1 / 72

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

tamra
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. COW PHOTO IN ARIZONA DESERT

  6. PHOTO OF COWS IN FLORIDA

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. 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 ?

  10. 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

  11. “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

  12. 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

  13. VALUE OF HETEROSIS IN VARIOUS CROSSBREEDING SYSTEMS

  14. 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.

  15. THE COMPOSITE CONCEPT

  16. PHOTO OF KEITH GREGORY

  17. PHOTO OF COMPOSITE BREEDS BOOK COVER

  18. 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

  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

  20. PHOTO OF MARC I STEERS

  21. PHOTO OF MARC II STEERS

  22. PHOTO OF MARC III STEERS

  23. RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITESa 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. **p<.01.

  24. 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. ** p< .01.

  25. 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. ** p< .01.

  26. 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.

  27. 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 aCV=Standard Deviation divided by Mean. b Values not statistically different.

  28. 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 aCV=Standard Deviation divided by Mean. b Values not statistically different.

  29. 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 aCV=Standard Deviation divided by Mean. b Values not statistically different.

  30. 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)

  31. 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).

  32. 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.)

  33. CARCASS TRAITS OF TWO PUREBRED BRITISH BREEDS AND SIX PUREBRED CONTINENTAL BREEDS HARVESTED AT 438 DAYS OF AGE a

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

  35. 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)

  36. 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%

  37. 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.

  38. 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

  39. 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?

  40. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORK INDUSTRY?

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. PHOTO OF JOE LUTER, CEO, SMITHFIELD FOODS

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. PHOTO OF LEAN VALUE ADVERTISMENT

  47. 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

  48. 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.

More Related