RESUMO
The improvement of carcass traits is an important breeding objective in beef cattle breeding programs. The most common way of selecting for improvement in carcass traits is via indirect selection using ultrasound scanning of selection candidates which are submitted to genetic evaluation programs. Two systems used to analyze ultrasound images to predict carcass traits are the Pie Medical Esaote Aquila (PIE) and Central Ultrasound Processing (CUP). This study compared the ability of the two systems to predict carcass traits for genetic evaluation in Australian Angus cattle. Genetic and phenotypic parameters were estimated using data from 1,648 Angus steers which were ultrasound scanned twice with both systems, first at feedlot entry and then following 100 d in the feedlot. The traits interpreted from ultrasound scanning included eye muscle area (EMA), rib fat (RIB) rump fat (RUMP), and intramuscular fat (IMF). Abattoir carcass data were collected on all steers following the full feedlot feeding period of 285 d. For all ultrasound scan traits, CUP resulted in higher phenotypic and genetic variances compared to the PIE. For IMF, CUP had higher heritability at feedlot intake (0.51 for CUP compared to 0.37 for PIE) and after 100 d feeding (0.54 for CUP compared to 0.45 PIE). CUP predicted IMF also tended to have stronger correlations with the breeding objective traits of carcass IMF and marbling traits, both genetically (ranging from 0.59 to 0.75 for CUP compared to 0.45-0.63 for PIE) and phenotypically (ranging from 0.27 to 0.43 for CUP compared to 0.19-0.28 for PIE). Ultrasound scan EMA was the only group of traits in which the heritabilities were higher for PIE (0.52 for PIE compared to 0.40 for CUP at feedlot intake and 0.46 for PIE compared to 0.43 for CUP at 100 d of feeding), however with similar relationships to the breeding objective carcass EMA observed. For subcutaneous fat traits of ultrasound RIB and RUMP, the heritabilites and genetic correlations to the related carcass traits were similar, with the exception being the higher heritability observed for CUP predicted RUMP at feedlot intake at 0.52 compared to 0.38 for PIE. The results from this study indicates that the CUP system, compared to PIE, provides an advantage for genetic evaluation of carcass traits in Angus cattle, particularly for the IMF and associated marbling traits.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The self-management of type 1 diabetes (T1DM) has moved forward in many areas over the last 40 years. Our study asked people with T1DM what is their experience of blood glucose (BG) monitoring day to day and how this influences decisions about insulin dosing. METHODS: An on-line self-reported questionnaire containing 44 questions prepared after consultation with clinicians and patients was circulated to people with T1DM 116 responders provided completed responses. Fixed responses were allocated specific values (e.g. not confident = 0 fairly confident = 1). Multivariate regression analysis was carried out. Only those 5 factors with p-value <0.05 were retained. RESULTS: 59% of respondents were >50 years old and 66% had diabetes for >20 years, with 63% of patients reporting HbA1c results ≤8% or 64 mmol/mol. Findings included; 75% used only 1 m; 56% had used the same meter for ≥3 years; 10% had tried flash monitors; 47% were concerned about current BG level; 85% were concerned about long-term impact of higher BG. 72% of respondents keep BG level high to avoid hypoglycaemia; 25% used ≥7 mmol/L as pre-meal BG target to calculate dose; 65% were concerned they might be over/under-dosing; 83% did not discuss accuracy when choosing meter. However 85% were confident in their meter's performance. The factors that linked to LOWER HbA1c included LESS units of basal insulin (p < 0.001), HIGHER number of daily BG tests (p = 0.008), LOWER bedtime blood glucose (p = 0.009), HIGHER patient's concern over long-term impact of high BG (BG) (p < 0.009 but LOWER patient's concern over current BG values (p = 0.009). The final statistical model could explain 41% of the observed variation in HbA1c. CONCLUSION: Many people still run their BG high to avoid hypoglycaemia. Concern about the longer-term consequences of suboptimal glycaemic control was associated with a lower HbA1c and is an area to explore in the future when considering how to help people with T1DM.