Vertical integration coming soon to a packer near you

[Red Robin]

Agreed. Those genetics are out there and the forward thinking producer is trying to identify them. The challenge lies in trying to optimize production through heterosis and still maintaining predicatability in whatever traits your striving for. American Angus has done substantial work in providing accurate information on purebred Angus in the US but little of how they work with other breeds. Of course they want no part in promoting crossbreeding and are even so arrogant to promote Angus cattle as the "Power of One" which is nonsense. If you are a c/calf producer and are leaving 50-100lbs per calf on the table by not using a bull of another breed on your Angus cows you may as well take a drive down the road once a year and toss $100 bills out the wondow. Heterosis is the only thing that is free in the beef business.

The challenge in the case of carcass traits is getting the carcass data back from the packers. In Canada that is only possible if the c/calf producer retains ownership through to slaughter. Ultrasound adds to the dataset but not as quickly or accurately as combining carcass data along with it.

Even if you retain ownership, there's no guarantee that the data you recieve from the packer is accurate. They have no incentive to be accurate. There is enough difference between graders to skew breeding decisions. Why is it that everytime someone favors epd's Bill that they compare them to actual data. I think a more realistic compairison is comparing them to the human mind. I've known fellas who throw out good thinking in favor of an EPD that is flashy.

What incentive do the packers have to send back inaccurate data back to the producer? :roll:

As far as actual physical numbers explain to me how you take two bull calves who are full brothers born in two different herds and subjuct to two entirley different sets of management. One calf is allowed to grow on grass and eased into the breeding season on a high roughage ration. Let's say his bw is 85, ww is 700 and yw 1150. The other bull has a corn ration in his face from 2 months on until Denver. His mom was shown as a yearling and fattened right up so his BW was 100, ww 825 and yw 1300.

How do you compare the two without a contemporary group setting?

Did you miss what I wrote about EPDs being but ONE tool that we have? I wood say that using all of the tools is only "good thinking".

Uhhhh Bill, I would compare them to their contemporaries. The show bull to other show bulls (with info gathered from breeders I trust) The the other bull to his contemporaries. I use my head. It's not too hard. How much stock can your put in epd's where the accuracy value is practically ZERO. Everyone says it's just one tool but they use it like it's the only tool. EPD's after the accuracy gets into the dependable range is a good tool , but before that they are a distraction. You asked about packers having an incentive to send wrong data, I never said they would do that . Reread my post. I said they had no incentive to send accurate data. You admitted yourself that you've seen data lost. You also are surely aware that not all graders see carcass's the same. VI takes all this mess makes it work better (IMHO)

 

[andybob]

The post I entered at the top of page four is not based on speculation on my part, but iswhat is in the planning stage as being discussed in meetings at Smithfields. As well as most of the land owned around the pig farms not being utilised, many of the spray fields arenot yet planted to improved grasses there is already more than enough land to controll their own genetics for a terminal cross to suit their market, and topgenetics can be bought in by mass purchase of embryos, the top geneticists already in the company will keep them at the cutting edge of cattle breeding. My own market depends on having continued access to private slaughter facilities for any bulls steered as not suitable for the commercial market, as I will naver meet the demand for the products I have started selling through some expatriot websites. Groups of cattle breeders can identify, or even create a niche market and stay indepedant of the increasingly controlled traditional market, co-operative marketing works in other parts of the world and can just as easily be done here.

 

[Red Robin]

From what I understand Dr.Herring is one of the top geneticist. He already works for Smithfield doesn't he?

 

[Sandhusker]

Robin, "Even if you retain ownership, there's no guarantee that the data you recieve from the packer is accurate. They have no incentive to be accurate"

If they are serious about consistently providing quality product, that is their incentive. If they don't make an effort to be upfront and honest, then you know there's a skunk in the wood pile.

 

[Red Robin]

If they don't make an effort to be upfront and honest, then you know there's a skunk in the wood pile.

They only are responsible from the time the meat hits their rail . What happens on the farm is of little concern to them. I don't see how their lack of concern for the integrity of your data makes them dishonest. Packers can control the type cattle they hang through incentives or premiums and discounts.

 

[Mike]

Robin, "Even if you retain ownership, there's no guarantee that the data you recieve from the packer is accurate. They have no incentive to be accurate"

If they are serious about consistently providing quality product, that is their incentive. If they don't make an effort to be upfront and honest, then you know there's a skunk in the wood pile.

They are even providing data on cash cattle now. They want good cattle and want the producer to know if his are good or not so good.

 

[Red Robin]

Robin, "Even if you retain ownership, there's no guarantee that the data you recieve from the packer is accurate. They have no incentive to be accurate"

If they are serious about consistently providing quality product, that is their incentive. If they don't make an effort to be upfront and honest, then you know there's a skunk in the wood pile.

They are even providing data on cash cattle now. They want good cattle and want the producer to know if his are good or not so good.

Mike, my original point was that if you send a set of cattle through B3R or a packing plant in the north, you will get quite different data even if they were the exact same cattle.

 

[Mike]

Robin, "Even if you retain ownership, there's no guarantee that the data you recieve from the packer is accurate. They have no incentive to be accurate"

If they are serious about consistently providing quality product, that is their incentive. If they don't make an effort to be upfront and honest, then you know there's a skunk in the wood pile.

They are even providing data on cash cattle now. They want good cattle and want the producer to know if his are good or not so good.

Mike, my original point was that if you send a set of cattle through B3R or a packing plant in the north, you will get quite different data even if they were the exact same cattle.

Maybe that will change when the grading cameras are used and a record will be on file for any dispute.

I have never heard of what you are speaking of, and am not saying it is false, it's just that the feedlot I have worked with push them hard for accurate data. They also stand to lose or gain from it too.

They have even invited producers to be in the grading room while they are grading his cattle carcasses.

 

[Sandhusker]

Speaking of grading, aren't we using the same system that we've used since the inception? I think this has been brought up here before. Our grading system is antiquated. We need to use a little of what we've learned the last 50 years and devise a better system that accomodates today's markets and consumers.

 

[Mike]

Like This?

Analytical Spectral Devices Announces Commercial Application for Beef Tenderness Testing



USDA-Developed Device Allows Processors to Add Value - and Charge More -
for Real-Time Meat Quality Prediction

BOULDER, Colo., Dec. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- The days of disappointed steak
lovers biting into expensive but tough steaks may be numbered. After
decades of research and testing, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
researchers at Clay Center, Nebraska have developed an advanced technology
to more accurately predict meat tenderness quality in real-time at the
processing plant.
In a joint development effort with analytical instrument manufacturer
Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD), USDA researchers led the way in
designing the QualitySpec(R) BT system, representing ground-breaking and
non-invasive technology that enables beef processors to predict meat's
tenderness before it hits the grocery store or restaurant. The system was
successfully installed at a major meat production facility earlier this
year, and has been in commercial production for several months.
The technology utilizes an ASD Vis/Near Infrared (NIR) instrument that
is integrated into the processing system. Beef producers can read the
ribeye at a cut between the 13th and 14th rib, and then more accurately
predict the overall tenderness of that carcass while still on the
processing line, thereby creating a new standard for beef quality
assurance.
The United States has been on a grading system based on the amount of
intramuscular fat, or marbling, of meat for several decades, but since
marbling explains only a small percentage of the variation in meat
tenderness, it is not a good predictor of meat tenderness. QualitySpec(R)
BT technology allows processors to certify a carcass as tender well before
it arrives on consumers' tables.
ASD's QualitySpec(R) instrument -- which measures properties in food
such as fat, protein and moisture -- can thoroughly and non-invasively
assess the content of a particular item using NIR technology. By holding
the ASD spectrometer up to a piece of meat for only a few seconds, beef
processors can certify that what they sell will be guaranteed tender, even
after the aging process -- usually around 14 days.
"Right now, neither Select nor Choice cuts of beef can be guaranteed
tender," said ASD's Director of Business Development Michael Lands. "From
extensive USDA research, tenderness is the most sought-after guarantee for
all levels of the meat industry's sales cycle, and surveys show that
consumers are willing to pay a premium for meat that is guaranteed tender.
The processor now has a real-time indicator of the value of the product so
they can determine how to brand and price it. QualitySpec(R) guaranteed
tender meat will allow retailers to differentiate themselves with higher
standards, and let consumers know that they're spending their money wisely
on a guaranteed tender piece of meat."

About ASD
Based in Boulder and with customers around the world, ASD provides the
most reliable, high-performance analytical instrumentation solutions to
industrial professionals, analytical researchers, and remote sensing
scientists. In collaboration with our customers since 1990, our
applications support team remains unsurpassed in solving the world's most
challenging materials measurement problems.
For more information, please contact Amanda Griffin, ASD Marketing
Communications Manager, 5335 Sterling Dr., Suite A, Boulder, CO, 80301;
303/444-6522, 303/444-6825 (fax); [email protected]; http://www.asdi.com.

_

 

[Red Robin]

At least with grading cameras or ultrasound or such you would have objectivity.

 

[Sandhusker]

Yep, like that. Until we use the tools that actually tell us what we want to know and what we're sending to our customers, we're just spinning our wheels - we're just guessing.

 

[Anonymous]

I have never heard of what you are speaking of, and am not saying it is false, it's just that the feedlot I have worked with push them hard for accurate data. They also stand to lose or gain from it too.

They have even invited producers to be in the grading room while they are grading his cattle carcasses.

How is that possible :???: How can they tell its that feedlots beef-- since some on this board daily tell us that once the head/hide comes off they can't keep track of anything- not even country of origin- let alone WHO may have owned it :???: :wink: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

I have never heard of what you are speaking of, and am not saying it is false, it's just that the feedlot I have worked with push them hard for accurate data. They also stand to lose or gain from it too.

They have even invited producers to be in the grading room while they are grading his cattle carcasses.

How is that possible :???: How can they tell its that feedlots beef-- since some on this board daily tell us that once the head/hide comes off they can't keep track of anything- not even country of origin- let alone WHO may have owned it :???: :wink: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol:

 

[efb]

[I think those genetics are already out there, and that there are many different lines that will do the trick. I'm convinced that cattlemen can deliver what they want if only they know what it is.[/quote]

Bill wrote;
Agreed. Those genetics are out there and the forward thinking producer is trying to identify them. The challenge lies in trying to optimize production through heterosis and still maintaining predicatability in whatever traits your striving for. American Angus has done substantial work in providing accurate information on purebred Angus in the US but little of how they work with other breeds. Of course they want no part in promoting crossbreeding and are even so arrogant to promote Angus cattle as the "Power of One" which is nonsense. If you are a c/calf producer and are leaving 50-100lbs per calf on the table by not using a bull of another breed on your Angus cows you may as well take a drive down the road once a year and toss $100 bills out the wondow. Heterosis is the only thing that is free in the beef business.

The challenge in the case of carcass traits is getting the carcass data back from the packers. In Canada that is only possible if the c/calf producer retains ownership through to slaughter. Ultrasound adds to the dataset but not as quickly or accurately as combining carcass data along with it.[/quote]

I think you guys are getting closer. The genetics are out there. The Smithfield "ideal steer" will come from the current gene pool. Maybe someday they will be splicing genes in beef cattle, but until then all the marbles are on the table. Now here comes the problem. We are still thinking like cow men. Bill says, without heterosis you might as well throw $100 bills out the window. Some say, well if you select too much for carcass you will lose fertility or easy fleshing or etc. etc..
When Smithfield or whoever hires a bunch of geneticits(?) and pays them $100,000 per year each to develop the critter they are looking for they won't care about heterosis, fertility or easy fleshing. They will be looking for the same thing the guy who walks into a resturant and orders a $30 steak is looking for. It's a difficult situation. We all want a cow that can go out on 20 acres, make a living, raise a calf every year that will weigh as much as we can get. The problem is the guy that is paying your salary doesn't give a rip about any of that.

 

[Red Robin]

Do you think we need to do all that in order to make better beef? I'm thinking you're using a cannon when a 12 gauge will work. I'm not convinced that we need to have all our females clones of each other. I think there's 100s of combos that will achieve the end result as long as we know that the desired result is.

Been thinking on this sandhusker. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that consistancy in the poultry and swine industry has been achieved by line breeding two lines (or more) each with very few genetic possibilities which has been achieved by removing undesirable traits through selection pressure. They then cross those two lines that are similiar in traits but different genetically to bring about maximum heterosis and consistancy. What vehicle do we have as producers to bring about that consistancy? Sure we could cooperate and produce maybe a thousand or two but in volume required by todays chain speed I just don't see it working without VI. Any thoughts?

 

[Sandhusker]

Do you think we need to do all that in order to make better beef? I'm thinking you're using a cannon when a 12 gauge will work. I'm not convinced that we need to have all our females clones of each other. I think there's 100s of combos that will achieve the end result as long as we know that the desired result is.

Been thinking on this sandhusker. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that consistancy in the poultry and swine industry has been achieved by line breeding two lines (or more) each with very few genetic possibilities which has been achieved by removing undesirable traits through selection pressure. They then cross those two lines that are similiar in traits but different genetically to bring about maximum heterosis and consistancy. What vehicle do we have as producers to bring about that consistancy? Sure we could cooperate and produce maybe a thousand or two but in volume required by todays chain speed I just don't see it working without VI. Any thoughts?

It sounds like you know a lot more about breeding chickens than I do - I gave that up for lent. :roll: OK, bad joke. Actually, I don't know what they did with chickens so I'll take your word for it.

I don't know if we need that degree of consistancy. I mean, why go thru the time, money and effort to make a product with a standard deviation of 2 when the methods/skills of the cook will create a standard deviation of 20? Know what I'm getting at? Consider what Creekstone farms goes thru - they do control the genetics of the cattle they buy for the most part. They put out some dang good beef - I've ate it. Yet, my mother-in-law will turn that fine steak into a simple piece of meat. Their effort is wasted with her. I love her, but she can't cook a steak. She comes from a long line of like folks. I've even eaten at a number of the name chain steak joints and hardly ever get a steak close to what I can cook.

I don't think we need a 98 to make our consumers happy. I think an 85 will do it and we won't have to give up control or narrow our gene pool to get it. Am I making any sense with my late-night analogies?

 

[Red Robin]

Do you think we need to do all that in order to make better beef? I'm thinking you're using a cannon when a 12 gauge will work. I'm not convinced that we need to have all our females clones of each other. I think there's 100s of combos that will achieve the end result as long as we know that the desired result is.

Been thinking on this sandhusker. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that consistancy in the poultry and swine industry has been achieved by line breeding two lines (or more) each with very few genetic possibilities which has been achieved by removing undesirable traits through selection pressure. They then cross those two lines that are similiar in traits but different genetically to bring about maximum heterosis and consistancy. What vehicle do we have as producers to bring about that consistancy? Sure we could cooperate and produce maybe a thousand or two but in volume required by todays chain speed I just don't see it working without VI. Any thoughts?

It sounds like you know a lot more about breeding chickens than I do - I gave that up for lent. :roll: OK, bad joke. Actually, I don't know what they did with chickens so I'll take your word for it.

I don't know if we need that degree of consistancy. I mean, why go thru the time, money and effort to make a product with a standard deviation of 2 when the methods/skills of the cook will create a standard deviation of 20? Know what I'm getting at? Consider what Creekstone farms goes thru - they do control the genetics of the cattle they buy for the most part. They put out some dang good beef - I've ate it. Yet, my mother-in-law will turn that fine steak into a simple piece of meat. Their effort is wasted with her. I love her, but she can't cook a steak. She comes from a long line of like folks. I've even eaten at a number of the name chain steak joints and hardly ever get a steak close to what I can cook.

I don't think we need a 98 to make our consumers happy. I think an 85 will do it and we won't have to give up control or narrow our gene pool to get it. Am I making any sense with my late-night analogies?

Some , trouble seems that an 85 is achievable by Brazil , is it not?

 

[Red Robin]

An appetite for growth

Brazil's cattle ranchers are embracing change



By Barry Shlachter

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Dec. 11, 2006



VERA, Brazil - James King Carr De Muzio started cattle ranching later in life. But the easy-mannered 53-year-old Brazilian doctor and rancher feels as comfortable in the saddle as he does wearing surgical scrubs.



De Muzio - who says his mixed ancestry, unusual even in Brazil, includes Alabamans who joined a colony of Confederates after the Civil War on one side and a "tossed salad" Spanish-Italian-African heritage on the !other - counts himself among producers enlarging their cattle holdings as the country's beef industry continues a seemingly insatiable growth.



Starting with two cows he received for delivering a baby during Brazil's 1994 currency crisis, De Muzio built his herd to more than 1,000, then scaled back to 500 after a dry summer. He says he's reshaping his operation, gearing it toward yearling stocker steers. He remains bullish on his country's cattle industry, which has been hobbled by a lack of paved roads, by quality issues, and by periodic outbreaks of disease that keep all but cooked beef out of the United States.



"It's still something new for me," he said of ranching. "I like medicine, but this is more than a hobby. I can afford to lose some money .... but I can't throw money away."



Brazil's herd, conservatively estimated at 170 million head (the nation's beef export association figures 204 million), is the world's largest - there are about 97 million U.S. beef cattle - and there is every indication that Brazilians like De Muzio will make it an even bigger ranching country.



In 2004, Brazil became the world's largest beef exporter by volume, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department. Disease, sanitary issues at slaughter plants, and the sale of lower-priced cuts account for why it still trails Australia in export value.



Incidences of highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease in some parts of Brazil prevent exports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef to some key markets, including the U.S. and Japan.



But with exports to 150 other countries, "losing a few hasn't had a discernible impact on the numbers," says Steve Kay of Cattle Buyers Weekly, based in Petaluma, Calif.



Russia and 55 other countries stopped imports from Brazilian states affected by foot-and-mouth disease last December but removed the ban on major producing states like Mato Grosso deemed clear of the infection in August. Nonetheless, Brazil's exports from January through September 2006 rose 17.6 percent in cash value and 3.8 percent in volume compared with a year earlier, according to the Brazilian Beef Industry and Exporters Association.



Aside from being hormone-free, more than 90 percent of Brazilian cattle are grass-fed and therefore unlikely to contract mad cow disease from tainted feed. This pleases safety-conscious European consumers. Only cooked Brazilian beef can be imported into the United States, the biggest customer for this processed meat.



The relatively low price of Brazilian beef attracts orders from Russia, its No. 1 customer, and Middle Eastern countries. Overall, Brazil accounts for a quarter of global beef exports.



Right now, few American ranchers appear concerned about Brazilian competition. Moreover, more expensive grain-fed beef from the United States has ended up in foreign markets, except for some by-products like tongue, U.S. producers say.



The sanguine American reaction to Brazil's runaway export growth might well be justified - if Brazilians don't expand their relatively tiny base of feedlots and compete head to head with higher-quality beef. Less than 10 percent of cattle here go through feedlots, where a diet of grain adds pounds quickly.



But low corn and soybean prices, compounded by an abundance of supply often in the same regions, are making feedlots much more attractive to Brazilian cattlemen.



Carlos Kind operates the country's 11th-biggest feedlot, Boitel (an acronym for "Bovine Hotel") near Rio Verde in Goias state. The feedlot can handle 12,500 cattle; about 75 percent are owned by him and his partner. He says Brazilian ranchers are increasingly using feedlots to produce higher-grade beef cattle.



"We may now represent less than a tenth of cattle production, but feedlots are growing at 20 percent a year," Kind said through an interpreter. "The big feedlots are getting bigger and there are more small ones. As for me, I am going to invest in better feed - cornmeal and soy - to get the steers finished faster. We've got the land and the grain. The problem is that banks generally don't lend to feedlots."



A sense of potential



Texas rancher Gary McGehee has seen the Brazilian potential, and he is worried.



Although the American industry has derided grass-fed beef as inferior to the U.S. corn-fed variety, McGehee said he was uncomfortably impressed by the grass-fed meat he ate during a visit to Brazil.



"The steaks were great, prepared well. That kind of stuff scares me," he said during a call from the West Texas town of Mertzon.



Brazil should no longer be dismissed as just another Third World country, McGehee cautioned.



"They are competitive with us," he said. "Although we might export less than 7 percent of our beef, if the price of cattle drops 3 or 4 percent because of Brazilian competition, that is going to have an effect on me. Eventually, they are coming to our own market and we're going to have to deal with it."



At the Boitel feedlot in central west Brazil, a 64-year-old cattleman named Helvecio Pereira sized up Kind's operation. He was in Rio Verde to find at least one more feedlot for his livestock.



"Cattle ranching has changed totally in the past 30 years, and it's changing faster all the time," Pereira said. "We know the techniques from the United States - how you feed the cattle, put weight on. But it wasn't that feasible until now. The prices weren't there."



A trained agronomist, Pereira said he started in 1968. His family bought land at $20 an acre near Mozartlandia, in Goias state, then borrowed money to clear it.



"There were no roads, no house, electricity, just jungle," he said, telling a familiar story among Brazil's pioneer ranchers. "It took 20 years. Now we have 19,000 acres." He declined to say how large his herd is, but a person in the industry estimated that Pereira holds at least 3,500 head.



Pereira said everything changed when profits dropped after the 1994 currency crisis, when the government's fiscal policy destroyed the value of the currency, the cruzeiro, almost overnight, decimating people's life savings. The crunch forced greater efficiency and specialization among cattlemen.



"We couldn't make money on just speculation and currency fluctuations as in the past," Pereira said. "Before 1994, it took us 48 to 58 months, from start to finish, to produce a slaughter-weight steer. Now we can do it in 24 to 30 months - with even better quality."



Feedlots became more prominent in Brazil after 1994, said Pereira. He has used a feedlot between his ranch and the main beef cattle market in Sao Paulo, Brazil's financial capital and largest city.



"That's where you get top dollar," he said.



Pereira said relatively few Brazilian producers hedge their risk as he does by striking future deals for cattle.



Land is no longer $20 an acre, but Texas-reared rancher John Cain Carter said some can still be found for $150. About half must be set aside as an environmental reserve. Then there's the cost of clearing heavy brush.



"It's still cheaper than $2,000-an-acre range near Castroville, Texas," said Carter, a San Antonio native who attended Texas Christian University's ranch management program, where he met his Brazilian wife, Kika. They operate a 20,000-acre ranch near the Xingu River Basin, a tributary of the Amazon.



Brazil's advantages



Besides cheap land, Brazil's advantages for the cattle industry include fairly reliable rainfall, experienced and inexpensive labor, and hardy, drought-resistant forage !grass.



As for labor, "I pay about 33 percent more than others, but I demand more," Carter said. He pays 800 reais - about $375 a month - and his workers get free beef and use of the ranch's motorcycle and jeep.



"In Brazil, you can pay off your ranch running cattle in five to seven years," he said. "You can't do that in the United States."



But it's not all clover.



Things taken for granted in Texas, like farm-to-market roads and access to the electrical grid, often don't exist in Brazil. Carter said he spent $100,000 putting in a hydroelectric generator.



Ranchers have little incentive to produce top-quality animals, because there's no widely established grading system. Unlike in the United States, where ranchers are rewarded for producing leaner, more tender beef, "cattle here are sold purely by weight," Carter said.



De Muzio agreed.



"When I sell steers, it's sight unseen," he said. Auctions are mainly for breeding stock.



But things might change, said Carter, who has been consulting with Grupo Brascan, a Canadian-owned operation that bought the Brazilian assets of Texas' historic King Ranch. Brascan is now talking with traders to see what percentage of fat they want in the carcasses.



"They have 50,000 brood cows, and there's the potential to sustain whole restaurant chains," Carter said.



In Vera, De Muzio put his first two cows on about 370 acres of uncleared land, then added to the holding over the years. He now has 2,440 acres that cost about $200 per acre on average.



De Muzio later invested in a cattle operation with a friend. When a wealthy soybean farmer wanted to buy the land, De Muzio moved 130 cows and three bulls to his ranch, where by then he had 60 head. With the help of one full-time employee, he built the herd to more than 1,000 head. Then last year's dry season hit.



"It was four months of dryness - dry, dry, dry," he said, repeating the word in a drawl, a legacy of his mother's Alabama heritage.



He culled his herd and decided to concentrate on buying weaned calves and selling them after two years of grazing. Brazilian producers are only now beginning to specialize in cow-calf operations or weaned yearlings. But De Muzio decided that running a cow-calf operation "just doesn't pay."



"I figured it out myself, especially when I saw them starving last year," he said. "I lost two to starvation. Cows eat too much."



During the drought, he spent about $7,000 on silage.



"Then," he says, "it rained. I promised myself I wouldn't go through that again."



dfw.com

 

[andybob]

Do you think we need to do all that in order to make better beef? I'm thinking you're using a cannon when a 12 gauge will work. I'm not convinced that we need to have all our females clones of each other. I think there's 100s of combos that will achieve the end result as long as we know that the desired result is.

Been thinking on this sandhusker. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that consistancy in the poultry and swine industry has been achieved by line breeding two lines (or more) each with very few genetic possibilities which has been achieved by removing undesirable traits through selection pressure. They then cross those two lines that are similiar in traits but different genetically to bring about maximum heterosis and consistancy. What vehicle do we have as producers to bring about that consistancy? Sure we could cooperate and produce maybe a thousand or two but in volume required by todays chain speed I just don't see it working without VI. Any thoughts?

In the pig industry, seperate dam lines and terminal boar lines are bred and continually improved. some breeds are specific to dam line breeding eg; the Landrace, and Hampshire bred for terminal crossing. Large white and Duroc are bred for both functions, but the seperate types are phenotypically different, and if outbred, display a measure of heterosis even though they are the same breed.
A typical damline F1 would be a Landrace/ Large white or a Landrace/Duroc cross bred to a terminal Hampshire/Large white.
Experiments with 25% Chinese Meisham in the damlines are proving very promising in improving piglet numbers born alive and percentages weaned. New lines are contantly being trialed and improved, I have just spent 20 months totally changing my entire stock of now obsolete genetics with a new line, and I maintain a 2.2 litters per sow in the multiplyer,,as each delivery of gilts are marginaly superior in performance to the previous gilts and the highest performance is required to keep our commercial herds ahead of the competition.
I continue to breed my personal cattle as a damline adapted to the environment,with middle of the road conformation, as there are enough breeds that can be used to improve conformation on an easy keeping fertile breed which expresses a high degree of heterosis which is as you have noted, is an essential aspect of commercial production.