Wondering?

[pandiana]

"What I was trying to get across is the concept that one day practically all cattle will need to come from one genetic source? As the pig industry and chickens are?"

I am not sure, cowman, whether you refer to 'one genetic source' as a single genetic line or a single distributor of several 'patented' lines.
It is clear that we need genetic diversity to maintain healthy,vigorous cattle. Hybrid vigor not only provides increased pounds, but through complementation it stabilizes the gene pool that may have been weakened through strong selection of economic traits sought after in the ever competitive beef industry.

I agree that it would be unlikely that we narrow our gene pool to as few breeds as the pork industry (four breeds I think I have heard)for the reasons you stated, i.e. climate, environment, etc. However, a major 'wild card' in the beef industry has been the inability to produce a consistently uniform and predictable product. Whether or not you like today's chicken or pork I think you have to agree that the product is predictable and very uniform. It's sort of like McDonalds, wherever you go in the world, when you walk into their fast food outlet, you know pretty much what you will get. Like it or not.

The role of the seedstock producer is a complex one. I think the purebred industry is essential in providing the base for building the commercial herd. I think of it as the 'research arm' of the beef business. The progressive breeder is responsible for not only producing healthy, fertile, and sound seedstock but is also charged with anticipating and selecting for economic traits the effect the industry today and in the future. According to some, it takes 5 generations to stabilize a trait in a genetic line. That is a long term investment with a fair degree of risk as was pointed out with Leachmen's venture into tenderness with Peidmontese. Progressive breeders go to great lengths to find industry-leading 'improved' genetics using top sires both AI and walking bulls. Yes, mistakes are made. The bottom line is that when the commercial cattleman buys a bull he is not just buying pounds of beef and a cow freshner but he is expecting a bull that will keep him on the leading edge of where the market is going.

Will we see corporate 'branding' of certain lines or breeds? As I said before, I think this is a possibility. It costs a lot of money to do 'research'. Many purebred breeders are struggling along with their commercial counterparts. I can see Monsanto or Merial look-alikes with their research dollars getting into this business if they can figure a way to control the output. Right now seedstock is produced by a widely diverse group, just like commercial cattle. Some sell unregistered, undocumented, unresearched cow freshners whereas other are leading edge. What kind of bull you buy I guess depends on what kind of herd you are building and your target market. However, until corporations can see an adequate return on their investments, I can't see them getting involved.



Again I realize climatic conditions might make this not feasible. But consider if you use "brand X" you get a contract if not you don't? And because the meat oligarchy demands "brand X" cattle if you can't/or won't raise them you are basically squeezed out or have to find alternatives?

[cakadu]

With chicken and some of the value-chain work that has been done with it, it was more how the chickens were fed and what they were fed with as opposed to the chickens themselves.

Swiss Chalet (parent company CARA foods) wanted uniformity in their chickens because if you looked at the plate of the person next to you, your 1/2 chicken dinner might be unequal in size to your neighbors.

Interestingly enough, only 20% of the birds in the chain made it to the right size and weight at the right time.

I understand where you are coming from with respect to being able to sell into the marketplace. If that is what the big companies are wanting, then in some respects you don't have much choice in how and what you provide. Remember that consumers do have a voice in this and will not be disregarded when it comes to what sells in the marketplace.

We have certain lines that do better than others right now and we also have the diversity of breeders who, for whatever reasons, like the traits of their breeds.

I think this is very much a slippery slope and as producers we have to be extremely cautious as to how we go down this road.

[cowman]

OK now consider if some big company comes up with a method to identify say a tenderness gene or growth gene and a method to incorporate it into a line of cattle. They patent the process and insist that, that is the only animal they want for slaughter. You are required to buy the patent rights/seedstock from them and you pay a "royalty" for using their product? And to top it off their product is so superior that it makes total economic sense to use that product? Could this happen? Isn't this what happened with Roundup ready canola? And soon to Monsanto Wheat? Why would livestock be treated any different?
Why couldn't the old genetics be preserved in case we ever need them? An embryo/semen lasts just about forever in a nitrogen tank?

[pandiana]

I believe it is possible, cowman. Why do you think Gene Star, Igenity etc have already jumped on this band wagon. As more DNA sequences are identified, more control of genetics will be had by those companies. When they start inserting a novel piece of DNA into a germ cell, this becomes 'new genetics' and can be patented. There is a huge controversy raging in the biotechnology industry regarding the right to own 'life'.

Yes, we can have a bank of heritage livestock. There are several organizations that are trying to do just that. The problem is, many of these breeds are at an economic disadvantage as they cannot compete with modern livestock. They, therefore, become charity cases. Somebody has to feed and house them for little to no return. Even semen tanks cost money to maintain (nitrogen about $60.00 x 4 ). I know, as I have some 'heritage' semen in mine. Unless government or some other organization would set up a trust for these breeds it is a difficult concept. As has been said, money often displaces reason.

[amazed]

Interesting discussion and one well worth discussing. Cowman has brought forward a topic that was touched upon in an earlier thread regarding purebred breeders.

The issue of genetic diversity is debatable as many would argue that the reason for the lack of consistency is too much variation in the available gene pool.

It has been predicted that not far down the road the Canadian beef herd will consist of 4 breeds and they will be mixed and matched to provide the desired product. There will be small groups of seed stock producers who will supply the genetics to purebred breeders who will multiply them for commercial use. Whether the multi-nationals gain control of the genetics we will be using is a BILLION dollar question.

Maybe having a few purebred breeders around isn't a bad idea after all.

There will still be a few less common breeds around but they will only enjoy any degree of success if niche markets are developed such as rpkaiser has shown.

[cakadu]

I agree pandiana that someone has to house these rare and heritage breeds in order to preserve the traits that they possess.

I wouldn't necessarily agree that they are charity cases as we niche market our products and on the whole do better than the commercial marketplace because we are not affected by the highs and lows that are inherent in that system.

Granted, we have more of the work to do ourselves, but the benefit also comes through to us as well.

The heritage breeds may not work in the commercial world, however, for the smaller, more entrepreneurial producer, they work wonderfully in the farm diversification scheme of things.

[pandiana]

I would in no way characterize all less popular breeds as being charity cases. Nonetheless, there are some heritage livestock that definataly are. And I suspect, every year there are more that fall into the endangered, rare and even extinct categories. It will take a concerted effort to keep these breeds going. At the same time, as their gene pool shrinks, you have to wonder if they are the vigorous and healthy 'wild type' genetics that people think they are. The Kerry cow for example may be comprised of only a handful of breeding individuals in Canada. What do you breed them too. Shropshire sheep, also. Bershire pigs, Brown leghorn chickens, etc., The Highland and Red Poll cattle, Guernsey, have all been on the endangered list. I can't see a Guernsey herd displacing the Holstein in today's Dairy even though I am absolutely sure there are individuals who think they are better.

[pandiana]

Whenever that 4 breed scenario comes up I need to vent a bit. Can we not admit that there is more variance within breeds than there is between breeds. Go to any purebred cattle show, and in particular I will mention the Angus Sale at the Calgary Stampede. Tell me that those breeders are all on the same track. Tell me that they are all going to produce similar quality meat, or similar brood cows.
Any talk about the need for fewer Breeds of cattle is about people and money and has nothing to do with cattle.
It is talk from monopoly driven capitalists, not democratic free market humanists who want to see diversity, not only in cattle breeds but in all aspects of life. Freedom and oportunity for all people (and farmers) to pursue the (North) American dream of success from something different.
Four breed supremacy is ridiculous, it is greedy money driven talk. It makes as much sense as having three packers control the cattle market in Canada (oops). Thank goodnes we had a catatrophe to wake us up to change that problem EH.
It will never happen, and the neither will the big packers dictate the type of cattle that are raised in our county. The consumer will decide; and the comsumer, in a free world like ours, will always want something different from time to time. By consumer I don't only mean the meat consumer, I mean the Bull buyer and the feedlot man as well. Look at the shift in the feedlots over the last 25 years. Do you think that is all over now and will not shift again? Look at the wake up call the drought in Western Canada caused. How many of you shipped your Big cows, no matter what breed you have? Change is good. Change is inevitable. When was the last time the free world took away choices? How many TV channels do you have compared to your childhood years?
I will not say for a moment that I am ranting off the topic as I can never stress enough that a choice to focus on four cattle breeds has nothing to do with cattle!!!

[cowman]

I don't know. You go to the auction sales and basically just about everything goes back to about three breeds, Char, Sim, Angus, maybe Gelvieh? Not many shorthorns or Herefords around and they just get pounded in the ring.
Your average cow/calf guy will raise whatever the market pays for just like your average grain farmer will raise the grain the market demands? Why? Because that is the way you make the most money! If you want to raise malt barley(and get it accepted) you raise Metcalfe, or at least the majority do? Why? Because it is what the malsters want and it produces an excellent crop.
Now I am sure there are farmers growing obscure barleys for a niche brewing industry but not your average grain farmer. And I know there are other malt barleys out there that malsters accept but Metcalfe has basically captured the lions share?

[cowman]

That you know of cowman! Funny you mentioned Gelbvieh; (probably the most practical continental breed)and why not mention Limousin. How many red calves are surely not bred to Red Poll, or South Devon, or Saler. This black market has really exploded in the last few years and the Cetified Angus Beef program has gone with the flow, by only demanding a black hided calf to be in the program. We sell over 20 bulls a year from our little operation alone. If you include even a few of the bulls we have sold that survive past 4 or 5 years of age, that makes potential for a couple thousand black calves out there that have little or no Angus blood in them what so ever. I won't ague with your Average Farmer theory, however, even the Average Joe likes to buck the system from time to time.

[pandiana]

rpkaiser “Can we not admit that there is more variance within breeds than there is between breeds?”

Yes, true. There are the good, bad and ugly in every breed. Maybe this is good in that it does broaden the choices and gene pool. I saw a Limo cow that I would have mortgaged the farm for if I could have used her in my program. And yes, trends can and do change over time. I would contend that we are in a major shift in direction right now. I read somewhere that in the 50’s Hereford cows weaned on average 350-400 lb calves. Look what they will wean today. Whether or not this is progress or not can be debated but these changes have been market driven.

Stock Shows:
If you show seedstock at a show it makes sense that you bring out the animals that you think will win. If you heard that the judges are looking for pink bulls, you would bring pink bulls not blue ones. If you don’t like where this is going you would stay home. The reason you want to win is that you are trying to build credibility for your herd and the seedstock you will be selling. You need the money to survive. You want to be in the group at the top. I agree that everyone tends to see things a little differently but, on the other hand, what those judges want will determine where show cattle tend to go to a significant extent. Again, judges are not working in isolation but have to have an ear tuned to the cattle industry. How much influence this has on the commercial herd is another debate.

Speaking of how different people see things, when I toured the barns at Agribition and Farmfair what struck me was similarity not variability. I saw Simmental cattle that were solid red or black and moderate frame that could easily pass as Gelbvieh. I saw Gelbvieh and Simmental that were looking more and more like Angus. I saw black and red Charolais. Has anyone seen spots on Maines lately? Frame size is also tending to moderate in many breeds although stock shows are still notorious for bringing out extremes. The days of the biggest or fastest growing animals winning it all are gone though I believe.

Market
The market is the great leveler. Feedlot buyers prefer to buy cattle that they think they can make money on. Packers set the standard for the feedlots. The retail market determines what meat they will buy from the packer, i.e. what size their steak will be or whether their eating experience with beef exceeds that of pork or chicken. When you sell your calves on the free market auction system, I would bet that you watch carefully what your neighbors are getting for their calves. If you get the average price, you wonder what you have to do to get a premium. If you get dinged for whatever; color, frame, condition, it sends a strong signal that you need to change. Yes it is money driven. We all need ‘it’ to keep going. Many of us would love to have enough money left over to be altruistic.

Whether or not the market ever settles on four breeds or five or 50 is not determined by somebody telling you that you can’t breed anything you want. If you want to get paid well, or to win, you have to produce a product that is in demand and that you get paid for. Whether that is in the open, free market or niche market is of little consequence, as long as you can make a living. Breeds of cattle that don’t provide a living tend to quietly disappear over time.

[cakadu]

Depends on who is demanding what. Sometimes we think we know what the consumer wants, or that what we want is somehow going to miraculously translate into what the consumer wants. Consumers, whether it be the shopper in the store, the feeder buyer or even food service, can be very fickle and their demands change over time.

The biggest thing about consumers is to give them the straight goods about what you are doing. Consumers may be fickle, but their memories are long, especially when they feel that they haven't been treated properly or kept informed.

The most significant factor about keeping heritage livestock - rare, endangered or on the critical list - is that at some stage, we will likely have to outcross to them to get back some of the more desirable traits we have spent years getting rid of. We seem to have gone the way of what can get the biggest the fastest because margins keep getting tighter and tighter, so in an attempt to curtail costs, we look for what we believe is the quick fix i.e. faster growing etc.

I truly hope their never comes a day when we are reduced to just a few genetic lines. I wonder when the day will come when we realize we have gone too far and there is no turning back.

[PureCountry]

I'm sorry pandiana, but I don't agree with your statement that breeds of cattle that do not make a living disappear over time. Making a living from cattle is far more about managing your land, grass and money, than your cattle. I don't care if you raise Angole-Watusi just to sell the horns and bleached skulls, if you manage your operation and keep it within its means, it can be profitable. You could conversely have a 'picture perfect' herd of Angus show cows, and be winning banner after ribbon after trophy, and still lose your butt if the management isn't there.
I have to agree with rpkaiser on this one. The type of cattle AND breed is of little consequence, as long as the management is top-notch, and as you said pandiana, there is a market for what you're selling.
There are breeds that have dwindled in numbers, and not through any fault of their own. Then there are breeds with large memberships that I think should be extinct, because they are doing are industry harm, despite having some outstanding individual animals within the breed. Neil French from Olds College told me that the research conducted through their Steer-A-Year trials, for Relative Feed Intake and Net Feed Efficiency, is focusing more on variance between sire groups, rather than variance between breeds. However, when I put the question to him, he reluctantly agreed that some breeds just have nothing to offer over and above others.
But as I said before, even the breeds I have no use for at all, someone is making money with somewhere. And again, it all comes down to management.

(Although I dare say that if more commercial operators understood that your cost of production could be as low as $350-400 per cow with the right crossbreeding program, they may rethink the 'BIG FOUR' breeds)

I don't know if I made a point or just walked both sides of the fence, oh well, it'll make for conversation.

[cowman]

purecountry: A whole lot of producers have absolutely no idea what their cost of production is and just don't care. The producer probably with the lowest cost of all is the large grainfarmer who just uses his cattle to clean up the byproducts of his grain operation? You know the 40-50 cow herd that is so often quoted as being inefficient? I mean consider this type of operations costs?
Feed is basically free, or at least a lot of it. Pasture is junk land that can't be farmed and without cattle would just sit. Machinery used to feed is in reality machinery from the grain operation sitting idle during the winter. As long as the cattle don't interfere with seeding/spraying harvesting then the money is practically pure profit. This is your ultimate low cost producer?

[pandiana]

I am not sure what the debate is. I think I said that you could raise anything you want as long as you can make a living. The operative words is make a living. If you are a good promoter, you could make a living selling bleached skulls and horns, or rodeo stock or anything else. Obviously, if you are a good manager, the weather cooperates, you bought in when land was cheap, etc., you would have a competitive edge. I have no argument with this thinking. My point was that whatever you produce or however efficient you are at producing it, the limiting factors is you must have demand for the product. No matter how good you think your product is, your ability to sell it depends on what the market wants. If the market wants a carcass that fits in a box, or has a giant ribeye or extreme marbling, then in order to get the best price, producers will try to fit these specifications. Right now, I believe that the signals we are getting from the big markets, i.e. packers, retailers, consumers, appear to want a predictable, safe and uniform product. On the other hand, our BSE problem has highlighted the 'safe' aspect of our meat market and I agree that this has probably opened up a significant market for more naturally grown livestock.