety of
 traits can be calculated that reflect the composition of the carcass, especially
 the proportion of high priced cuts etc.. As shown in the results of the survey,
 these traits are defined specifically in each country so that they are rarely
 used across countries. Therefore no recommendations can be given as to
 which calculated traits in this area should be used on an international
 level.
 4.3. Calculated
 fertility traits
 4.4. Calculated
 efficiency traits
 4.5. Calculated
 body composition
 traits
35ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Longevity is an essential breeding goal, reflecting the ability of an animal
 to cope successfully with the environmental conditions given in the
 production system. Length of productive life of breeding animals can be
 calculated from the life history data of an animal However, the scientific
 community agrees that ?functional longevity? should be the trait of interest,
 i.e. longevity corrected for performance. In this context, culling for low
 productivity is disregarded (because performance is used as a different
 selection criterion), only culling for health problems or other non-
 production causes is taken into account. Since longevity also is a trait which
 typically is censored for the most interesting selection candidates (which
 are still alive), this trait is difficult to assess and requires complex statistical
 analyses.
 The ICAR beef recording survey ?Comparative Analysis and Synthesis of
 National Guidelines for Beef Recording? was replied by 19 countries and
 two international organisations. In total, 36 questionnaires were answered.
 The information of these questionnaires was stored in a Microsoft Access
 Database. The size of the questionnaire, 106 complex questions and tables
 on 55 pages, made the database very large and complicated. The size of
 the complete database was 18.1 Megabyte. The chapters of the survey were
 stored in several tables, because they were too large to store all the
 information in one table. This computer storage problem made the analysis
 of the survey technically very difficult and an easier tool was developed
 to make the information easier to handle. This allowed the participants
 the opportunity to control the information they have given and to check
 whether the answers in the survey are correct or not.
 For these reasons, a database access via the internet was programmed.
 This internet tool was also designed to make requests to analyse the survey.
 This data base retrieval system was the key tool for the development of
 recommendations for a general ICAR guideline. It is possible to make
 requests about each country?s questionnaire as well as about beef recording
 traits that are used worldwide.
 The programming was done with CGI-scripts written in the programming
 language PERL. This script language is free for all computer platforms
 and a standard equipment of all UNIX/Linux computers. The
 script-language works on the most widely used web-servers like the
 Apache Web Server, which also is a free program and a part of standard
 UNIX/Linux distributions.
 The database tables were transformed into simple textfiles. The CGI-scripts
 read these textfiles and recognize all data entries based on key words. The
 advantage of using simple textfiles instead of real database tables is, that
 textfiles are much smaller and require much less disk-space than the
 database files. In the present case, the text files used only 0.7 Megabytes,
 4.6. Longevity
 traits
 5. The ICAR
 beef recording
 survey
 internet
 database
36
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 which is 3.8 per cent of the total size of the access data base for the same
 data. All text files can be read in the script simultaneously which makes
 the requests much faster than accessing database files.
 The only disadvantage of this system is, that updates cannot be done per
 internet access. The updates have to be inserted into the database, from
 where the textfiles are generated again and loaded on the internet server.
 In the present project this is not a real disadvantage, because the survey
 does not have to be updated very often. After the revision by the
 participating organisations all errors should be found and only one update
 was nessecary.
 The internet datebase could be installed on a web server of the Animal
 Genetics and Breeding Unit (AGBU) at the University of New England in
 Armidale, Australia. Hans-Ulrich Graser and Bruce Tier are gratefully
 acknowledged for providing the web space and the technical support.
 The internet web-page with the database request possibility can be found
 under the following internet address:
 http://pc-howarth.une.edu.au/icar.html
 The structure of the requests follows the structure of the survey. All nine
 chapters can be found there. By clicking on a link to a chapter the page
 with the request possibilities for this chapter is loaded. There are no request
 possibilities combining variables across different chapters. The request is
 done in the same order of events for all nine chapters. At first choose a
 chapter you want information from (e.g. chapter 2: data recording and
 testing schemes). After two clicks first select the country you want
 information about (e.g. South Africa) with the left select box. Then choose
 the topic of your interest (e.g. live weights) with the right select box. Then
 press ?Result? and a window opens with all live weights measured in
 South Africa for breeding and production animals.
 The tables generated are close to the tables in the survey, so it is easy for
 the corresponding organisation to check, if the information is correct or
 not. For a new request press ?Chapter 2? again to make a new request
 within this chapter. To select a different chapter, click ?table of contents?,
 where a new chapter can be selected.
 Beside this request within the different chapters, there are three request
 possibilities called ?specials?. These requests are programmed to analyse
 the most important part of the questionnaire - the measured and calculated
 traits. In these points one can analyse, which traits are used worldwide in
 which countries, how they are defined and how often they are used in
 beef recording programmes. The traits mentioned are only traits that are
 described as mandatory traits in the respective guidelines. A lot of
 guidelines describe traits which can be measured as additional,
 non-mandatory traits, which are not included here.
37ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 To use these tables, click on the link of one of the three special topics (e.g.
 recorded data) and a new page is loaded. Then select in the left box the
 complex of traits (e.g. live weights) and in the right box the way the data
 should be presented (e.g. overview of all traits). Then press ?Result? and
 a new page is loaded with all traits of this complex, which shows an
 overview of the countries, the trait definition within the country and the
 unit of measurement. To make a new request within this complex, press
 ?Recorded traits? to go back to the selection menu, or press ?Table of
 contents? to select a new complex of traits.
 Three different lists can be selected: overview of all traits, as mentioned
 before, frequency of all traits and traits listed by countries. Within each
 request page the traits are also categorized in complexes, as used in the
 questionnaire. In these three request pages all traits, the respective
 countries, the definition, their respective frequency etc. are displayed. This
 way of accessing the stored information provides a powerful tool to make
 use of the complex information that was contained in the 36 different
 questionnaires.
 The ICAR beef group has commissioned a global survey of national
 guidelines for beef recording. The information provided by 19 countries
 and two international organisations was put in a data base which is
 accessible under the URL:
 http://pc-howarth.une.edu.au/icar.html.
 Based on the information provided by the participating countries and
 organisations, a synthesis was compiled which suggests a general structure
 of data recording in beef production and breeding systems. All
 recommendations are mainly given for the purpose of enabeling the
 international exchange of data, which is an essential prerequisite for
 international genetic evaluations. However, beef production systems are
 very variable on a global scale and recording practices and definitions of
 traits are depending on the type of production system.
 Four principle types of data are identified, i.e. invariable animal data, life
 history data, recorded data and calculated traits. It is strongly
 recommended, that all data recordings should be based on a uniform data
 format, which is suggested for the different types of data, respectively.
 For the different types of data, the most important records are discussed
 in detail. Specific recommendations are given for the trait complexes animal
 identification and tagging, identification of farms, institutions and
 personnel, traits refering to reproduction and life history, live animal
 weights, live animal assessments, and carcass assessments. Regarding
 calculated traits, recommendations are given for growth and weight traits,
 fertility and efficiency traits and for traits reflecting body composition.
 6. Summary
38
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 The development of new international guidelines for beef recording to be
 included in the ICAR set of guidelines is supposed to be built upon the
 suggestions made in the presented synthesis.
39ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Appendix
 A1. Information
 on countries
 participating in
 the survey
 A1.1. Countries
 addressed and their
 response
 Country Negative reply
 Completed
 questionnaires
 Argentina No guidelines affecting beef
 recording practices
 Australia  1
 Austria  3
 Belgium  5
 Botswana No performance recording
 no breed societies yet
 Brazil1  
Bulgaria  
Canada  
Chile Beef populations too small
 breeding organisation very small
 Columbia  
Croatia  
Cyprus No beef breeds
 Czech Republic  1
 Denmark  1
 Estonia No special guidelines yet
 European
 Community
  1
 Finland  1
 France  6
 Germany  1
 Greece  
Hungary  
India  
Ireland  1
 Israel  
Italy  4
 Japan  
Korea  
Latvia  
Lithuania  
Luxembourg Data recording and calculation:
 program Bovins
 Croissance/France applies
 herdbook activities according
 regulations from the main
 breeding region
 Mexico  
Namibia  2
 New Zealand No general regulations or
 guidelines
 Breedplan/Australia applies
 Norway Scheme too small and too new
 Poland Number beef cattle is too small
 and activities too young
 To be continued...
40
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 Country Negative reply
 Completed
 questionnaires
 Portugal  
Romania  
Russia  
Slovak Republic activities too young,
 no guidelines yet
 South Africa  2
 Spain  2
 Sweden  1
 Switzerland  1
 The Netherlands  1
 Tunesia  
United Kindom  1
 USA  1
 Zimbabwe  
1 Countries printed in italics never responded to the inquiry.
 A1.2. Trait complexes
 mentioned by
 guidelines in the
 different participating
 countries
 Fertility
 traits
 Growth
 traits
 Carcass
 assessments
 Meat
 quality
 Austria x x x
 Australia x x x x
 Belgium x
 Czech Republic x x
 Germany x x x
 Denmark x x x x
 European
 Community
 x x
 Finland x x x
 France x x x x
 Ireland x x
 Italy x x
 Namibia x x
 The Netherlands
 Spain x x
 South Africa x x x x
 Sweden x x x
 Switzerland
 United Kingdom x
 USA x x x x
 ....To be continued
41ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 A2. Tables on the
 frequency of
 recorded traits
 mentioned in the
 guidelines
 A2.1. Traits ?start to
 end?
 Trait Number of
 questionnaires
 Calving ease code 13
 Date of birth of the animal 20
 Date of disposal (e.g. Date of slaughter) 16
 Date of weighing at start and end of the test
 period (e.g. Progeny station test)
 10
 Disposal code / cause of disposal 9
 ET yes or no 9
 Birth type code (e.g. Single, twin) 14
 Mating date or insemination service date of
 mother
 12
 Mating type (e.g. Ai, natural mating) 14
 Sex of the calf 20
 Dates of start and end of each production period
 (e.g. Feed lot)
 4
 Father 1
 Fostered yes or no 10
 Paticulars of the calf 1
 Twin with heifer or with bull 1
 A2.2. Live weight
 traits
 Trait Number of questionnaires
 Birth weight 12
 Weaning weight 13
 Weight at start and end of the test
 period
 12
 Weight with
 365 days/12,0 months/yearling weight
 9
 Each 90 days / 3 months 3
 Weight at start and end of each
 production period
 4
 2 records at least each year 1
 Each 180 days/6 months 1
 Each 30 days/1 month 1
 Each 60 days/2 months 1
 Live weight at slaughter 1
 Sales weight 1
 Weight at scanning 3
 Weight with 112 days/3,7 months 1
 Weight with 200 days/6,6 months 1
 Weight with 400 days/13,3 months 1
 Weight with 420 days/14,0 months 1
 Weight with 540 days/18,0 months 1
42
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 A2.3. Recorded traits
 from live animal
 assessments
 Trait
 Number of
 questionnaires
 Linear scoring for muscular development 10
 Body condition score 11
 Linear scoring for skeletal development 5
 Wither height at 13 months 5
 Scoring for leg 4
 VOS system 3
 Hind hock length of the calf 3
 Locomotion score 3
 Mature size (height) 3
 Scoring for feet 3
 Pelvic area 2
 Scoring for beef type 2
 Coat colour 1
 Eye muscle area at last rib 1
 Fat depth at rib 10 1
 Fat depth at rib 12 / 13 1
 Fat depth at rib 13 1
 Fat depth at rib 4 1
 Intra-muscular fat percent (marbling) 1
 Scoring for breed quality 1
 Scoring for fattening status 1
 Scoring for functional abilities 1
 Scoring for general appearence 1
 Scoring for temperament 1
 Scoring for udder 1
 Suckling ability 1
 Vitality 1
43ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 Trait
 Number of
 questionnaires
 Feed intake 4
 Fertility traits and maternal ability
 Calving ease code 14
 Cow weight at birth of calf/weight
 after calving
 3
 Cow weight at weaning of calf 3
 Scrotum circumference 4
 Sperm quality traits 2
 Production environment
 Contemporaries 6
 Grouping of animals 10
 Health events, sickness 5
 Production system (e.g. Extensive
 suckler herd, feed lot)
 7
 Season 3
 Management group 5
 Carcass assessments
 Estimated meat yield 1
 Carcass classification/scoring system 7
 Carcass weight 7
 Estimated yield % 1
 Meat colour 2
 Fat colour 1
 A2.4 Other recorded
 traits
44
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 A3. Tables on the
 frequency of
 calculated traits
 mentioned in the
 guidelines
 A3.1. Growth traits
 Trait Number of questionnaires
 Growth rate 17
 Average daily gain 9
 Weight gain 3
 210 days weight 1
 Birth weight within 4 days after
 birth
 1
 Carcase gain 1
 Cow weight gain/loss - claving -
 weaning
 1
 Growth rate 1
 Live weight at end of test 1
 Weight at 200d 1
 Weight at 400 days 1
 Weight at end of test 1
 Weight at start of test 1
 Weight at typical age 1
 Weight for age 200 days 1
 Weight for age 365 days 1
 Weight gain during adaption
 period
 1
 Yearling weight 1
 A3.2. Fertility traits
 and maternal ability
 Trait Number of questionnaires
 Age at first calving 14
 Average calving interval 14
 Calving ease 11
 Gestation length 7
 Maternal ability 6
 Non return rate 5
 Stayability 5
 Conception rate 4
 Days to calving 4
 Milk production ability 3
 Number of calves 3
 %calves born alive 1
 Adjusted scrotal circumference 1
 Age at last calving 1
 Calving first interval 1
 Days open 1
 Days since last calving 1
 Last calving interval 1
 Non return rate ai-bulls 1
 Non-return-rate 1
 Reproduction index 1
45ICAR Technical Series - No 6
 A3.3. Efficiency traits
 and herd or sample
 performance
 Trait
 Number of
 questionnaires
 Feed efficiency 5
 Cow efficiency 1
 Kleiber ratio 1
 Standardized feed intake 1
 Total production per productive year 1
 Live calving percent 4
 Number of cows exposed 1
 Percent palpated pregnant 1
 Weaning percent 1
 A3.4. Live animal
 assessment traits
 Trait Number of questionnaires
 Muscular development 2
 Note 1
 Adjusted body length 1
 Adjusted shoulder height 1
 Avaerage score per category 1
 Beef type note 1
 Breed quality 1
 Final points over 100 1
 Frame score 1
 Functional abilities 1
 Functional ability 1
 Linear muscle score 1
 Linear scoring breed character 1
 Linear scoring legs+feet 1
 Linear scoring muscularity 1
 Muscular note 1
 Partial note for beef type over 100 1
 Partial note for legs, over 100 1
 Partial note for muscular
 development over 100
 1
 Partial note for height over 100 1
 Size note 1
 Stand note 1
 Ultrasound 1
 Weights 1
46
 Survey of beef recording guidelines
 A3.5. Carcass
 assessment traits
 Trait Number of questionnaires
 Carcass conformation 2
 Carcass weight 2
 %yield 1
 Euro conformation 1
 Euro fat 1
 Bone% (prime rib cut) 1
 Carcass conformation europ 1
 Carcass fat grade 1
 Carcass fatness 1
 Carcass meat color 1
 Carcass weight/carcass length ratio 1
 Carcass yield 1
 Compacity of carcass 1
 Eye muscle area/100 kg cracass
 weight
 1
 Fat 1
 Fat % (in prime rib cut) 1
 Internal fat 1
 Kidney and channel fat 1
 Kill out % 1
 Lean meat percentage 1
 Lean yield per day of age 1
 Muscle% (prime rib cut) 1
 Net daily gain 1
 Net gain 1
 Value index 1
 Yield 1
 Marbling 1
 Meat color 1