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

2. CROSSBREEDING

3. REASONS FOR CROSSBREEDING u Breed complementarity - Matching cattle to the production environment - Matching cattle to market specifications u 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

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: u British X British u 3/4 British x 1/4 Continental Retail supermarkets & mid-scale restaurants,High Select to Low Choice: u 1/2 British X 1/2 Continental Extra lean market, Select grade: u 3/4 Continental X 1/4 British u Continental X Continental

10. BIOECONOMIC TRAITS IN U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY u Fertility (male & female) u Libido in males u Calving ease u Calf vigor/survival u Optimum milking ability for environment u Early growth, birth to market u Feed conversion efficiency u Optimum size for environment and marketplace u Optimum maintenance requirements u Heat tolerance u Cold tolerance u Overall efficiency within a given production environment (climate & feed resources)

11. BIOECONOMIC TRAITS IN U.S. BEEF INDUSTRY u Longevity/stayability u Sound functional traits (skeleton, udder, eyes, etc.) u Pigment around eyes and udder. u Reasonable temperament u Muscling/leanness u Tenderness u Marbling for juiciness & flavor u Optimum size of retail cuts u Solid color pattern u Polled u Others ?

12. TRAITS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE BY INDUSTRY SEGMENT u Cow herd segment  Reproduction  Growth  Minimum maintenance cows u Feeding segment  Health of incoming cattle  Growth  Feed conversion u 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? u Yes, if color is the only consistency issue. u 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 u Cumbersome in small herds. u Too many biological types of cows in the herd. u Too many biological types of progeny. u Mismatches between biological type and the production environment (feed, climate, etc.) u Mismatches between biological type and market requirements. u 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 possiblelb calf weaned/ heterosiscow exposed Pure breeds 0 0 2-breed rotation 67 16 3-breed rotation 86 20 F 1 cow and term. sire 100 23 2-breed composite 50 12 3-breed composite 63 15 4-breed composite 75 17 Rotating F 1 bulls: AB  AB 50 12 AB  AD 67 16 AB  CD 83 19

21. 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

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), lb33.7**33.3 368-day wt (males), lb59.8**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 F 2, F 3, and F 4 generations. **p<.01.

26. RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITES a Composites minus Trait Purebreds Final slaughter wt., lb50.3** Avg. daily gain, lb 0.6** Carcass wt., lb32.6** Dressing percentage, %.17 Fat thickness, in..02 Ribeye area, sq. in..48** KPH fat, %.30** Marbling score.05 a F 3 generation progeny. ** p<.01.

27. RETAINED HETEROSIS IN COMPOSITES a Composites minus Trait Purebreds Retail product %-.97** Retail product, lb13.7** Fat trim, %1.28** Fat trim, lb16.5** Chemical fat in 9-11 rib cut1.23** Shear force, lb.09 Sensory tenderness score -.02 a F 3 generation progeny. ** p<.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 <.05. ** p <.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 a CV=Standard 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 a CV=Standard 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 a CV=Standard Deviation divided by Mean. b Values not statistically different.

32. VARIATION IN COMPOSITES VS. PUREBREDS a u Estimates of genetic standard deviations and phenotypic coefficients of variation were similar for parental purebreds and composite populations for most traits. u Estimates of heritability were similar for purebreds and composites. Thus, no increase in genetic variation was observed in composites. u The similarity of genetic variation for composites and purebreds is believed to result from the large number of genes affecting major quantitative traits. u Therefore, composite populations have a relatively high degree of uniformity for quantitative traits both within and between generations. a Gregory et al. (1999)

33. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS FROM MARC COMPOSITE STUDY a u Composite breeds provide a simple means to use high levels of heterosis. u Composites are a highly effective way to use breed differences (complementarity) to achieve and maintain optimum breed composition for production and carcass traits. u Composites have similar uniformity for production and carcass traits both within and between generations. u Composites offer herds of any size an opportunity to simultaneously use high levels of heterosis and breed complementarity. a Gregory et al. (1999).

34. COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT Selecting the parent breeds: u Critical step u Define how composite will be used u Exploit breed differences (complementarity) u 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 u Sample widely within the breeds so as to avoid inbreeding and maintain heterosis u Select the best foundation animals possible within the lines

37. COMPOSITE DEVELOPMENT Avoid inbreeding and maintain heterosis: u Have large herd (500 + cows), or u Cooperate with other composite breeders, or u Reconstitute the composite from time to time (open herd)

38. HYBRID BULLS Hybrid bulls may be the way to exploit the composite concept: u Simplicity u Rotate unrelated F 1 bulls Percentages of retained heterosis: u AB  AB = 50% u AB  AD = 67% u AB  CD = 83%

39. HYBRID BULLS Compared to purebred bulls: u Slightly earlier puberty (2 to 5%) u Higher sperm concentration and motility u 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: u Simplicity u Breed complementarity so as to match bioeconomic traits with the environment and with market requirements u Heterosis, if inbreeding is avoided u Can help avoid genetic antagonisms u 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: u Variation in qualitative traits (color, horns, etc.) u Perception of large variation in quantitative traits u Sources of unrelated seedstock so as to avoid inbreeding u Use of inferior parent stock u Marketing the concept u Adequate data base to generate EPDs u Other?

42. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORK INDUSTRY?

43. STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE PORK INDUSTRY u Over 40% of the nation’s hogs are marketed by operations producing over 50,000 hogs per year. u The 50 largest pork producers market 50% of the nation’s hogs. u Smithfield Foods, the nation’s largest producer and packer, produces 14% of the nation’s hogs, which represents 70% of it’s slaughter capacity. u 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 u In 1993, only 11% of all hogs were sold on some type of prearranged, marketing contract with packers. u Today, 74% of all hogs are marketed under some form of contract agreement. u This indicates the odds are high that the pork industry will be vertically coordinated, within the decade. u 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 u The key for the survival of independent hog producers is to find ways to become interdependent. u 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 u 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. u 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. u 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? u They make full use of within-breed selection, breed differences (complementarity), hybrid vigor, and DNA technology. u They have been successful in combining reproduction, growth, and carcass traits into well-designed breeding programs for the commercial industry. u 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 u The few independent breeders that are still marketing to significant numbers of commercial producers have become “full-service seedstock providers.” u They generally supply more than one breed, often three or four breeds. u They sell semen as well as boars. u They maintain a staff of sales and service representatives.

51. PHOTO OF WALDO FARMS AD

52. PARTIAL LIST OF SWINE GENETICS COMPANIES u PIC (Pig Improvement Company) - UK u DeKalb Choice Genetics - USA (Monsanto) u NPD (Northern Pig Development) - UK/USA (Smithfield Foods) u Cotswold - UK u Babcock Swine - USA u GenetiPorc - Canada u Seghers - Belgium u Newsham Hybrids - UK u Danbred - Denmark

53. SWINE GENETIC COMPANIES u Several companies are global and provide genetics for widely diverse environments. Genetic lines are specifically designed for their targeted environments. u 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 u Strong selection pressure on % lean from mid-1980’s to now. Currently, pork is about as lean as it needs to be. u 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. u Because of it’s 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. EPD’s IN NATIONAL SWINE EVALUATION u Number of pigs born alive. u Litter wt. at weaning, adjusted to 21 days of age. u Days to reach 250 lb. live wt. u Backfat thickness, adjusted to 250 lb. live wt. u Pounds of fat-free lean, adjusted to 185 lb. carcass wt.

64. ECONOMIC INDEXES IN NATIONAL SWINE EVALUATION u Terminal Sire Index (TSI): Ranks sires for use in a terminal sire breeding system. u Sow Productivity Index (SPI): Ranks individuals for maternal traits only. u 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 PRODUCTION IN THE FUTURE u The beef industry will adopt breeding systems somewhat similar to the pork industry. u The commercial industry will talk about lines of genetics (e.g., L125) rather than specific breeds such as Angus or Hereford. u These lines will be based on complementary genetic mixes that are composites of pure breeds. u Pure breeds will still be necessary to support these commercial lines. SOURCE: Ben Ball, Elders Limited

69. GLOBAL BEEF PRODUCTION IN THE FUTURE u No longer will one product be marketed 6 or 7 times before it is consumed. It will be marketed once. u 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. u 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 AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BREED ASSOCIATIONS

71. ADAPTING TO A CHANGING INDUSTRY u Assist breeders in the evolving process of becoming full-service genetic providers. u Assist breeders that have common objectives in development of coordinated marketing programs. u 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. Let’s move ahead!