Transcript ROLE OF COMPOSITES IN FUTURE BEEF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Harlan Ritchie Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824

ROLE OF COMPOSITES IN
FUTURE BEEF
PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Harlan Ritchie
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
CROSSBREEDING
REASONS FOR CROSSBREEDING
 Breed
complementarity
- Matching cattle to the production
environment
- Matching cattle to market specifications
 Heterosis
(hybrid vigor)
“The challenge is this: How can I
build a good cow herd, a good factory,
that is reproductively efficient in my
environment and still make good
carcasses out of that factory?”
Kent Andersen
COW PHOTO
IN ARIZONA DESERT
PHOTO OF COWS
IN FLORIDA
EXAMPLES OF MATCHING BREEDTYPES
TO MARKET TARGETS
Up-scale restaurants & export, Mid Choice
and higher:
 British
X British
 3/4 British x 1/4 Continental
Retail supermarkets & mid-scale
restaurants, High Select to Low Choice:
 1/2
British X 1/2 Continental
Extra lean market, Select grade:
 3/4
Continental X 1/4 British
 Continental X Continental
BIOECONOMIC TRAITS
IN U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY












Fertility (male & female)
Libido in males
Calving ease
Calf vigor/survival
Optimum milking ability for environment
Early growth, birth to market
Feed conversion efficiency
Optimum size for environment and marketplace
Optimum maintenance requirements
Heat tolerance
Cold tolerance
Overall efficiency within a given production environment
(climate & feed resources)
BIOECONOMIC TRAITS
IN U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY

Longevity/stayability

Sound functional traits (skeleton, udder, eyes, etc.)

Pigment around eyes and udder.

Reasonable temperament

Muscling/leanness

Tenderness

Marbling for juiciness & flavor

Optimum size of retail cuts

Solid color pattern

Polled

Others ?
TRAITS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE
BY INDUSTRY SEGMENT

Cow herd segment
Reproduction
 Growth
 Minimum maintenance cows


Feeding segment
Health of incoming cattle
 Growth
 Feed conversion


Packer/retailer/consumer segment
Lean yield
 Size of cuts
 Eating quality

“In the future, there must be no
‘surprise packages’. Every
steak, chop and burger must be
nearly identical to the last one
the consumer bought.”
- A meat wholesaler
at the IGA Meat Seminar
SOLVING THE CONSISTENCY PROBLEM
Can lack of consistency/uniformity be
solved by straightbreeding?
Yes,
if color is the only consistency issue.
Otherwise,
Hybrid
The
no!
vigor is too important to give up
“Holstein” of the beef industry has not been
found
VALUE OF HETEROSIS IN VARIOUS
CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS
Crossbreeding system
Purebred
Two-breed rotation
Three-breed rotation
Terminal sire x Fl cows
Rotate bull breed every 4 yrs.:
Two-breed
Three breed
Three-breed composite
Four-breed composite
Rotate Fl bulls (AB
AB)
a
% increase in lb Lb increase
calf weaned per
per cow
cow exposed
exposed
Added
value ($)a
0
16%
20%
25%
0
72 lb
90 lb
113 lb
0
$64.77
$79.83
$98.41
12%
16%
15%
17%
12%
54 lb
72 lb
68 lb
76 lb
54 lb
$49.26
$64.77
$61.36
$68.16
$49.26
Assuming value of 450-lb base calf wt. weaned/cow exp. @ $95 and
$7/cwt price slide.
SOME PROBLEMS IN ROTATIONAL
CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS
Cumbersome in small herds.
 Too many biological types of cows in the herd.
 Too many biological types of progeny.
 Mismatches between biological type and the
production environment (feed, climate, etc.)
 Mismatches between biological type and market
requirements.
 Management is difficult in intensive rotational
grazing systems.

THE
COMPOSITE
CONCEPT
PHOTO OF KEITH GREGORY
PHOTO OF COMPOSITE
BREEDS BOOK COVER
PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
HETEROSIS AMONG VARIOUS CROSSBREEDING
SYSTEMS
Pure breeds
2-breed rotation
3-breed rotation
F1 cow and term. sire
2-breed composite
3-breed composite
4-breed composite
Rotating F1 bulls:
AB  AB
AB  AD
AB  CD
% of maximum
possible
heterosis
0
67
86
100
50
63
75
50
67
83
% increase in
lb calf weaned/
cow exposed
0
16
20
23
12
15
17
12
16
19
MARC COMPOSITE POPULATIONS
MARC I (75:25 Continental: British)
1/4 Charolais, 1/4 Limousin,
1/4 Braunvieh, 1/8 Hereford, 1/8 Angus
MARC II (50:50 Continental: British)
1/4 Gelbvieh, 1/4 Simmental,
1/4 Hereford, 1/4 Angus
MARC III (25:70 Continental: British)
1/4 Pinzgauer, 1/4 Simmental,
1/4 Hereford, 1/4 Angus
PHOTO OF MARC I STEERS
PHOTO OF MARC II STEERS
PHOTO OF MARC III STEERS
RETAINED HETEROSIS
IN COMPOSITES a
Trait
Birth wt (males), lb
200-day wt (males), lb
368-day wt (males), lb
Age at puberty (females), days
Scrotal circumference, cm
Pregnancy rate, %
Calves born, %
Calves weaned, %
200-d wt./cow exposed, lb
aF
2,
F3, and F4 generations.
**p<.01.
Composites
minus
Purebreds
5.1**
33.7**
59.8**
-17**
1.1**
4.1**
3.8**
4.4**
50**
Expected
difference
2.5
33.3
48.3
-16
1.0
4.6
5.0
5.4
46
RETAINED HETEROSIS
IN COMPOSITESa
Trait
Final slaughter wt., lb
Avg. daily gain, lb
Carcass wt., lb
Dressing percentage, %
Fat thickness, in.
Ribeye area, sq. in.
KPH fat, %
Marbling score
aF generation progeny.
3
** p< .01.
Composites
minus
Purebreds
50.3**
0.6**
32.6**
.17
.02
.48**
.30**
.05
RETAINED HETEROSIS
IN COMPOSITESa
Trait
Retail product %
Retail product, lb
Fat trim, %
Fat trim, lb
Chemical fat in 9-11 rib cut
Shear force, lb
Sensory tenderness score
aF generation progeny.
3
** p< .01.
Composites
minus
Purebreds
-.97**
13.7**
1.28**
16.5**
1.23**
.09
-.02
RETAINED HETEROSIS
IN COMPOSITES
Composites
minus
Trait
Purebreds
Cow wt. (2-7 yr. or more), lb
42**
Cow condition score
.3*
Cow wt. adj. for condition score, lb
30**
200-day milk yield, lb
574**
200-day wt. of calves, lb
34**
200-day wt. of calves adj. for milk
14*
* p <.05.
** p <.01.
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
(CV) FOR GROWTH AND CARCASS TRAITS OF
STEERS
Trait
Purebreds
Composites
CV a,b
Birth wt.
200-day wean. wt.
438-day slaughter wt.
Ribeye area
% of fat trim
% bone
% retail product
Shear force
aCV=Standard
b
.12
.12
.08
.10
.19
.07
.04
.22
Deviation divided by Mean.
Values not statistically different.
.13
.11
.08
.10
.20
.07
.06
.21
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
(CV) FOR PRODUCTION
TRAITS OF FEMALES
Trait
Purebreds
Composites
CV a,b
Gestation length
.01
Birth wt.
.11
Preweaning ADG
.09
Weight, 1 yr.
.08
Weight, 2 yr.
.07
Weight, 3 yr.
.08
Weight, 4 yr.
.08
Weight, 5 yr.
.03
Puberty age
.08
aCV=Standard Deviation divided by Mean.
b Values not statistically different.
.01
.12
.09
.08
.08
.08
.08
.03
.07
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION
(CV) FOR PRODUCTION TRAITS OF BULLS
Trait
Purebreds
Composites
CV a,b
Gestation length
Birth wt.
Preweaning ADG
200-day wean. wt.
Postweaning ADG
368-day wt.
368-day ht.
368-day scrotal circ.
aCV=Standard
b
.01
.11
.10
.09
.11
.08
.03
.07
Deviation divided by Mean.
Values not statistically different.
.01
.12
.11
.09
.11
.08
.03
.07
VARIATION IN COMPOSITES
VS. PUREBREDSa




Estimates of genetic standard deviations and phenotypic
coefficients of variation were similar for parental purebreds
and composite populations for most traits.
Estimates of heritability were similar for purebreds and
composites. Thus, no increase in genetic variation was
observed in composites.
The similarity of genetic variation for composites and
purebreds is believed to result from the large number of
genes affecting major quantitative traits.
Therefore, composite populations have a relatively high
degree of uniformity for quantitative traits both within and
between generations.
aGregory
et al. (1999)
MAJOR CONCLUSIONS FROM
MARC COMPOSITE STUDYa




Composite breeds provide a simple means to use high levels of
heterosis.
Composites are a highly effective way to use breed differences
(complementarity) to achieve and maintain optimum breed
composition for production and carcass traits.
Composites have similar uniformity for production and carcass
traits both within and between generations.
Composites offer herds of any size an opportunity to
simultaneously use high levels of heterosis and breed
complementarity.
aGregory
et al. (1999).
COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT
Selecting the parent breeds:
 Critical
step
 Define how composite will be used
 Exploit breed differences
(complementarity)
 Pay special attention to lowly heritable
traits and/or traits hard to measure
(e.g., temperament, structural traits, etc.)
CARCASS TRAITS OF TWO PUREBRED BRITISH BREEDS AND
SIX PUREBRED CONTINENTAL BREEDS HARVESTED AT 438
DAYS OF AGE a
Trait
Harvest wt., lb
Carcass wt., lb
Adj. Fat thickness, in
Ribeye area, sq in
Marbling score
% Choice or higher
% retail product
Shear force, lb
Tenderness score
a
Avg. of Angus
and Hereford
1127
686
.46
10.54
5.31
68.5
60.8
10.54
5.32
Avg. of six
Continental breeds
1236*
748*
.16*
12.82*
4.75*
30.6*
68.9*
11.61*
4.95*
Summary of 1,066 steer progeny in U.S. MARC GPU Study (Gregory et al.,
1999).
* Statistically significant difference (P < .05).
COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT
 Sample
widely within the breeds so as
to avoid inbreeding and maintain
heterosis
 Select
the best foundation animals
possible within the lines
COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT
Avoid inbreeding and maintain
heterosis:
 Have large herd (500 + cows), or
 Cooperate with other composite
breeders, or
 Reconstitute the composite from time
to time (open herd)
HYBRID BULLS
Hybrid bulls may be the way to exploit the
composite concept:
 Simplicity
 Rotate unrelated F1 bulls
Percentages of retained heterosis:
 AB  AB = 50%
 AB  AD = 67%
 AB  CD = 83%
HYBRID BULLS
Compared to purebred bulls:
 Slightly earlier puberty (2 to 5%)
 Higher sperm concentration and motility
 Slightly higher pregnancy rates (0.2 to 3.7%)
No differences in standard deviations of
traits of progeny sired by either hybrid or
purebred bulls.
SUMMARY OF THE
COMPOSITE CONCEPT
Composites can offer:
 Simplicity
 Breed complementarity so as to match bioeconomic
traits with the environment and with market
requirements
 Heterosis, if inbreeding is avoided
 Can help avoid genetic antagonisms
 Uniformity from generations to generation
Variation in quantitative traits is no greater
in composites than in straight-breds
SUMMARY OF THE
COMPOSITE CONCEPT
Potential Challenges:

Variation in qualitative traits (color, horns, etc.)
Perception of large variation in quantitative traits
Sources of unrelated seedstock so as to avoid
inbreeding
Use of inferior parent stock
Marketing the concept
Adequate data base to generate EPDs

Other?





WHAT CAN WE LEARN
FROM THE PORK
INDUSTRY?
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN
THE PORK INDUSTRY




Over 40% of the nation’s hogs are marketed by operations
producing over 50,000 hogs per year.
The 50 largest pork producers market 50% of the nation’s
hogs.
Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest producer and packer,
produces 14% of the nation’s hogs, which represents 70% of
it’s slaughter capacity.
In 1991, the top six pork packers had 49% of total slaughter
capacity. Today they have 75% of total slaughter capacity.
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN
THE PORK INDUSTRY

In 1993, only 11% of all hogs were sold on some type of prearranged,
marketing contract with packers.

Today, 74% of all hogs are marketed under some form of contract
agreement.

This indicates the odds are high that the pork industry will be
vertically coordinated, within the decade.

The probability that pork will become totally vertically integrated like
the poultry industry, from hatchery through processor, is not high, but
a lot depends on the success of Smithfield Foods, which is 70%
vertically integrated and produces one-seventh of U.S. hogs.
SOURCE: Glenn Grimes, Univ. of Missouri.
PHOTO OF JOE LUTER,
CEO,
SMITHFIELD FOODS
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN
THE PORK INDUSTRY

The key for the survival of independent hog producers is to find ways to
become interdependent.

The industry needs to come up with methods for its various sectors to
share profits so that independent producers can be rewarded if they
generate the right kind of hogs, and allow packers and further
processors to be profitable as well.
SOURCE: Steve Meyers, NPPC.
SWINE BREEDING SYSTEMS

Commercial use of A.I. has grown from 15% in 1990 to approximately
70% today:
- Over 90% of sows in the 50 largest operations are bred A.I.

Genetic Companies dominate the seedstock market, providing about
70% of today’s commercial genetics:
- Over 95% of the genetics in the 50 largest commercial
operations is provided by companies.

Independent breeders provide the remaining 30% of commercial
genetics:
- Ten to twenty breeders account for much of this.
- Most of the rest of the independent breeders service the club pig
industry.
PHOTO OF LEAN VALUE
ADVERTISMENT
WHY ARE THE GENETIC
COMPANIES DOMINANT?



They make full use of within-breed selection, breed differences
(complementarity), hybrid vigor, and DNA technology.
They have been successful in combining reproduction, growth, and carcass
traits into well-designed breeding programs for the commercial industry.
They are full-service oriented, offering assistance in:
- Nutrition
- Herd Health
- Total Quality Management (TQM)
- Marketing and Risk Management
- Record Systems
- New Technology Updates
INDEPENDENT SWINE
BREEDERS
The few independent breeders that are still
marketing to significant numbers of commercial
producers have become “full-service seedstock
providers.”
 They generally supply more than one breed, often
three or four breeds.
 They sell semen as well as boars.
 They maintain a staff of sales and service
representatives.

PHOTO OF WALDO FARMS AD
PARTIAL LIST OF SWINE
GENETICS COMPANIES
PIC (Pig Improvement Company) - UK
 DeKalb Choice Genetics - USA (Monsanto)
 NPD (Northern Pig Development) - UK/USA
(Smithfield Foods)
 Cotswold - UK
 Babcock Swine - USA
 GenetiPorc - Canada
 Seghers - Belgium
 Newsham Hybrids - UK
 Danbred - Denmark

SWINE GENETIC COMPANIES
 Several
companies are global and provide
genetics for widely diverse environments.
Genetic lines are specifically designed for their
targeted environments.
 Traditional
rotational crossbreeding systems
and rotational boar lines are being phased out
by companies; too inefficient. Economics are
dictating the move to terminal breeding
systems.
PHOTO OF TERMINAL
COMPOSITE BOAR
AND MATERNAL
COMPOSITE SOW
PIC TERMINAL BOARS
FOR COMMERCIAL USE
PIC 280 = L15 (Purebred Duroc)
PIC 327MQ = L27 (Nearly straight Hampshire; RN
gene removed)
PIC 337 = L65 (Approx. 1/2 Duroc, 1/4 LW, 1/4
Pietrain)
PIC 356 = L65 x L27
PIC 366 = L65 x (L62 [Pietrain] x L27)
PIC 367 = L65 x (L65 x L27)
PHOTO OF PIETRAIN BOAR
PHOTO OF PIETRAIN
CARCASS
EXAMPLE OF PORK PRODUCTION,
USING PIC GENETICS
Great Grandparent Matings
L2 X L2 (Pure Line Landrace)
L3 X L3 (Pure Line Large White)
Grandparent Matings
L2 X L3 = L42 Gilt
Parent Matings
L19 Boar (3/4 Duroc, 1/4 LW) x L42 Gilt = C22 Gilt
(Camborough Gilt)
Commercial Matings
Terminal Boar x C22 Gilt = Market Progeny
TRENDS IN SWINE SELECTION



Strong selection pressure on % lean from mid-1980’s to now.
Currently, pork is about as lean as it needs to be.
Pork lost meat quality in its guest for leanness. Now emphasis
is on improving water holding capacity, color, and firmness:
- A 24-hr. postmortem pH no lower than 5.5 for
adequate color.
- Minolta color lightness score of less than 50 for adequate
color.
- Genetic companies are including these traits in their
selection indexes.
Because of it’s impact on throughput in finishing houses,
growth rate will receive increasing emphasis.
LEAN MEAT WITH ABOVE-AVERAGE
EATING QUALITY
“The key to future competitiveness
and profitability in the swine
industry is the efficient production
of lean pork products with aboveaverage eating quality.”
Tom Baas
Iowa State University
PHOTO OF PIC BOARS BRED
FOR HIGHER MEAT QUALITY
PHOTO OF NATIONAL SWINE
REGISTRY SIRE SUMMARY
EPD’s IN NATIONAL
SWINE EVALUATION





Number of pigs born alive.
Litter wt. at weaning, adjusted to 21 days of
age.
Days to reach 250 lb. live wt.
Backfat thickness, adjusted to 250 lb. live wt.
Pounds of fat-free lean, adjusted to
185 lb. carcass wt.
ECONOMIC INDEXES IN
NATIONAL SWINE EVALUATION
 Terminal
Sire Index (TSI): Ranks sires for use in a
terminal sire breeding system.
 Sow Productivity Index (SPI): Ranks individuals for
maternal traits only.
 Maternal Line Index: A general purpose index that
combines EPDs for all maternal and terminal traits.
PHOTO OF OTHER SWINE
REGISTRY MAGAZINE
PHOTO OF AMERICAN
BERKSHIRE GOLD
BRANDED PORK
ADAPTING TO A
CHANGING BEEF
INDUSTRY
GLOBAL BEEF PRODUCTION
IN THE FUTURE

The beef industry will adopt breeding systems
somewhat similar to the pork industry.

The commercial industry will talk about lines of
genetics (e.g., L125) rather than specific breeds such
as Angus or Hereford.

These lines will be based on complementary genetic
mixes that are composites of pure breeds.

Pure breeds will still be necessary to support these
commercial lines.
SOURCE: Ben Ball, Elders Limited
GLOBAL BEEF PRODUCTION
IN THE FUTURE

No longer will one product be marketed 6 or 7
times before it is consumed. It will be marketed
once.

But it will be marketed through a strong alliance
between the genetics provider (the most critical
stage), through the various other stages, to the
final retail outlet.

The real keys to the industry will lie at each end of
the chain: genetics and the customers.
SOURCE: Ben Ball, Elders Limited
CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES
FOR BREED
ASSOCIATIONS
ADAPTING TO A
CHANGING INDUSTRY
 Assist
breeders in the evolving process of
becoming full-service genetic providers.
 Assist
breeders that have common objectives in
development of coordinated marketing
programs.
 Develop
systematic programs for producing,
recording, and marketing hybrid seedstock.
COMPOSITE BREEDING
The proliferation of composite breeding
is not a matter of if, but when. If not
now, when?
It seems clear. The science is sound.
The evidence is compelling. The time
is now. Let’s move ahead!