ROLE OF COMPOSITES IN FUTURE BEEF PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

1

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

2

• CROSSBREEDING

3
REASONS FOR CROSSBREEDING

• Breed complementarity
• - Matching cattle to the production
  environment
• - Matching cattle to market specifications
• Heterosis (hybrid vigor)

4
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

5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7

• COW PHOTO
• IN ARIZONA DESERT

8

• PHOTO OF COWS
• IN FLORIDA

9
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

10
BIOECONOMIC TRAITSIN 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)

11
BIOECONOMIC TRAITSIN 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 ?

12
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

13

• 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

14
SOLVING THE CONSISTENCY PROBLEM

• Can lack of consistency/uniformity be solved by
  straightbreeding?
• Yes, if color is the only consistency issue.
• Otherwise, no!
• Hybrid vigor is too important to give up
• The Holstein of the beef industry has not been
  found

15
VALUE OF HETEROSIS IN VARIOUS CROSSBREEDING
SYSTEMS
16
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.

17

• THE
• COMPOSITE
• CONCEPT

18

• PHOTO OF KEITH GREGORY

19

• PHOTO OF COMPOSITE BREEDS BOOK COVER

20
PERCENTAGE OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE HETEROSIS AMONG
VARIOUS CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS

• of maximum increase in
• possible lb calf weaned/
• heterosis cow exposed
• Pure breeds 0 0
• 2-breed rotation 67 16
• 3-breed rotation 86 20
• F1 cow and term. sire 100 23
• 2-breed composite 50 12
• 3-breed composite 63 15
• 4-breed composite 75 17
• Rotating F1 bulls
• AB ? AB 50 12
• AB ? AD 67 16
• AB ? CD 83 19

21
MARC COMPOSITE POPULATIONS

• MARC I (7525 Continental British)
• 1/4 Charolais, 1/4 Limousin,
• 1/4 Braunvieh, 1/8 Hereford, 1/8 Angus
• MARC II (5050 Continental British)
• 1/4 Gelbvieh, 1/4 Simmental,
• 1/4 Hereford, 1/4 Angus
• MARC III (2570 Continental British)
• 1/4 Pinzgauer, 1/4 Simmental,
• 1/4 Hereford, 1/4 Angus

22

• PHOTO OF MARC I STEERS

23

• PHOTO OF MARC II STEERS

24

• PHOTO OF MARC III STEERS

25
RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITES a

• Composites
• minus
  Expected
• Trait Purebreds
  difference
• Birth wt (males), lb 5.1 2.5
• 200-day wt (males), lb 33.7 33.3
• 368-day wt (males), lb 59.8 48.3
• Age at puberty (females), days -17 -16
• Scrotal circumference, cm 1.1 1.0
• Pregnancy rate, 4.1 4.6
• Calves born, 3.8 5.0
• Calves weaned, 4.4 5.4
• 200-d wt./cow exposed, lb 50 46
• a F2, F3, and F4 generations.
• plt.01.

26
RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITESa

• Composites
• minus
• Trait Purebreds
• Final slaughter wt., lb 50.3
• Avg. daily gain, lb 0.6
• Carcass wt., lb 32.6
• Dressing percentage, .17
• Fat thickness, in. .02
• Ribeye area, sq. in. .48
• KPH fat, .30
• Marbling score .05
• aF3 generation progeny.
• plt .01.

27
RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITESa

• Composites
• minus
• Trait Purebreds
• Retail product -.97
• Retail product, lb 13.7
• Fat trim, 1.28
• Fat trim, lb 16.5
• Chemical fat in 9-11 rib cut 1.23
• Shear force, lb .09
• Sensory tenderness score -.02
• aF3 generation progeny.
• plt .01.

28
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 lt.05.
• p lt.01.

29
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (CV) FOR
GROWTH AND CARCASS TRAITS OF STEERS

• Trait Purebreds Composites
• CV a,b
• Birth wt. .12 .13
• 200-day wean. wt. .12 .11
• 438-day slaughter wt. .08 .08
• Ribeye area .10 .10
• of fat trim .19 .20
• bone .07 .07
• retail product .04 .06
• Shear force .22 .21
• aCVStandard Deviation divided by Mean.
• b Values not statistically different.

30
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (CV) FOR
PRODUCTION TRAITS OF FEMALES

• Trait Purebreds Composites
• CV a,b
• Gestation length .01 .01
• Birth wt. .11 .12
• Preweaning ADG .09 .09
• Weight, 1 yr. .08 .08
• Weight, 2 yr. .07 .08
• Weight, 3 yr. .08 .08
• Weight, 4 yr. .08 .08
• Weight, 5 yr. .03 .03
• Puberty age .08 .07
• aCVStandard Deviation divided by Mean.
• b Values not statistically different.

31
PHENOTYPIC COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION (CV) FOR
PRODUCTION TRAITS OF BULLS

• Trait Purebreds Composites
• CV a,b
• Gestation length .01 .01
• Birth wt. .11 .12
• Preweaning ADG .10 .11
• 200-day wean. wt. .09 .09
• Postweaning ADG .11 .11
• 368-day wt. .08 .08
• 368-day ht. .03 .03
• 368-day scrotal circ. .07 .07
• aCVStandard Deviation divided by Mean.
• b Values not statistically different.

32
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)

33
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).

34
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.)

35
CARCASS TRAITS OF TWO PUREBRED BRITISH BREEDS AND
SIX PUREBRED CONTINENTAL BREEDS HARVESTED AT 438
DAYS OF AGE a
36
COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT

• Sample widely within the breeds so as to avoid
  inbreeding and maintain heterosis
• Select the best foundation animals possible
  within the lines

37
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)

38
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

39
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.

40
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

41
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?

42

• WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORK INDUSTRY?

43
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE PORK INDUSTRY

• Over 40 of the nations hogs are marketed by
  operations producing over 50,000 hogs per year.
• The 50 largest pork producers market 50 of the
  nations hogs.
• Smithfield Foods, the nations largest producer
  and packer, produces 14 of the nations hogs,
  which represents 70 of its slaughter capacity.
• In 1991, the top six pork packers had 49 of
  total slaughter capacity. Today they have 75 of
  total slaughter capacity.

44
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.

45

• PHOTO OF JOE LUTER,
• CEO,
• SMITHFIELD FOODS

46
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.

47
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 todays 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.

48

• PHOTO OF LEAN VALUE ADVERTISMENT

49
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

50
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.

51

• PHOTO OF WALDO FARMS AD

52
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

53
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.

54

• PHOTO OF TERMINAL COMPOSITE BOAR
• AND MATERNAL
• COMPOSITE SOW

55
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)

56

• PHOTO OF PIETRAIN BOAR

57

• PHOTO OF PIETRAIN CARCASS

58
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

59
TRENDS IN SWINE SELECTION

• Strong selection pressure on lean from
  mid-1980s 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 its impact on throughput in finishing
  houses, growth rate will receive increasing
  emphasis.

60
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
  above-average eating quality.
• Tom Baas
• Iowa State University

61

• PHOTO OF PIC BOARS BRED FOR HIGHER MEAT QUALITY

62

• PHOTO OF NATIONAL SWINE REGISTRY SIRE SUMMARY

63
EPDs 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.

64
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.

65

• PHOTO OF OTHER SWINE REGISTRY MAGAZINE

66

• PHOTO OF AMERICAN BERKSHIRE GOLD
• BRANDED PORK

67

• ADAPTING TO A CHANGING BEEF INDUSTRY

68
GLOBAL BEEF PRODUCTIONIN 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

69
GLOBAL BEEF PRODUCTIONIN 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

70

• CHALLENGES ANDOPPORTUNITIESFOR BREED
  ASSOCIATIONS

71
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.

72
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. Lets
  move ahead!