An overview of beef cattle improvement programs in the

An overview of beef cattle improvement programs in the United States B. K. Middleton and J. B. Gibb J Anim Sci 1991. 69:3861-3871. The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on the World Wide Web at: http://jas.fass.org www.asas.org Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. AN OVERVIEW OF BEEF CATTLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES’ B. K. h3iddleton2 and J. B. Gibb3 American Polled Hereford Association, Kansas City, MO 64153 ABSTRACT A periodic review of beef improvement programs is useful as a benchmark and as an opportunity to reevaluate industry direction. The history of improvement programs is reviewed with particular emphasis on recording organizations, program financing, and technological progress. The various breed associations have become the primary suppliers of performance programs, which are largely funded through registration income. Current practices are described from the aspects of traits recorded and delivery systems to collect, analyze, and distribute the data. The unique or innovative features of several breed programs are highlighted, and conspicuous industry gaps are noted. Finally, a survey is made of the organizational,technical, and educational challenges facing beef improvement. Although increased participation in genetic improvement programs is expected, substantial efforts are needed to serve adequately the needs of a changing beef cattle industry. Key Words: Beef Cattle, Genetic Improvement, Beef Breeds, Performance J. Anim. Sci. 1991. 69:3861-3871 programs. These programs are currently characterized by a bewildering variety of traits and The beef industry, facing a declining share methods of data presentation, and are faced of a mature meat-product market, is currently in a greater state of flux than perhaps any other with a stunning array of industry and technical issues. Adequate discussion of all worthy livestock industry. As the National Cattleprograms and critical issues is certainly not men’s Association (NCA, 1989) has pointed possible here, but the unique features of out, genetic improvement programs will be several programs are highlighted, and in-depth essential in returning the industry to profitabilliterature is cited. Complete literature on ity and stemming the loss of consumer specific programs is readily available from the demand. One implication is that all segments various recording organizations. of the industry must achieve some understanding of performance programs and genetic Hlstorlcal Development evaluations. Another is that programs must be reviewed periodically to ensure their continuTo paraphrase Willham (1982). it will be ing relevance to the rest of the industry. left to the future to decide whether beef This overview offers a brief look at the performance programs have created improvehistorical background, current practices, and ment, but they have certainly created change future prospects of beef genetic improvement during the last halfcentury. The history of the beef performance movement has been described extensively by Baker (1967), Ensminger (1976). Warwick (1980), and Wlhm ila lPresented a a symposiam titled “National Programs t (1982, 1985). Rather than attempting to sumfor Genetic Improvement of U.S. Hcrds and Flocks” at the aie ASAS Midwestem Section Mtg., March 1990, Des m r z the work of these able historians, a few M O W , IA. selected events and trends are presented as 211020 N.W. Ambassador D . Kansas City. r, necessary background to the remaining discus3pnsent address: American Gclbvich Association, sion. These are grouped into the broad areas of 5001 National Westcan D . Denver, CO 80216. r, organizational, economic, and technical deReceived Jnnc 17, 1990. velopments. Accepted April 1 , 1991. 2 Introd uctlon 3861 Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. 3862 MIDDLETON AND GIBB A brief review of the current process of national performance recording may help those less familiar with U.S. beef improvement to understand these developments. In its simplest and most common form, the process begins with the collection of raw performance measurements by the seedstock producer. The data are submitted to a breed association, which then performs a within-herd analysis, including the calculation of adjusted measures and within-herd ratios, and retums this information to the producer. The breed association, at intervals, provides the accumulated data to a university for research use and for the conduct of a national across-herd genetic evaluation. The university returns research results, such as new adjustment factors, to the breed association for use in improving the performance program. Updated predictors of genetic merit for the breed are also returned for dissemination to association members, commercial cattle producers, and other interested parties. This summary is, of course, oversimplified. Not all research and national evaluation is performed by university researchers; not all performance data are collected by seedstock producers, and the breed associations are not the sole repositories of performance records. Each of these organizations may assume some of these functions, and there are a number of other organizations that may participate in the process. Pelformunce Recording Organizations The nature of an organization involved in performance recording has a key influence on the successes (and failures) of its programs. Some organizations consider performance recording a primary activity, whereas some consider it an adjunct to other activities. Wlhm (1982) described the 1940-1955 ila foundation of the earliest organizations devoted solely to beef performance, including the first central bull test in Texas (1941) and the first state Beef Cattle Improvement Association (BCIA) in Virginia (1955). The year 1955 also saw the founding of Performance ila Registry International (PRI), which Wlhm (1982) says “became the focal point of the industry for performance.” The involvement of beef breed associations in performance began in the mid 195Os, and this involvement was greatly stimulated by the example of the Charolais breed (Ensminger, 1976). The Charolais outperformed the British breeds for lean growth, and the breed was actively promoted based on this performance. The primary focus of performance recording completed its shift to the breed associations during the ensuing 20 yr. As Wlhm (1985) ila puts it, “The sophistication of the breed programs, coupled with breed-wide national sire evaluation programs, has enhanced the position of the breed programs and reduced the relevance of P N and many of the state programs.” However, U.S.beef improvement recording is s t i l l relatively fragmented compared with that of other species (e.g., the National Sheep Improvement Program o the Diy Herd r ar Improvement F’rogram) and with that of other countries (e.g., the Australian national Breedplan program or the Canadian national Record of Performance program). Wlhm (1985) ila noted that several strong state programs still exist, and that the massive introduction of new breeds since the late 1960s has resulted in an ever-increasing variety of association programs, including competing programs offered to different strains of the same breed This fragmentation has at least one advantage: the diversity and competition leads to a great deal of creativity in program design. The primary unifying force is the Beef Improvement Federation (BXF), which works to overcome some of the disadvantages of program fragmentation through education and voluntary standardization ( E 1986). The B , BIF was founded in 1967 and currently counts 23 breed associations, 33 state BCIA, and 15 other organizations in its membership. Another unifying force is the American Beef Records Association (ABRA), which has offered contract computing services to breed associations since 1984. Although customization of the service is available to each client association, there is a general uniformity among the resulting programs. The current focus on breed associations has its drawbacks: the connection between registry and performance programs has contributed to the problem of selective reporting of data, because unregistered calves often remain unrecorded. Nevertheless, WiLulam (1989) pointed out the advantages of the social structure provided by the associations, observing that National Sire Evaluation programs were promoted using old breed loyalties and Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. U.S. BEEP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3863 of 3.5% in 1967 to 1.9%in 1987. He predicted that the ratio could drop as low as 1.2% by 2000. These results imply that unregistered and The Economics o improvement f crossbred seedstock are increasingly acceptable The status and potential of an improvement to the commercial cow/calf producer. The program cannot be fully appreciated without value determinant for seedstock is shifting an exploration of its financing. Seedstock from ancestral documentation to performance breeders have made a substantial investment in documentation, but the breed associations have performance, and association databanks are a not yet adapted to this by changing their vital resource for both the industry and the income base. Willham (1983) said: research community. In addition to incalculaBreed associations that have a national ble breeder investment in time and equipment, sire evaluation program and a sound pera survey performed by Baker et al. (1984) formance program . . . are realizing that a showed that the aggregate performance investprimary reason for existence today is for the ment of nine major associations was over $15 collection, processing and holding of permillion, with a total annual cost of nearly $1.5 formance records. The rapid increase in million. volume of records processed, even with Willham (1987) stated that reductions in major declines in registrations and transfers, research funding and the termination of large has emphasized this point. beef-breeding projects (e.g., the NC-1 Regional project) have greatly increased the This realization has not, however, been importance of the fielddata resources held by reflected in association economics. breed associations. Researchers are becoming more dependent on industry to undertake the costs of collecting and storing data for research Technological Development use, as implied by Pollak (1989), and direct One of the principles of beef improvement funding of research projects by breed associations is at an all-time high. I d r c funding is is that many of the traits of interest can be niet also reaching new heights: no individual measured in live breeding individuals of both association has the technological resources to sexes. Thus, the early improvement programs perform the genetic evaluation of a large were based on the individual performance test population, forcing the use of evaluation and the calculation of ratios and EBV using services offered by universities as a means of the animal’s own record These expressions of funding staff and research (Willham, 1987). merit are useful only for within-herd selection. The early 1970s found breed associations The costs of breed programs have historicaUy been heavily subsidized by registration establishing designed progeny tests as a basis income. Baker et al. (1984) showed that an for National S r Evaluation (NSE) programs, ie average of only 38% of annual program costs beginning with Simmental in 1971. Progeny are recovered by direct charges for perform- testing was encouraged in beef programs ance-related services. None of the associations because much of the theory and practice of surveyed reported a self-funding or profit- NSE was developed in a dairy improvement generating program. An aggravating factor is context (Henderson, 1966), but this approach the continuing cost to store and process a tends to lengthen the generation interval. In performance record years after it has been partial compensation, NSE predictors are u s e added to the databank, leading to spiraling ful across herds and led to increased selection overhead costs. accuracy and intensity. This subsidy is developing into a major The early 1980s brought the establishment financial dilemma. The increased cost and of NSE using field data collected f o rm demand for performance programs and re- production systems, starting with the 1980 search support is coexistent with a drastic Angus evaluation conducted by Willham and decline in registration numbers. Gibb (1989) Berger at Iowa State University. The NSE studied total annual registrations for 19 breeds programs were soon standardized on E ’ as FD as a percentage of total USDA beef cow the predictor of choice, primarily to signify a numbers and discovered a decline from a high distinction between NSE and within-herd EBV that “other delivery systems around the world have not been as successful.” Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. 3864 MIDDLETON AND GIBB evaluation. However, the techniques were still ments of each segment, and delivery systems oriented to progeny testing, and an animal’s are needed that can provide understandable record could contribute to the EPD of his genetic documentation. Dickenson (1983) remarked that most perancestors, but not directly to his own EPD. The remainder of the 1980s saw a shift formance programs give the impression that from NSE to National Cattle Evaluation pounds, inches, and milk are the only selectaOyCE), beginning with the 1984 Limousin ble traits. Pollak (1989) stated that data evaluation conducted by Benyshek at the collection has been the primary bottleneck, and University of Georgia using techniques deve- he suggested that discussion of alternative loped by Quaas and Pollak (1980). These traits is pointless unless recording organizatechniques not only regained the advantages of tions begin to gather the records necessary for the performance test, but finally made across- research. This process is taking place and may herd prediction possible for breeding females be aided in the future by practical electronic and young s o k This development is revolu- identification that will a l w data feedback tc lo tionizing herd genetic management and is from all industry segments. crucial to the concept of “specification genetics” because it can express the genetic Traits o Interest f potential of both a breeding animal and a feedlot steer in the same terms, making EF’D Although traits often overlap these arbitrary the performance l n across a l l segments of the boundaries, beef performance has generally ik beef industry. been categorized into three areas: growth/ efficiency, reproductive/matemal, and carcass/ Current Practlces end product. Interest is growing in a fourth collection of traits gathered under the nebulous Improvement programs can be described umbrella of “functionality” or “fitness.” both by the traits that are recorded and by the GrmthtEficiency. All existing programs delivery systems that process and present the measure growth in one form or another. These records. Although certain traits and delivery traits are the easiest to observe and measure, systems have become common practice, recent have sufficient heritabfity to allow rapid industry trends ate spurring development and change, are of moderate economic importance, unique approaches in both areas. One such trend is the increasing importance and have been under scientific study for most o production-systems analysis or Integrated of this century. Buchanan (1989) stated that f Resource Management (IRM). From the per- growth is well covered by current programs spective of genetic improvement, IRM in- and that “changes should be viewed as volves matching genetic potential with man- refinements to a system that is already working agement systems and other available resources. quite well.” Birth weight, weaning weight, and yearling This will stimulate demand for a more weight, along with derivatives such as ADG, complete profile of genetic resources, via the evaluation of additional traits, and for delivery form the basis of a typical program. Weaning systems that are more useful to IRM practi- weight is universally recorded and is evaluated from the standpoint of both individual pertioners, formance and maternal contribution. Another stimulus is the industry trend M m size o weight is a character that r toward “value-based marketing” and “specification genetics.” A recent change in the needs attention because of its importance in orientation of meat packers toward consumer matching cattle to nutritional resources. Sevdesires is causing a change in the way eral programs (e.g., American Polled Hereford slaughter cattle are priced and purchased. The Association [APHA], American Simmental packers expect fed cattle that m e their Association [ASA]) record the weight of the et specifications; feeders expect cattle that meet darn at weaning as a measure of t h i s character, both their specifications and the packers’; cowl although none has yet developed a genetic calf producers expect seedstock genetics that predictor. Yearling and(or) weaning hip height will meet the specifications of all segments. is also commonly collected as an indicator And, at each stage, there is a growing trait. An Em3 for yearling height is currently expectation of documentation. Again, new published by the American Hereford Associatraits must be measured to satisfy the require- tion (AHA). Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. U.S. BEEF! IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3865 A practical measure of feed efficiency awaits development and is important to both the feedlot segment and the commercial cow/ calf producer. Few or no data are being collected by the breed programs, in part because of the difficulty and expense of measuring intake under typical production conditions. Buchanan (1989) suggested development of a predictor based on a combination of postweaning gain and some measure of body composition that can be collected in the field. This development will be supported by ongoing research such as that by Ansotegui et al. (1991), who have studied the relationships among milk intake, forage intake, and performance of suckling range calves, and Hyer et al. (1991a,b), who have modeled forage intake by grazing cattle. ReproductiveiMatemal. These traits are generally of low heritability but have great economic importance because of their impact on herd productivity. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, these traits are difficult to measure and there is little agreement on which traits best describe reproductive/matemal characteristics. Nielsen (1989) discussed a variety of traits that are candidates for consideration as “essential” and highlights the urgent need for additional research. Calving-ease score is perhaps the most widely collected measure. A few programs have produced EPD based on a calvingease ratio or index using mixed linear models, but this approach is unsatisfactory (Gianola, 1980). The ASA is currently working with Comell University to pioneer the use of new techniques more appropriate to the analysis of categorical data. First-parity calving ease is the most useful expression of this trait, but calving ease in older cows may also be important. The collection of pelvic area measurements, which have an important relation to calving ease and are highly heritable, is being pursued by ASA. Other breeds are also showing interest in this trait. Yearling scrotal circumference is another frequent component of breed programs because of its high heritability and its relationship to fertility and age at puberty (Brinks et al., 1978; Bourden and Brinks, 1986). The AHA and APHA include this trait in their NCE programs. Other related traits include dam condition score, collected by ASA, and gestation length, collected by Gelbvieh and evaluated in their NCE program. Many associations also report one or more measures based on calving date, such as calving interval, age at first calving, and average calving date. Association programs are only beginning to touch on this group of traits. Data collection is difficult because the growth-oriented programs were originally designed to begin the recording process when a calf is born; this does not provide a mechanism for gathering much essential reproductive information. Association hesitation to enter this area is largely due to the major program reorientation that would be required. However, there seems to be an additional reluctance to proceed u t l research allows ni these traits to be evaluated with assurance equivalent to growth evaluation. Perhaps there is an unspoken assumption that expressions of merit other than EPD are unacceptable in modern programs. Gibb (1987), however, believes that “innovative approaches to generating predictions . . . should be pursued even though the methods used might be less than 100% accurate.” One must keep in mind that most of the genetic progress for growth was made using methods with well-known flaws. The North American South Devon Association has taken a bold approach by publishing a Daughter Fertility Score (DFS) in its sire summary.This score, based on a percentage of daughters meeting minimum reproductive criteria, is described by Middleton (1990). A l though DFS lacks considerable sophistication, it is nevertheless a useful contribution to sire selection. It also has the virtue of stimulating breeders to record more complete information, which will provide a basis for developing an improved measure. CarcasslEnd Product. Measures of beef quality, composition, and yield are highly heritable traits but have generally been regarded as low in economic importance. This opinion is changing as the feedlot and packer segments shift to value-based marketing. Signals h m the retail segment are now following the marketing chain all the way back to the seedstock producer, driving a renewed interest in end-product evaluation. Many of the progeny test programs conducted during the 1970s included a carcass evaluation phase, but these efforts largely ceased during the 1980s because of difficulty in keeping contemporaries together through slaughter and in collecting accurate data after Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. 3 866 MlDDLETON AND GIBB slaughter. These programs never succeeded in collecting the volume of highquality data needed for useful evaluation. New technologies, such as ultrasonic scanning, are beginning to permit live-animal measurement of some end-product traits, although several practical problems await solution. These problems were discussed by Arnold et al. (1989) and include determination of the most effective traits to measure, selection of proper age/composition end points for adjustment, and evaluation of correlations with other traits. Of particular concern is the relationship of steer carcass characteristics to measures taken on cattle managed for breeding. The AHA has initiated a supplemental program to collect ultrasound data, and many other associations are actively exploring their entry into this area. Functional Characteristics. This area covers a diverse collection of traits that have an economic impact through their relationship to management and other resource inputs. Functional characteristics are primarily of interest to the cow/calf segment but may affect feedlot profitability as well. Functionality is often an indefinite quality and requires environmental interpretation: a commercial cow that is functional in Montana could be dysfunctional in Florida. Although functional traits are often highly heritable, they are generally measured by subjective scoring, thus presenting problems in genetic evaluation. There are few standards or guidelines for the collection, analysis, presentation, and use of these measures. The BIF (1986) lists a selection of possibilities, but no current program is deeply involved. Traits recorded by a program are frequently related to bredspecific issues, such as eye pigmentation, temperament, or sheath and navel scores. Other traits are of more general interest, such as structural soundness or the polled/scurred/ homed condition. The APHA has an atypically broad program for the collection of fitness data, yet it represents only a limited subset of the possible traits. An important aspect of the program is the recording of a reason code when an animal is removed from a breeder’s inventory. The breeder may choose from among 20 codes that indicate death or culling for reasons such as injury, disease, prolapse, unsoundness, infertility, pinkeye, genetic abnormality, and inferior production. These data are currently being studied to explore the possibility of an evaluation for longevity. Another aspect of the APHA program is the collection of linear scores for udder suspension and teat size. These scores are recorded at calving using a 0 to 50 scale on which a score of 25 represents an optimum conformation and are also under study for genetic evaluation. Udder conformation is also collected by AHA, using a single score of 1 to 9. Delivery Systems Delivery systems - the means of collecting, analyzing and presenting performance data have distinct within-herd and across-herd phases in most programs. The major distinction is the primary target audience: the withinherd phase is designed to serve the breeder who collects the data, whereas the across-herd phase is designed to serve purchasers of genetic value. However, there is a need for increased integration between the two phases. Most rw selection programs d a on both internal and external genetic resources and require a combination of within-herd management information and across-herd genetic prediction. In addition, buyers at central bull tests are increasingly demanding both on-test performance data and across-herd EPD to support their buying decisions. Finally, because the complex, costly NCE procedures are an annual or biannual process, across-herd evaluations need the timely delivery vehicle provided by withinherd programs. The ASA, for example, has met some integration needs by substituting EPD for EBV on all within-herd reports. The problem of NCE? timeliness is being overcome by the calculation of “interim” EPD estimates for calves recorded between evaluations. These estimates are easily calculated by the associations and are based on ancestral EPD with an adjustment for individual performance, if available. The North American Lmousin Foundation (NALF) and the American Angus Association (AAA) are currently performing interim calculations. Within-Herd Delivery. A high degree of uniformity exists among within-herd delivery systems. Many of the programs begin the collection process with an annual inventory form that lists all active breeding females in - Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. US. BEEP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3867 the herd This form allows the removal of cows from the inventory and the recording of birth and weaning performance of a cow’s most recent calf. After the calves are recorded, the breeder receives a calf crop summary that lists the adjusted measures, ratios, and EBV for the birth and weaning traits and provides space to record postweaning and yearling traits. When the postweaning worksheet has been processed, the breeder receives a final calf crop summary of all birth, weaning, and yearling information. In addition to calf crop reports, the typical program offers a within-herd get-of-sire summary, a permanent record card issued to each cow when her first calf is recorded, and an annual produce-ofdam summary. Most programs also offer a performance registration certificate and(or) an individual performance summary that documents the pedigree and performance of the animal. The performance portion of the certificate inclildes a summary of the animal’s progeny, parents, grandparents, paternal half-sibs, and maternal half-sibs. The ASA, N U , AAA, and APHA now include EPD information on these certificates. Another common within-herd delivery system is the cow recognition program. Beginning with ASA in 1976, many programs now issue awards to outstanding cows as determined from t r e factors: age at first calving, average he calving interval, and maternal performance based on progeny weaning ratios or most probable producing ability (MPPA). None of these programs yet considers EPD in the award process. Across-Herd Delivery. The primary means of presenting NSE or NCE results is the breed sire summary report. Nearly 20 breeds CUIrently publish an annual or biannual sire summary, which is the main channel for getting genetic information into the hands of commercial cow/calf producers. A sire summary generally contains a great deal of supplemental information on the use of the report and on topranking sires for the various traits. Few delivery systems yet exist for distributing cow and calf EPD. A few programs offer cow-herd and calf-crop EPD lists to supple ment within-herd reports. The APHA provides a dam summary that lists the top 200 active cows for each trait, as well as top 100 listings of recent bull or heifer calves. As yet there seems to be little demand for more sophisticated delivery. Advanced Delivery Systems. As the flood of performance information swells, the problem of managing the data and using them effectively will intensify. Tools are needed that can customize the delivery to a particular cattle producer’s needs and can integrate genetic management with health, nutritional, and financial management. Some of these needs will be met by traditional paper-based reporting, but the d e velopment of many advanced systems will be driven by farm computerization. Microcomputers are now available to cattle producers, extension personnel, association field repre sentatives, and other consultants. Delivery is possible through programs and databases that can be used on the farm and through networking to larger systems run by breed associations o other organizations. r The AAA and ASA both offer customized software for on-farm use in herd management. These packages are compatible with the association performance programs and produce reports that can be submitted to the association for processing. In addition, the ASA package allows the breeder to connect to the ASA computer and transmit data electronically. Various independent software publishers offer packages compatible with the programs of other breeds (e.g., NALF,Red A n g u s Association of America), often with association support or approval. The sire summary report is an especially poor delivery system for locating bulls that meet a particular performance specification. Several associations now offer aid in this task by selecting bulls that match criteria chosen by the cattle producer and listing them in a requested sequence. A few associations (e.g., AAA, APHA) also offer a microcomputer sire sort program and database that allow cattle producers to perform their own searches. Wholeherd analysis and simulation modeling is a vast area of opportunity for the development of advanced delivery systems. This type of analysis is an exceptional tool for drawing attention to management problems. Also, future seedstock marketing is likely to depend on selling the genetic program of the entire herd, rather than focusing on individual cattle. Only a few programs have taken small steps in this direction. The AHA issues an annual report of withinherd genetic trend that helps each breeder to determine quickly whether the genetic program is on target. Both genetic and environmental Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. 3868 MIDDLETON AND GIBB trends are effective, understandable herd management tools that should be more widely available. They are also easily understood by buyers and can be useful in marketing a sound program. The ASA provides a basic planning service that simulates breeder-specified matings and projects the genetic merit of the resulting calf crop. This projection ability might well be the premier benefit of the change from NSE to NCE. However, sizeable extensions to the concept are possible. Tools are needed to perform more indepth analysis and optimization of mating plans, perhaps in combination with selection aids such as the sire-sort software described above. These tools must allow the breeder to rapidly evaluate alternate scenarios and to simulate a breeding program over multiple generations to analyze long-term consequences. The APHA cow herd production summary is also an important milestone in whole-herd analysis. This report profiles the dams of a calf crop in terns of reproduction, growth, and maternal performance. The reproductive profile includes factors such as age at fist calving, lifetime percentage born, average calving interval, and the calvingdate distribution of the cow herd. Growth and maternal performance is represented by progeny averages, cow EF’D, cow weight at weaning, and cow efficiency (ratio of calf weaning weight to cow weight at weaning). Performance is also summarized for cows calving in each 21-d interval of the calving season. The report can be used as a management aid and as an educational device. Future Challengesand Prospects The recent NCA report on the future of the beef industry (NCA, 1989) makes it clear that genetic improvement programs are no longer optional. “Cattle with unknown or non-specification genetic potential will be marketed at deep discounts.” Seedstock breeders or associations “will face economic extinction” if they fail to identify the genetics needed by the industry. Seedstock breeders are becoming committed to genetic improvement. Willham (1983) stated that this is shown by the movement of competition from the showring to the “larger amphitheater of the sire summary.” But the real victory is the movement of objective evaluation into the arena, where the “eye of the master” is looking at the record sheet as well as the cattle. The BIF (1985) provides a fact sheet on this topic, and data sheets are provided regularly to the audience and(or) judges at association-sponsored shows. In addition, APHA (1990) described an innovative new format, Genetic FocusTM, for combining objective and subjective evaluation in the showring. This format will be used at selected Polled Hereford shows beginning in November 1990 and has drawn the interest of several fair boards in the United States and Canada. Organizational Challenges Although growing participation in performance programs is assured, the programs themselves are confronted w t critical industry ih issues. The breed associations are in a struggle for identity as industry integration grows and the value and marketing base shifts. If the breed programs fail to adapt to these changes, the focus of performance may shift once again to another organization or type of organization. There are already indications that breed programs are not adapting quickly enough; several organizations are now competing to meet needs that are not covered adequately by the associations. For example, Kansas State University has initiated a service to collect carcass and feedlot data, and American Breeders Service now offers a linear-trait evaluation service covering 19 functional traits. Also, the biotechnology companies may be ready to enter the lists by measuring biochemical indicators of performance, and packers may soon be collecting volumes of carcass information to support value-based pricing. Although program fragmentation may increase in the short term, eventually the data must be consolidated. Separate evaluations are generally less effective because they cannot take advantage of trait correlations to improve accuracy. And, if the data consolidate on the cattle producers’ desks, integration is very difficult. Horizontal program concentration is essential to the health and effectiveness of future beef improvement. Crossbreeding is another issue that intensifies the need for program integration. Ensminger (1976) made it clear that crossbreeding has been an economic necessity for commercial livestock production since the first infusion of English blood into unimproved Long- Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. U.S. BEEP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 3869 horn stock, and he stated that the rise and fall of several beef breeds can be traced to i i i l nta utility in crossbreeding followed by a lack of programs to sustain heterosis. The NCA (1989) predicted a dramatic decrease in the number of breeds and(or) breeders, narrowing the field to those with the genetics to meet current consumer demands and reduce costs of production. Obviously, breeds with genetic evaluations that are useful in conducting crossbreeding programs will have added survival potential. Extraordinary steps may be needed to preserve the genetic resources of breeds that do not remain commercially competitive, should the NCA’s prediction come to pass. Two developments are required to make crossbreeding a planned, predictable activity that supports specification production and marketing. First, breeders must have the means to match the genetics of the parent &stocks. Second, they must have the means to document the genetics of the resulting crosses. These topics were addressed by Notter (1989). who has touched o f a storm of controversy for f the breed associations by presenting a concept for EPD comparison across breeds. The problems in accomplishing this goal cannot be overstated. Van Weck (1989) discussed many o the issues, beginning with f the question of how information spread over competing association programs can be combined to serve the industry. He also asked who will collect, monitor, and analyze data on unregistered and crossbred animals, and who will fund the ts Given the importance of ak composite genetics to the industry, either a new organization must arise or the associations must become more cooperative and show more leadership in recording composites. A final industry challenge is the expense of NCE analysis services. The costs involved are raising entry barriers that many smaller breeds cannot overcome, forcing them into a less competitive position as EPD increasingly become a requirement for management, marketing, and participation in bull tests. The technology must be made less cost-prohibitive and must be returned to the hands of the nonacademic segment of the industry. One wonders what path beef programs would have followed if university processing had been required for aU EBV and ratio calculations. The APHA achieved remarkable savings and benefits from 1983 to 1987 by performing in-house NSE,but the experiment was ended by a change io NCE in late 1987.A joint investment by the beef breed associations could be the answer to providing the industry with the required technology in a cost-effective manner. A collaboration across species might be even more beneficial. Technical Challenges The list of technical issues awaiting solution is guaranteed to provide years of gainful employment to researchers. Many of these issues involve choosing, measuring, and evaluating appropriate traits, as discussed under Current Practices. Others involve more general questions of theory, as discussed by Pollak (1989), and there are also issues of applied technology, such as computer software development. Biotechnology is a challenge that has been almost completely avoided. Performance programs have not even been successful in dealing with common embryo transfer technology. What, then, will the reaction be to the first calf registered as the legitimate offspring o two bulls and a mouse? The industry f doesn’t have many years left to learn about semen sexing, cloning, and gene splicing. Ensminger (1976)and NCA (1989),among many others, have pointed out the importance of consistency of performance. Although the seedstock segment tends to buy cattle individually, the other segments of the industry buy cattle in groups. The EPD of a parent and the accuracy of the evaluation need to be supplemented by a measure or prediction of the uniformity of the progeny. Least-cost production and sound financial management also demand tools to perform objective riskbenefit assessments using measures of accuracy and UnifOMIity. Educational Challenges Industry educators (university, extension, and association) have done a good job of reaching seedstock breeders and the commercial industry, but some serious educational gaps remain. The education of the non-seedstock segments is becoming difficult as extension budgets and staffing shrink. These segments are not easily reached by university researchers or breed associations. The BIF is a good venue, but attendance at the annual symposium Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. 3870 MIDDLETON AND GIBB is often dominated by research, extension, and association personnel, rather than by commercial producers. Fortunately, NCA and commercial publications, such as the Drover’s Journal, have become more involved with performance education. Problems with the usefulness of the data collected by seedstock breeders reveal another educational failure. Poll& (1989) said, “In general, we have done a p r job of educating producers about what constitutes a valid record for national evaluation.” Breeders and associations are paying the cost of many records that cannot be used in NCE programs because the records were collected in the wrong fashion or cannot be placed in proper contemporary management groups. Although the measurements themselves are often valid, the calves were managed inequitably or measured at the wrong age. Another educational problem has rarely been considered. As performance programs become more complex, there is a shrinking pool of programmers who truly understand the industry and the procedures. At the same time, there are very few performance experts who can do true professional-level programming. Thus, programmers often produce incorrect software, and performance experts often produce costly and inefficient software. Neither situation is good for the industry. Because the associations must draw on commercial programming talent, perhaps the best solution is to select good programmers from farm backgrounds and then offer them training in performance programs. Another solution might be for university animal science departments to offer a course o study equivaf lent to the management information systems curricula used by many business colleges to combine business and computer training. lrnpllcatlons To continue the analogy nearly 10 years later, one might add that performance testing gestated through the 1980s and has lately given birth to a litter of second-generation performance issues. These issues are the offspring of the success of earlier programs, and the industry faces a monumental task in rounding them up and breakhg them to halter. It is an exciting time for all involved with beef performance, but it is also frightening because of the many threats to the survival of breeds, breeders, and research programs. Literature Cited Ansotegui, R. P., K. M. Havstad, J. D. Wallace and D. M. Hallford. 1991. Efcects of milk intake on forage intake and performance of suckling range calves. J. Anim. APHA. 1990. Genetic Focus - The Next Generation of Showring Evaluation. American P l e Hereford old Assoc., Kansas C t , MO (Brochure). iy Amold. J. W., J. K. Berband and L. L. Benyshek. 1989. Current status of genetic evaluation for carcass trails. In:Roc. Third Genetic Rediction Workshop, October 1 6 1 8 , 1989. Beef Improvement Federation. Baker, F. H. 1967. History and development of beef and dairy performance programs i the U i e States. I. n ntd Anim. Sci. 261261. Baker,P.H.,W.R.GeaandH.A.Fikhugh 1984.U.S.Beef PerformanceDatabanlc Report. Wimock International, uorrilton, AR. Sci. 69899. BIF. 1985. Utiliziog Performance Data i Judging Classes. n BIF Fact Sheet No. 5. Bed Improvement F e d d o n . BIF. 1986. Guideline$ for Uniform Beef Improvement programs. F. H. Baker @ .Improvement Beef ) I . Federation. Bourdon, R M. and J. S. Brinks. 1986. Scrotal circamfertllce i yearling Hereford bulls: Adjostment factors, n heritabiIitk.3 and genetic, environmental and phenotypic relationships with growth traits. J. Aoim. Sci. 6 2 958. Brinks, J. S., J. M. McInmmey and P. J. Chenoweth. 1978. Relationships of age at puberty in heifers to reproductivetmitsinyoungbulls.Proc. WestemSect.Am. SOC. Anim. Sci. 2928. Buchanan, D. S. 1989. The essential E m ’ s - growth and eftlciency. In: Proc. Third Genetic Prediction Workshop, October 1618,1989. Beef Improvement FederDickenson, H. H. 1983. Sire evaluation - the breed association’s responsibility. In: Roc. Beef Improvement Federation Res. Symp. Ensmiager, M. E. 1976. Beef Cattle Science (5th Ed.). Interstate Publ., Dandle, I . L Gianola, D. 1980. A method of sire evaluation for dichotomies. J. Anim. Sci. 51:1266. G i i , J. B. 1987. Presentation and use of predictions: today and tomorrow. In: Roc. 2nd Genetic Prediction Workshop, March 10-11, 1987. Winrock Intemational, uonilton, AR. Gibb, J. E. 1989. National registration trends and the P l e old Hereford markct share. American P l e Hereford old ation. A thumbnail sketch of industry progress is given by Dickenson (1983), who said: Beef cattle performance testing was conceived in the early OS, born in the mid OS, had several postnatal setbacks but was weaned in the mid 6 0 s and had a long postweaning period before approaching maturity in the late 7 It’s just now reached 0s. the breeding program stage. Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. U.S. BEEF Ih4PROVEMENT PROGRAMS Assoc., Kansas City, MO (Mimeo). Henderson, C. R 1966. A sire evaluation method which accounts for unknown genetic and environmental trends, herd differences, season, age effects, and differentialculling.Proc. Symp. on Estimating Breeding Values of Dairy Sires and Cows, Washington, DC. Hyer. J. C., J. W. Oltjen and M. L. Galyean. 1991a Development of a model to predict forage intake by grazing cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 69:827. Hyer, J. C., J. W. Oltjen and M. L. Galyean. 1991b. Evaluation of a feed intake model for the grazing beef steer. J. Anim. Sci. 69~836. o Middleton, B. K. 1990. Introduction t the 1990 South Devon S r and Dam Summaries. In: NASDA ie Quarterly, Winta 1990. pp % 1 North Am. South 1. Devon Assoc., Lynnville, IA. NCA. 1989.Beef in a Competitive World: Final Report of the NCA Beef Industry Concentration/Intcgration T s Force. National Cattlemen’s Assoc., ak Denver, CO. Nielsen, M.K. 1989. E s n i l JPD’s for reproduction in seta beef cattle. In: Roc. Third Genetic Prediction WorkBeef Improvement Federshop, October 1648,1989. ation. Notter, D. R. 1989.EPD’s for use across breeds. In: Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Res. Symp. Pollak. E. J. 1989. Genetic evaluation of beef cattle problems. In: Roc. Third Genetic Prediction Work- 3871 shop, October 1618,1999.Beef Improvement Federation. Quaas, R. L. and E J. Pollak. 1980. Mixed model . methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. J. Anim. Sci. 51:1277. Van Vleck, L D. 1989.What can be learned from the dairy . experience.In:hoc. Third Genetic Prediction Workshop, October 1618,1989.Beef Improvement Federation. Warwick E.J. 1980.Where have we been? A historic look at s i n evaluation. In: Roc. Beef Improvement Federation Res. Symp. Wiuham, R.L. 1982.Genetic improvement of beef cattle in the U i e States: M e , people and t e r interaction. ntd hi J. Anim. Sci. 54659. Willham, R. L. 1983. The New Amphitheater Where the Battles will be Fought: S r EvaluaGon.In: F.H. ie Baker ( d) Beef cattle Science Haodbook. VOL 1 . WestE. 9 view Press, Boulder, CO. Willham, R L. 1985. The Legacy of the Stockman Iowa State Univ., Ames. Willham, R. L. 1987.F i c i u g services and research. In: Roc. Second Genetic Prediction Workshop, h k c h 10-11. 1987. Winrock Intematioa Morrilton, AR. Willham, R. L. 1989. Mustry structure. In: Proc. Third Genetic Prediction Workshop, October 1618, 1989. Beef Improvement Federation. Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009. Citations This article has been cited by 1 HighWire-hosted articles: http://jas.fass.org#otherarticles Downloaded from jas.fass.org by on April 16, 2009.