|
“We always have a tendency to go too far with anything we do in
this industry,” says John Burbank, CEO of Seedstock Plus.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that we swung too far with the use
of Continental breeds. The first cross was great, the second
cross was pretty good, so we kept on going. A backlash to that
was more use of Angus genetics. Now, I think we’re going too
much the other way.”
Burbank is addressing the question posed in this series
(beginning with January 2007 Western Cowman). Namely, how much
Angus or any other single breed is too much in the national
cowherd, or is there any such thing?
The fact that the Angus influence
is growing—representing about two-thirds of the nation’s
commercial herd—is indisputable.
Likewise, the benefits of planned
and managed heterosis (hybrid vigor) are beyond question, as is
the fact that heterosis declines as the percentage of a single
breed component increases. So, how come the industry pendulum
continues to swing between the genetic extremes Burbank
mentions, or will it?
The Color of Money
Simple economics is the obvious force behind the pendulum,
though not necessarily in the way many think about.
“Historically, Continental breed
registrations increase when commercial calf prices decline,
while English breed registrations increase when calf prices are
higher,” says Bob Weaber, beef extension specialist at the
University of Missouri. He constructed a statistical regression
model years ago that proves this reality.
“Prices have been so good for so
long on all calves that we (the industry) have lost some focus
on calf weaning weight,” says Weaber. “As cattle and beef
supplies grow cyclically, and prices decline, weaning weight
becomes a larger driver of revenue. So, we’ve been at a pinnacle
in the cyclical marketplace that favors English genetics. It
will be interesting to see if the regression model holds up and
we see increasing demand for Continental breeds through this
next phase of the cattle cycle.”
That’s especially interesting
given the market dynamics that reward carcass quality (USDA
Quality Grade) more than ever before. After all, one can
logically argue that one of the incentives driving increased
Angus adoption has been the market developed by Certified Angus
Beef (CAB). CAB is the largest branded beef supply in the
world—more than 500 million lbs. annually. Perhaps as
influential are how many copycat programs CAB has spawned, and
the fact that it has carved an entirely new price premium from
the market for cattle that grade mid-Choice and high-Choice.
In recent years, the
Choice-Select price spread has grown historically wide, while
the percentage of fed cattle grading Choice or higher continues
to decline.
Yep, it’s ironic that quality
grade is running South at the same time that Angus—noted for
marbling—influence is approaching a new zenith. No one knows the
definitive reasons for this paradox, but it likely has more to
do with industry history and management than the prevalence of
genetics involved. In an insightful summary last summer, Larry
Corah, CAB vice president and Mark McCully, CAB Director of
Supply Development say, “It is clear that no one factor is
solely contributing to the decline in marbling. But numerous
factors are having an effect. Because of this trend, the
economic value received for cattle sold through a value-based
marketing system is affected and, on a large scale, the demand
for beef threatened.” Among the factors cited are increased
animal health challenges and increased use of ethanol
co-products for feed.
“I still tie it all back to the
consumer side of the business and improving product quality as a
protein alternative in the marketplace…It’s a mistake any time
you take your eyes off that goal as a producer, breed or breed
organization,” says Bill Bowman, vice president of Industry
Information and Data Programs for the American Angus
Association.
But outputs are precisely the
reason David Daley believes the industry has been so willing to
ignore the economic benefits of crossbreeding. He’s a
fourth-generation California cattle producer who is also a
professor of animal science at California State
University-Chico.
“I don’t know how I can ignore heterosis in a competitive
business,” says Daley. “As an industry we’ve decided that
measuring outputs is more meaningful than measuring inputs, and
it’s easier. For example, it’s certainly easier to measure calf
performance on an individual basis than all of the costs
associated with that production. But, as a commercial producer,
much of what I need to know is input-driven.”
From an economic standpoint,
Daley explains heterosis has the most impact on the least
heritable traits that are also the hardest to measure. Think of
things like conception rate and calf survival to weaning. These
are outputs, but consider the increased input efficiency
fostered by improvement in these areas.
“The individual change in one
trait is small, but the cumulative effect on total productivity
and on lifetime productivity is tremendous, ranging well over 20
percent,” says Daley. These small changes, and the fact that the
richest gifts lie in maternal heterosis (hybrid vigor of the
crossbred cow) make it too easy for some new adopters of
crossbreeding to bail out too soon, says Dan Moser, animal
science professor at Kansas State University.
“Commercial producers need to
remember that the biggest difference won’t show up until they
have crossbred females in their herds for a while. I don’t think
you can fully evaluate the benefits of crossbreeding until you
have crossbred females in the herd for several years,” explains
Moser.
For all that, Daley concludes,
“We’ve ignored it, we’ve forgotten it, as an industry we’ve done
a lousy job of it.”
Easy Uniformity Wins
Certainly, pride as much as economics explains the reluctance of
some to adopt crossbreeding, opting for the comforts of
straight-breeding instead, especially with Angus cattle.
It’s true that is costs as much
to feed a sorry one as a good one, to a point. It’s also true
that if you’re sinking your money into cattle, you just as well
enjoy looking at them. That was tough to do for subscribers to
the bull-of-the-month club who defined crossbreeding for a
couple of decades as indiscriminately tossing this breed of
bulls on their cows, then that one. The result was a mongrelized
mishmash of mediocrity that was hard to look at, much less
stomach.
Angus cattle were the perfect
remedy. Make them all black the first pop out of the box, then
keep using Angus bulls and every year the calves started looking
more and more like, well, Angus. Obviously, in situations where
Continental breeding had gotten out of hand, Angus was also
adding fleshiness and maternal traits back into the herd on
average. So, folks adopting this approach to fixing their herds
received quick uniformity, along with an influx of needed cow
power.
In fact, while Bowman says some
of the breed’s steamy growth in recent years represents folks
from the straight-bred camp, he sees more of it coming from
producers adopting Angus as a component of planned,
complimentary crossbreeding systems and composite genetics.
“The easiest way to get uniformity is with purebreds, but there
are other ways to achieve it without giving up the advantages of
heterosis,” says Moser. “You can crossbreed and maintain
consistency if you do it right.”
One such method employed by a
growing number of commercial producers is utilizing composite or
hybrid bulls to even up mixed-up herds, or to add a dash of
heterosis back into herds that have become too straight-bred.
Until these composites and
hybrids became more plentiful over the past decade—and until
there was more genetic evaluation and documentation of
them—utilizing heterosis wasn’t a walk in park.
“One reasons that we have ignored
or forgotten about heterosis is that we (universities) have
presented complicated crossbreeding systems as a ‘normal’
practice to diverse cattle operations, especially to the
countless small beef cattle herds in the United States,”
explains Daley. “Many of these systems that we teach as part of
standard animal breeding or beef production courses have very
limited applications in the real world.” That’s true for the
largest most intensely managed cow outfits, too.
Even building and utilizing
composite and hybrid seedstock should be more difficult than
mating a bull and female of two different breeds or breed
combinations. The breed components should be complimentary, but
Burbank also points out, “There are Angus and Red Angus lines of
cattle that cross well with specific Continental breeds and
others that don’t.” Members of Seedstock Plus build and market
more Balancer—Angus or Red Angus X Gelbvieh—bulls than any other
single entity in the nation.
Given the challenges of effective
crossbreeding, Daley says, “Some would argue that if we
crossbreed poorly as an industry, then we shouldn’t do it at
all. That’s regressive thinking in my opinion. If we’re doing it
poorly, then we need to figure out how to do it well.”
After all, Burbank emphasizes, “I don’t care who you are, you
can’t afford to breed and feed a straight-bred animal in a
commercial situation. Even if you’re not going to retain
replacement heifers and benefit from maternal heterosis,
crossbreeding correctly will turn out a product more in line
with what the industry is demanding.”
Tomorrow’s History is Today
Tom Brink, senior vice president of Cattle Ownership and Risk
Management for Five Rivers Cattle Ranch Feeding—the largest
cattle feeding organization in the world—brought that point home
at last year’s Beef Improvement Federation meeting.
“A large number of the industry’s
cattle are still designed wrong genetically. Too many have the
wrong breed composition to succeed in the feedlot and to satisfy
the consumer,” said Brink. “You will be paid more for avoiding
breed composition problems in your cattle.”
Specifically, Five Rivers wants cattle that are 50-75% Angus, up
to 50% Continental, with no more than 25% Bos Indicus or other
breeds. Other than niche markets, that’s the same basic recipe
demanded by other mainstream cattle feeding operations.
“There’s probably not one genetic
package that fits all environments and situations,” says Bowman.
“If I know what you’ve got and where you want to go with your
herd, there are all kinds of ways we can help you get there
genetically. Too many producers don’t know specifically what
their cattle are producing, and some may not know what their
cattle should be producing for other industry segments. That’s
the point of value-based marketing systems like CAB, being
rewarded for products that fit specific needs.”
If anything can be garnered from
the past when other single breeds have been as predominant as
Angus is today, it might be simply that breed preference
ultimately follows the desires of beef consumers.
Bob Hough is executive secretary
of the Red Angus Association of America. He reminds that in the
early 1900’s large, dual-purpose Durham Shorthorn cattle were
the industry darling. Those cattle weighed around 3,000 lbs.
when harvested at 3-5 years of age and graded Prime. Then along
came demand for Baby Beef which favored smaller framed, earlier
finishing, high-marbling cattle. By the mid 1970’s the race was
on to provide consumer with more lean beef via the
larger-framed, heavier-muscled Continental breeds. It seems like
the quest for the last decade or so has been for a balance
between quality and muscle.
“You have to respond to consumer
demand, and Angus has certainly provided a lot of value to the
industry,” says Weaber. On the other side of the equation, he
explains, “We need to quantify the difference between maternal
heterosis and the value we can capture through in-breed genetic
improvement…Perhaps the real question we should be asking is how
many breeds do we need, and how do we best use the genetic
resources those genetics represent?”
If Burbank is correct, and
history says he is, the answers to those questions will revolve
around a lot more than the facts.
“Until we get to the point where
we make decisions based solely on economics, we will continue to
swing too much one way or the other in terms of breed and breed
type,” says Burbank.
So, will the industry move more
toward straight-breeding or crossbreeding? If the latter, how
many breeds does the industry really need? Those are for the
conclusion of this series next month. |
