If you believe the
penultimate measure of genetic merit in the beef cattle industry
is profitability in the commercial sector, then these past seven
years or so have been the bee’s knees.
After all,
profitability in the cow-calf business has been higher and more
sustained than at any time in recent history. Last winter
Cattle-Fax reported the top third of its members averaged
$166.37 per cow for 2000-2005. Even the bottom third averaged
$47.62 per cow.
More recently, Kris
Ringwall, beef extension specialist at North Dakota State
University pointed out that producers participating in that
state’s Farm and Ranch Business Management program have averaged
$128.51 net return for seven years.
Unfortunately,
recent cow-calf fortunes obviously have lots more to do with
supply and demand fundamentals, and management, than production
improvement stemming from genetics.
“Reproduction has not changed as beef production has increased.
The increase in beef production is a result of feed yard cattle
fed to heaver weights and slaughtered at a younger age.” James
McGrann, professor emeritus of Texas A&M University and pioneer
of Standardized Performance Analysis (SPA) in the beef industry
made that observation in 2002.
In fact, McGrann
analyzed 20 years worth of USDA inventory data and discovered
that the implied calving rate—calves born divided by the total
cow inventory—served up an average calving rate of 90.2% (a
range of 88-91.5%). Use the age-old rule of thumb that 90% get
bred and 90% of those wean a calf and you end up with an 80%
weaning rate per cow exposed, a figure that McGrann corroborated
with Southwest SPA figures.
Increased pounds of
production per cow come from more pounds, not more pounds weaned
per cow exposed.
That’s not saying
that seedstock producers have not made tremendous genetic
improvement over time. Flip open any breed sire summary and
genetic trends run in the desired direction at healthy rates.
But these improvements and the way they have been subsequently
applied in commercial breeding systems haven’t necessarily
translated into greater net production per input.
Adapting to the
Stress of Change
Do you know why corn yields—bushels per acre—have increased so
significantly over time? It’s not more ears or more kernels per
plant or any of the reasons that you might suspect. It revolves
around the fact that corn genetics have been created to be more
adaptable. Specifically, corn genetics have been engineered to
thrive amid the increased stress of denser plant populations. In
other words, more yield is coming from more corn plants per
acre.
Steve Radakovich, a
long-time seedstock producer from Earlham, Iowa shared that
observation with folks attending this year’s Beef Improvement
Federation (BIF) Research Symposia in June. He learned it
through a chance meeting with one of the grand pooba geneticists
from one of the corn seed kingpins.
“The future of beef
production will be determined by ruminants’ ability to adapt to
limited solar-produced forages and agricultural co-products,”
says Radakovich. “The one big injustice of the seedstock
industry is evaluating and supplying over-managed, over-fed,
fossil fuel-dependent bulls to cow-calf producers forced to
survive on solar energy and low-cost production…The seedstock
industry has historically given the cow-calf producers what they
have needed in excess.”
Consequently,
Radakovich says more time is being spent with corrective matings
aimed at bringing balance back into the equation. That’s no
small task, given how quickly industry dynamics are shifting
based on competition for feed resources.
According to Mike
Kasten from the Kasten Ranch at Millersville, Missouri, also at
this year’s BIF meeting, “The beef industry is going to have to
answer the question, ‘How are you going to change your genetics
to adapt to higher feed costs that commercial producers are
incurring and will continue to incur because of the ethanol
industry?’”
Whether it’s
ethanol or some other force beyond traditional agriculture,
genetic merit in the future may have more to do with how
effectively they allow commercial producers to quickly adapt to
input shifts.
“High return, low
cost producers have several things in common, most notably their
ability to optimize production by reducing costs in places that
don’t adversely affect the productivity of the cowherd.”
Cattle-fax pointed that out during an insightful Cattlemen’s
College session at this year’s annual National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association meeting.
More specifically,
they cited 11 habits shared by the highest return producers:
Below average annual cow costs; Lower than average calf
breakeven prices; Lower feed costs; Lower interest expense (less
debt); Lower general operating expense; Higher average weaning
weights; Higher conception rates; More pounds weaned per cow
exposed; High quality bulls with strong genetics; Preventative
herd health programs; High-quality pasture (maintain nutritional
requirement of the cow).
With the exception
of interest rates, every one of these high-return tendencies has
a genetic component to it, be it feed efficiency, inherent
immune function, growth, or reproductive efficiency.
Choosing a
Genetic Future
Just a decade ago or so it seemed like the hottest topic of
industry genetic discussion was which breeds would survive. With
the benefit of time, the answer seems as obvious as the question
is now moot. Angus and Red Angus account for roughly half of all
beef breed registrations. Six other breeds (Hereford, Charolais,
Simmental, Limousin, Gelbvieh and Brangus) account for about 75%
of the other half of the registrations, according to numbers
from the National Pedigreed Livestock Council.
Apparently, these
are the primary breeds that will continue to jockey for industry
position. Though some of these breeds have been later to genetic
evaluation than others—and plenty of range exists in the
information provided and how it’s provided—it seems more than
coincidence that each of these has emphasized developing tools
for both seedstock and commercial producers to more accurately
sort genetic differences and make selection decisions.
Moreover, the
likeliest breed growth, arguably and if any, will come from
breed combinations in the form of composites and hybrids, rather
than from individual breeds per se, assuming the genetics are
accompanied by meaningful genetic information. At least that
would be the hope if genetic diversity and adaptability account
for anything.
On a producer panel
at the BIF meeting, Chip Ramsay of the Rex Ranch in Ashby,
Nebraska explained, “The commercial cow-calf producer needs to
know the truth. We need to know with as much accuracy as
possible what that bull is going to do for us in our herd. We
need accurate whole-herd reporting in the seedstock industry,
accurate across-breed EPDs, accurate estimates of heterosis
benefits, etc.”
As important,
commercial producers need seedstock suppliers who can help them
figure out how which genetics in which breeds fit together in a
particular breeding scheme to offer the desired progress
relative to available resources.
All of those are
the type of questions commercial producers should be posing to
their seedstock suppliers, and that seedstock suppliers should
be posing to themselves. |
