• Black Tide - Pt. 2

• Calf Health

• Gelbvieh Guide

• Just 5 Questions

• Reads For Ranchers - Pt. 2

• The World According To
   Hooter McCormick

EDITORIALS

• TRAILS
• RIDING THE GAP

Hough is talking about the growing prevalence of Angus in the nation’s cowherd as measured by both breed registrations and commercial surveys (see Black Tide-Part 1 in the January Western Cowman). Suffice it to say, the American Angus Association (AAA) registered more cattle last year (347,572) than the next eight largest breeds combined.

Throw the 2006 Angus registrations in with the 2005 registrations for RAAA, as reported by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council (NLPC)—43,201—and the total (390,773) is more than the next 13 largest beef breeds, combined.

In commercial herds, based on various surveys, it’s safe to assume at least two-thirds of the nation’s cowherd is comprised by Angus or at least half-blood Angus cows.

As far as branded beef, Certified Angus Beef is the world’s largest branded beef program, marketing more than 500 million pounds of product for seven consecutive years.
That’s domination.

“In the 1800s we had Longhorns in the West and Shorthorn in the East and Midwest. In the 20th century we had Hereford, then Angus and Hereford, then we had Continental breeds dominate with the introduction of crossbreeding,” explains Hough.

Now we have Angus.
Implicit in the reality of such breed prevalence is that heterosis is diluted on average. Today, as during previous breed eras, the question about whether such dominance is positive, negative or neither really boils down to how much heterosis is needed or how costly heterosis is to ignore?

“Maternal heterosis is very valuable. When you increase the proportion of genes contributed by any single breed in a structured crossbreeding system at the expense of another, you diminish that. The question is whether or not additive traits of the heavier used breed outweigh the benefits of heterosis you’re giving up?” says Bob Weaber, beef extension specialist at the University of Missouri.

The Joys of Hybrid Vigor
“No one can argue with the economics of maternal heterosis. No one breed can do it all. That’s based on facts, figures, research and experience,” says John Burbank, CEO of Seedstock Plus, a cooperative of seedstock producers that grows and markets about 1,500 bulls and females of multiple breeds annually, including Angus, Red Angus, Gelbvieh and Balancer.

“When I look at what people are doing, I come back to the fact that in every livestock species it has been proven you need heterosis for economics. But beef industry decisions are not made solely on economics and that clouds what people do currently and will do in the future,” says Burbank.

If economics are the driving criteria, all else being equal, heterosis leaves the alternative in the dust. Try this one for size: a longer production life and more weaning weight, just from maternal heterosis where the real goody exists.

But, Bill Bowman, AAA Vice President of Industry Information and Data Programs adds, “Keep in mind the economic signals in today’s industry may challenge the benefit of more weaning weight. Examples may include premiums for genetic verified cattle, branded beef programs, quality grade targets and replacement females.”

“Data from the Meat Animal Research Center suggests an F1 female will have 1.4 years more productive life and wean an additional 600 lbs. of calf during her productive life, compared to a straight-bred female,” explains Weaber.

So, if a cow is eight when she leaves the herd, figure she’s had six calves. That’s 100 lb. more weaning weight per calf. “And that doesn’t begin to address the fact that added longevity means fewer replacement females over time. So, there is clearly an economic advantage for crossbred cows,” says Weaber.

These are the kind of inputs that Dave Daley believes are too often ignored in the cattle business, making it too easy for folks to ignore crossbreeding. He is an animal science professor at California State University-Chico.

“How much of any one breed is appropriate?” asks Daley. “The risk is losing the ability, particularly at the cow-calf level, to capture heterosis. It’s not so much about the end product as it is the inputs. As you straight-breed you lose some real opportunities.”

Bottom line, Hough emphasizes “Science and experience has shown that crossbreeding pays dollars. Red Angus breeders have endorsed it since the breed’s inception and continue to endorse it. We want to be the basis of planned crossbreeding systems. We think we leave dollars on the table by not crossbreeding…If there needs to be corrective mating in the herd, it’s far easier to use breed complimentarily than to try to change the breed you’re using. Angus probably does as many things right as any breed, but breed complementarily is still powerful.”

Even in the Angus camp, where crossbreeding isn’t usually trotted out as the lead horse, Bowman, “We know heterosis is a valid and valuable tool, especially in terms of the lowly heritable traits such as fertility.”

By the same token, Bowman points out, “…Clay Center data reported at last summer’s Beef Improvement Federation meeting would suggest that breeds are becoming more alike; the lines between breeds are becoming more blurred. So, each operation must benchmark their current production to determine genetic needs for their herd.”

Straight-bred Allure
To his point, Bowman explains, “Looking at the genetic trends in our breed, the average phenotypic yearling weight has increased 200 lbs. in the past two decades., so don’t try to tell me Angus today are the same as they were 20 years ago or even five years ago.
“If I’m a commercial producer, if I know I need to improve weaning growth and lean meat yield, as examples, I know that I can also find the genetics to do that within the diversity of the Angus population.”

Certainly, there are examples of straight-bred herds of Angus and other breeds that can whip a crossbred herd. The serious-minded producer can find the genetics within a breed to bend growth relationships all different ways that were considered impossible just a few years ago.
With that in mind, it probably makes more sense to consider the question of whether you can have too much of any one breed in context of the nation’s herd rather than in view of a single cowherd. There are commonalities such as the advantages of heterosis, but within a single herd you can selectively mate with more precision than you can on a national herd basis.

Straight-breeding is much easier to manage, too. Put the same kind of bulls on all of the cows every year without worrying about which breed goes on which group. Worry about only buying that one breed of bull. Enjoy the uniformity of calves that had darned well better look similar if they’re all the same breed. After all, even in the most meticulously managed rotational crossbreeding system you’re going to wind up with more than one distinctive group of calves to manage and market each year.

Plus, depending on the breed, there’s still lots more genetic evaluation data to use in selection from both sides of the pedigree. Bowman explains, “If we (AAA) can characterize Angus genetics and give producers the tools for incorporating genetics in whatever trait they choose, they can sort out what they need to do. Whether using Angus alone or as part of a crossbreeding system our philosophy has been to describe what we have and give producers the selection tools to meet their needs.”

Sticking to a single breed has made it easier to compare genetics, too, because an EPD value in one breed is not equivalent to another. That is changing, however, with multi-breed evaluations being conducted by the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium (NBCEC). In simple terms, this will allow producers to compare breeds in the same language, and on the same terms.

In other words, straight-breeding can be a perfect solution relative to an operation’s goals and management. “There are successful straight breeders out there and there is nothing wrong with that,” says Hough.

As with crossbreeding, though, straight-breeding comes with its own set of challenges.

Meet the Relatives
Besides the potential limitations of one breed versus a complimentary one—choosing one strength at the expense of another—a confounding factor with straight-breeding is unintentional in-breeding.

“Generally, we don’t worry a lot about an inbreeding coefficient (within herd) below 10 percent,” explains Dan Moser, animal science professor at Kansas State University. Get to 10% and beyond, though and he says research indicates the percentage of calves weaned decreases and calf death loss at birth increases, among other things.

“I’d be surprised if there were any bulls at bull studs anywhere close to that. But, it’s easy for a commercial producer who buys bulls from the same program every year to run into a problem with it,” says Moser. In other words, if you’re not paying attention to pedigrees, keep using sons and grandsons of the same sire, for instance, through retained heifers the coefficient begins creeping up.

This is especially true as the use of reproductive technology—replicating genetics of certain lines faster—continues to increase.

“The tendency with improved reproductive technology is to narrow the genetic base. We decide a particular line of cattle is good or marketable and we use them,” says Daley.
Holstein is the cattle breed usually hoisted up the warning pole. Moser explains based on singular selection for milk production—with the help of Artificial Insemination (AI) and Embryo Transplant (ET)—Holstein breeders have narrowed the genetic base of the breed to fewer than 10 lines of cattle. The problems are multi-fold.

“Holstein has some real issues with inbreeding,” says Moser, explaining that cow longevity, fertility and structural soundness have decreased dramatically.

According to Weaber, salt in the wound has come with the discovery that the chromosomal relationship between a gene for favorable milk production and negative fertility, means Holstein breeders have inadvertently been selecting for less fertility.

“High production and confinement are part of it, but inbreeding is accumulating, too,” says Moser.

“I don’t think the beef breeds are in the dire position of Holstein in those terms, and probably never will be given the geographic and genetic diversity,” says Weaber. “But we could find ourselves there if we keep focusing on a handful of traits as an industry.” Think about how much attention has been paid by many breeds to carcass traits—especially marbling—during the past five years. Before that, milking ability was all the rage. Now, more focus is being placed on growth.

This is a wonderment some raise when considering the dominance of Angus and the progressive use Angus breeders have made of reproductive technology. For perspective, 49% of AAA registrations last year were AI calves; there were 35,000 ET calves registered.
“With the amount of AI done in the Angus breed the genetic base is narrowing. That’s not a big deal if you crossbreed but it can be if you’re straight-breeding. You have to be more careful in selection,” says Hough.

Just because it’s narrowing doesn’t mean indicate a problem, though. Bowman points out, “People try to equate Angus to Holstein…There’s more diversity than people realize in a breed as large as Angus. In an evaluation of the 200 top AI sires in the Angus breed, the average inbreeding coefficient was 2.3 percent.”

Even when inbreeding isn’t a problem, Daley emphasizes, “Some will argue that you can achieve heterosis within breed. I don’t see any data or science to support that…to suggest that to outcross within breed will offer similar results to true crossbreeding is to ignore genetic reality.”

Finding a Happy Medium
“If your cattle are really fine-tuned to the environment you may not want to do anything different. If they’re not fine-tuned to the environment in terms of reproduction or market opportunity, you can take care of that really quickly with a complimentary breed,” says Hough.

Given the trade-offs between diving into heterosis head-first and ignoring it completely, it makes sense that there has been growing use of hybrid bulls in the industry.
“I’m biased and I admit it. I like Angus cattle, but I also like a shot of Continental in them. Without it, I know I’m giving up too many pounds at weaning and in the feed yard,” explains Burbank. Just as he knows that if it was skewed the other direction he’d be giving up too much milking ability and marbling—in general.

Burbank sees more producers straight-breeding with Angus and more using composite bulls that have Angus in them. “There’s no doubt in my mind that every viable composite will have Angus as a component,” he says.

Likewise, Hough says, “I think the industry will use hybrids more because people will want to maintain a higher percentage of Angus breeding.”

Whatever the ultimate decision, Hough believes the industry stands at a crossroads that will determine whether it moves more toward straight-breeding or crossbreeding over the long haul. He believes that decision will be based on the current viability of breeds and the success of the NBCEC in providing tools that allow for accurate breed-to-breed comparison.
In the meantime, Weaber says, “We need to quantify the value difference between maternal heterosis and the value we can capture in performance through in-breed genetic improvement. Does it make sense? As you invest more in a single breed the perception is that there is enough value difference within that breed that you can put all of your eggs in that basket and be fine. Perhaps the real question we should be asking is how many breeds do we need, and how do we best use the genetic resources they represent?”

That and other questions will be addressed in the next installment of this series.