1. National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium Vision for Genetic Evaluation

2. Vision National Cattle Evaluation Some Guiding Principles –The servicing of animal evaluation –Beef cattle improvement research –Education about beef cattle improvement

3. Servicing of Animal Evaluation The industry needs an animal evaluation service that is sustainable –Financially –In terms of expertise Beyond the “lives” of the current players With QA systems that can be scrutinized by outsiders With models/approaches that can be improved by teams from various institutions/disciplines

4. Servicing The industry does not need (and cannot afford) duplication of effort –Distinction between duplication and verification

5. Servicing There is increasing demand for the inclusion of crossbred data –Crossbred data can contribute to more than one purebreed analysis Leading us towards larger multibreed analyses Necessitates a single accessible database for servicing (rather than one per University) –Servicing database would be “updated” by Associations prior to evaluations

6. Servicing There is increasing demand for decision support relating to sire selection in a system context –Necessitates electronic access to EPDs by simulation modeling software A single accessible database of output EPDs would be required if all breeds are going to benefit from the availability of such software –Otherwise creates “haves” and “have nots”

7. Servicing There is the opportunity for quantum improvement in the models we use for all of our current evaluations –Including all indicator traits –Optimising use of censored records –Multibreed data sources –More repeat records, early weaning –Incorporating future DNA data

8. Servicing Industry needs “control” over servicing of animal evaluation There needs to be an “entity” responsible for the servicing of evaluation –Entity needs to know “how to” run the evaluations –Consortium retains the IP for the evaluations

9. Goal for Servicing We should be able to predict the phenotypic (and economic) performance of animals regardless of breed, management, environment or economic circumstances –At least for mainstream US circumstances

10. Example Charolais website New Zealand Dairy Industry –linklink

11. Research into Cattle Improvement Consortium is the primary R&D supplier regarding evaluation R&D should be jointly funded by industry and federal monies Industry R&D funding for evaluation should be seen as part of the costs of servicing

12. Research Consortium needs to provide leadership to avoid duplication and to encourage collegiality –Move towards project-driven teams Members in consortium institutions, other land grant institutions Projects working towards quantum leaps

13. Research Existing “know how” and IP needs to be “surpassed” with consortium know how and IP

14. Education on Cattle Improvement Consortium needs to ensure continued education of graduate students in aspects of beef cattle evaluation and improvement –No one else will do it

15. Education Consortium needs to provide education material for extension and outreach –Train the trainers –Critical with the vision for ERT developments and decision support models

16. Timeline The major limitation to multi-breed evaluation is our inability to recognize all between breed linkages Quantum-leap trait evaluations should all be capable of utilizing multi-breed data Quantum-leap evaluations will be progressively developed providing federal funding continues The time frame will be influenced by the level of federal funding but we would hope to implement these over the next 3-5 years

17. Timeline In the immediate future (this summer) we will prototype a multi-breed growth evaluation using existing animal models and approaches –Birth, Weaning and Yearling wts (actually post weaning gain) –Run at University of Georgia –First step will be development and refinement of the single input database at Cornell and system for storing between breed pedigree linkages –Breed Associations will have an active role in identifying such linkages

33. Return