CSIRO PUBLISHING
`
`wwwpublish,csiro.autjourna|sIajea
`
`xttr.vtml'ian Journal‘ of'Experfinenral Agr:'cul'.'ure, 2006, 46. l83-- I98
`
`Breeding strategies for the development of
`the Australian beef industry: an overview
`
`K. Hammond
`
`SB Coral Place, Campbell, ACT 2612, Australia. Email: plc@pamandkeith.net
`
`Strategic directions for the period 2010 to 2020 and research and development needs are considered for
`Abstract.
`the Australian Beef Industry from the breeding sector’s perspective. These are related to the way major technologies
`are developed for an industry, the current status and likely trends in market development and appropriation of
`benefits to the consumer, processor, commercial beef producer and breeding sectors. The primary strategic needs
`identified are: (i) understand the functional biology for the major production environments (supply chain packages),
`(ii) accelerate the speed of genetic improvement for production environment breeding goals based on commercial
`sector profitability and the dissemination of superior genetic material to this sector, and (iii) retain and develop the
`Beef Cooperative Research Centre concept over the period. Tactics for realising each strategy are considered.
`Rigorously designed industry-level studies based on a genotype X environment interaction approach, involving all
`major production environments and breeds, have an important role to play, as do the serial development of
`measuring equipment and procedures for carcass quality and yield, body maintenance, disease management and
`maternal performance.
`Information and communication, molecular genetics and artificial
`insemination
`technologies, along with formal progeny testing and an extended BREEDPLAN system, will be increasingly used
`by the breeding as well as commercial industry sectors to more consistently meet particular market demands.
`Carefully executed progeny testing is a pragmatic and necessary breeding approach for the period, serving a number
`of important purposes. The beef industry as a whole will need to take more responsibility for its genetic
`improvement element by: managing the appropriation of benefits across sectors, developing an increasingly
`effective system of value-based marketing and, for each sector and production environment, a more appropriate
`program of capacity building. The industry could now usefiilly consider the further development of its activity to
`address these longer-term strategic needs.
`
`Additional keywords: adaptive fitness, artificial insemination, Beef Cooperative Research Centre {CRC), breeding,
`BREEDOBJECT, BREEDPLAN, carcass quality and yield, cattle, extension, feed intake, genetic improvement,
`genotype >< environment interaction (GEI), management groups, production systems, progeny testing, val ue—added
`marketing.
`
`Introduction
`
`to Australia and its industries. The initiative was also vital to
`
`Bindon and Jones (2001) listed about 30 major events that
`have influenced the development of beef markets for the
`Australian industry since the 19303. About one-third ofthese
`events are technological
`in nature. Each of these key
`technological events relied on various prior events for its
`development,
`such as one or more
`seminal
`research
`contributions, disease outbreaks and temporary loss of
`promising markets, or particular public sector initiative.
`With increasing frequency over time, one or more sectors of
`the industry itself have become directly involved during the
`early development stage of a major technology. In this way,
`the Beef Cooperative Research Centre (C RC ) developed out
`of a Federal Government policy initiative. The initiative was
`aimed at stimulating coordinated public institutional efforts
`and
`direct
`private
`sector
`financial
`and
`operational
`involvement in tackling areas and issues ofmajor importance
`
`© CSIRO 2006
`
`I 0. l07lr‘EA05230
`
`the realisation of significant outcomes for the nation and
`preparation for
`their uptake and commercialisation by
`industry. The Beef CRC was made possible through a range
`of direct commitments from the processing, seed~stock~
`producing and commercial beef—producing sectors of the
`industry, and from 6 public institutions. Direct contributions
`of staff. land, cattle, funding and operational support enabled
`this major development for the industry (Bindon 2001).
`The design of the Beef CRC’s research and development
`(R&D) program (Bindon 2001; Upton er al. 2001) relied
`upon the introduction of the seed-stock producing sector to
`another of the major technological events listed by Bindon
`and Jones, the National Beef Recording Scheme {NBRS)
`BREEDPLAN system (Graser er at. 2005). The development
`ofthe pivotal analytical element of BREEDPLAN had relied
`heavily on the existence of a performance~recording scheme
`CSHL EXHIBIT 2004
`BENITEC V. CSHL
`
`|PR2016-00016
`
`

`
`l 84
`
`Ansrralitm Joumal ofErper:'memat' Agrt'culrm'e
`
`K. Hammond
`
`database.
`central
`its
`and
`breeders,
`by
`being used
`Performance recording was initiated through the action of
`New South Wales (NSW) Agriculture; the development of
`NBRS was subsequently coordinated by the other state
`departments of agriculture,
`the Agricultural Business
`Research Institute (ABRI) and industry, with the state
`departments providing substantial extension resources to
`introduce and support the technology. NBRS is marketed by
`ABRI
`and provides both pedigree and performance
`recording services.
`and
`The
`development of BREEDPLAN (Graser
`Hammond 1985) was also made possible by seminal research
`for the United States of American dairy industry by the late
`Professor Charles R. Henderson and its interpretation by
`Henderson (1973). The analytical algorithms of even the first
`version of BREEDPLAN required comparatively powerful
`computing. Extensive pre-release testing in association with
`industry included repeated analyses of data and extended
`working sessions with a broad panel of cattle breeders, each
`actively utilising NBRS. Uptake of BREEDPLAN and one
`of its early extensions, Group BREEDPLAN, was enabled by
`the use of another technology, artificial insemination (AI),
`by some NBRS members. Al was introduced to Australia in
`the late 1940s. Al was necessary for the across-herd design
`of the CRC’s R&D program and will be important to the
`industry’s further use and development of progeny testing.
`Group BREEDPLAN development was
`also greatly
`facilitated by the direct involvement of a number of breed
`associations with NBRS. These associations provided the
`deep pedigrees which so strengthened the genetic evaluation
`analyses and helped to generate breeder confidence in the
`BREEDPLAN system. Another important enhancement to
`the BREEDPLAN system, BREEDOBJ ECT (Barwick er al.
`1992), was implemented fifty years after the seminal theory
`(Hazel I943) was interpreted for the beef industry, and was
`properly integrated with an estimated breeding value (EBV)
`prediction system.
`Most of the major technologies introduced to the beef
`industry to date have been associated with a longer-term
`R&D effort directed at advancing understanding of the
`technology and its impact, refining and extending its use,
`and supporting the necessary ongoing education and training
`concerned with this use and extended development.
`Successful uptake and further development of
`these
`technologies also relied on informed extension services by
`the state departments of agriculture. For example,
`the
`Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit (AGBU), a dedicated
`R&D team created by NSW Agriculture and the University
`of New England, designed the BREEDPLAN system and
`was
`subsequently commissioned to lead the system’s
`ongoing development
`(Graser et
`at‘. 2005).
`Informed
`extension was considered so important for the successful
`industry uptake of
`this
`complex genetic prediction
`technology that extension expertise was provided to the
`
`AGBU by departments of agriculture to coordinate national
`field uptake and support of BREEDDPLAN, and feedback.
`Subsequently,
`some breed associations also contracted
`highly-experienced
`extension
`expertise
`to
`support
`technology uptake. Freer at al. (2003) describe in some detail
`the development, present status and immediate future needs
`of the industry for breeding technology extension.
`While being mindful of the historical process of the
`uptake of major technologies, this paper briefly considers
`future longer-term strategic technological needs of the beef
`industry seed-stock-producing sector. The focus is
`the
`breeder perspective, although the direction of the main
`benefit flow from genetic gain requires that these needs must
`also be addressed by the commercial industry sectors and
`consumers.
`In considering the breeder perspective,
`the
`advanced analytical techniques which are being used in the
`BREEDPLAN system to help tackle these breeding needs
`are
`accepted without
`addressing
`here
`their
`further
`development. This is already being treated in detail by
`industry R&D and on a continuing basis in the literature.
`
`Who benefits?
`
`Strategic planning and action for the industry will endeavour
`to account for major technological development, as well as
`for the appropriation of potential benefits arising from new
`technologies. Benefits are likely to be partially recouped by
`the domestic consumer, while industry sectors will benefit
`by the technologies generating higher production, processing
`and marketing efficiencies,
`and contributing to the
`maintenance of
`the
`industry’s
`competitive
`position,
`internationally and domestically.
`The flow of benefits between and within industry sectors
`is important. If the industry is to maintain and advance the
`development of major technologies, adequate benefit must
`be appropriated to the sector(s) that invest directly in the
`development and application of these technologies. This is
`particularly
`important
`for
`breeding, where
`genetic
`expression occurs on an underlying scale, is mainly recouped
`by the commercial beef producer, processor and consumer
`sectors, and is intergenerational, compounding over time to
`provide potentially large benefits. Economic evaluations of
`return on investment in breeding and genetics R&D show
`very healthy outcomes for net present value, benefitzeost
`ratio and internal rate of return; for example, see the detailed
`evaluation for the southern Australian industry over 1970 to
`2001 by Farquharson et at‘. (2003). Economic studies have
`not as yet established the benefit flow to each industry sector,
`but it is likely that appropriation of benefits to the industry’s
`breeding sector
`is
`insufficient
`to cover
`the costs of
`generating rapid genetic improvement for the industry while
`remaining profitable. If so, the industry will need to devise
`and manage ongoing procedures which redress this issue of
`most of the benefit
`from genetic improvement being
`
`

`
`Strategic directions for Australian beef breeding
`
`Austttfltan Journal ofExperimental Agricttitttre
`
`185
`
`appropriated beyond the breeding sector, while it shoulders
`the vast majority of the investment in breeding.
`
`Future directions
`
`Breeding addresses the industry‘s future directions and
`needs—it
`is done for
`tomorrow! Longer-terrn strategic
`planning and action is essential
`then for the industry to
`realise early the substantial potential benefits of rapid
`generation and wide dissemination of genetic improvement.
`Demand
`for
`specification
`and
`increasing market
`segmentation
`of meat
`is
`advancing
`internationally.
`Fundamentally, these are being driven by the recent rapid
`developments
`in
`the
`applied
`information
`and
`communications
`technologies,
`and
`subsequently
`by
`increasing consumer awareness of product quality and of
`biosecurity and sustainability issues. assisted along by the
`broad range of ways beef is prepared in local cuisine. The
`demand changes are occurring rapidly, in years rather than
`generations. Diverse product specifications offer some
`flexibility to
`decision-makers
`at
`each
`link
`in
`the
`production—processing—marketing
`chain.
`Over
`time,
`segment specifications may further narrow. The emphasis on
`product consistency will increase and, despite some likely
`intermediate-term increase in international demand for
`
`Australian beef from possible World Trade Organization and
`European Commission Common Agricultural
`Policy
`changes, we should anticipate continuing decline in the
`longer-term terms-of-trade for beef. Collectively,
`these
`changes in the market will drive the progressive development
`of
`integrated
`supply
`chain
`packages
`(production
`environments), each customised throughout to address one
`or a small number of mutually supporting market segments.
`In the context of broad industry genetic improvement, a
`supply
`chain package
`is
`a production environment,
`encompassing elements of all
`industry sectors, breeding
`through to consumption, because genetic variability for traits
`of importance will variously impact productivity and product
`quality, and therefore competitiveness and profitability
`throughout the chain.
`The Australian industry will, therefore, further segment
`into a small number of diverse production environments,
`each customised throughout
`the breeding—production—
`processing chain to supply more consistently specific market
`segments. ‘Production’ is used here to encompass weaner
`production,
`backgrounding
`and
`finishing. Realising
`particular product
`and production specifications
`and
`retaining
`competitive
`advantage, while maintaining
`reasonable profit margins will remain challenging for each
`production environment. It will increasingly demand clear
`understanding and sound management of all variables
`operating at each link in the supply chain. This is a major
`challenge for Australian beef. As production is biologically
`complex and production will continue to be exposed to
`climatic vagaries, our understanding of how best to manage
`
`production is still quite immature. Improvements will be
`increasingly technology driven, requiring keen familiarity by
`decision-makers throughout each supply chain with how to
`best utilise an expanding range of advancing technologies.
`Major strategic R&D activity will continue to be required to
`help the industry to meet
`this challenge. The further
`partitioning of the industry into supply chain packages
`should, in addition to facilitating technology uptake and use,
`provide feedback to help clarify beef improvement and
`technological development needs. The supply chain package
`must increasingly serve to crystallise understanding of the
`specific requirements to be met by each sector and segment
`of the production environment, while the effective use of
`technologies invoked in a supply chain package will require
`highly informed management at each point. It is obvious that
`training and field technical
`support will also become
`increasingly important for industry success.
`The Beef CRC was established to focus effort on strategic
`R&D. ‘Strategic’ addresses the questions: Where are we now?
`Where do we want to be in future? What do we need to do to
`
`get to where we want to be‘? The CRC has targeted the most
`sensitive supply chain links involved in the production,
`processing and marketing of least-cost, designer beef. The
`work required major effort. The C RC marshaled the human
`and financial
`resources
`required to realise significant
`advances and industry impact from many institutions and a
`broad range of disciplinary areas {Bindon 2001). A highly
`integrated, multidisciplinary R&D program was introduced,
`incorporating a strong education and extension arm (Bindon
`2001; Bindon et all. 2001). To have national
`impact,
`the
`program also needed to take account of the existing broad
`range of primary beef production environments and genetic
`types used by the industry to produce beef in Australia, as
`well as a number of important
`technological
`trends in
`production, processing and marketing (Bindon 2001). The
`CRC R&D program initiated a large cattle-breeding program,
`the design of which enabled the integrated study of the
`genetic and non-genetic elements of producing quality beef.
`This approach by the Beef CRC may also offer the
`industry a cost—effective platform for use in filling the major
`strategic
`technological needs of each supply chain.
`Fundamental questions concerning this opportunity for the
`industry then are: (i) what are likely to be important longer
`term strategic needs and issues? and (ii) how should the beef
`industry position itself to maintain such highly integrated
`and substantial but flexible R&D infrastructure‘?
`
`Strategic needs
`What strategic technological developments are required for
`the industry to keep pace with the competition, from a
`breeding perspective? Let us consider the period 2010 to
`2020. This is beyond that period, 2004 to 2009, for which the
`Red Meat Advisory Council has recently completed an
`overall strategic plan for the industry (RMAC 2003), which
`
`

`
`l 86
`
`Australian Journo! ofErper:'nten.'at' Agr1'cufIure
`
`K. Hammond
`
`is now being addressed (MLA 2004). The period between
`2010 and 2020 may seem distant, but the R&D required to
`achieve
`a major
`technology always
`takes
`time
`and
`broad-scale uptake of results often takes more time again.
`The lead-up R&D should already have commenced for the
`industry to realise the widespread uptake of a technological
`development during this period. During this period,
`reduction in soil moisture and increasing variability of
`climate throughout Australia (Intergovernmental Panel on
`Climate Change 2005) is likely to impact the economics of
`beef production, resulting in added economic pressure and
`some redistribution of the herd, particularly in the more
`vulnerable south.
`
`Three major strategic targets are particularly important
`help the Australian beef
`industry maintain
`its
`to
`competitive position and profitability throughout 2010 to
`2020. These are:
`
`(1) obtain a much better understanding of beef production
`functional biology for the major Australian production
`environments [The term ‘functional biology’ is used
`rather than physiology to better encompass all elements
`of function in the biological systems involved.] ;
`(2) Accelerate the speed of genetic improvement and the
`dissemination of these gains, for the breeding goal
`established for each of the
`important production
`environments of the industry;
`(3) retain the Beef CRC infrastructure and operation at least
`at its existing capacity.
`Some important elements of each of these 3 mutually
`dependent strategies are now considered.
`
`I . Understanding rhefnncrionol biologyfiir the major beef
`production environnrenrs
`R&D on this strategy commenced decades ago. Progress was
`rather slow and inefficient until the Beef CRC was formed.
`
`In addition to the CRC mustering the required breadth and
`depth of expertise, institutional involvement and resources to
`address the strategy, the CRC’s timing was important to its
`early success. A number of
`informatics
`(measuring,
`computing, communications and analytical) and molecular
`(genetic, developmental, immunological, metabolic) tools
`had become available which are critical to rapidly- and cost-
`effectively-progressing work on this strategy.
`The R&D required to address the strategy will involve at
`least several decades of work. Along the way,
`important
`outcomes
`for
`industry use will be generated. Major
`outcomes should enable:
`
`(i)
`
`Industry specification and development of those
`production systems capable of consistently, efficiently
`and sustainably supplying the major market segments.
`(ii) Development of increasingly lower-cost, rapid, reliable
`and timely measurement techniques for the important
`carcass quality and yield traits, body maintenance and
`health management. The carcass measurements must
`
`the supply chain in the
`possess utility throughout
`breeding, commercial beef producing, processing and
`marketing sectors.
`(iii) Development and industry-wide use of a value-based
`marketing system which enables adequate appropriation
`of the benefits of genetic improvement to drive the
`breeding sector to invest in acheiving the required gains
`(Parnell 2004). Even if vertical
`integration were to
`develop in the industry to supply particular market
`segments,
`the diversity of segments and of the
`production systems
`is
`likely eventually to favour
`genuine val ue-based marketing. For improvement to be
`maximised,
`the clarity and integrity of feedback
`throughout
`each supply chain is
`essential. The
`introduction of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA)
`grading system was an important step in industry
`development, as shown by the resulting increase in
`consumer confidence,
`as
`reported by Meat
`and
`Livestock Australia (2002). To successfully address
`strategies for breeding, the MSA grading system should
`be developed and combined with automated yield
`measurement to realise an effective system of value-
`based marketing for use by all sectors. Polkinghorne
`er of.
`(2006) developed novel carcass breakdown,
`fabrication and software systems to demonstrate the
`feasibility of such ‘truly transparent’ value-based
`marketing. They consider that
`the consumer focus
`delivered by MSA could be applied commercially
`across all sectors.
`
`(iv) Development of a coordinated education program for all
`sectors of each beef supply chain, such that the values of
`genetic and non-genetic factors are clearly understood.
`This understanding by all sectors of the beef supply
`chain will be critical
`to achieving the outcomes
`described in points (i), (ii), and (iii) above. For example,
`effective value-based marketing will only become a
`reality when the processor realises that there are genetic
`differences
`for carcass traits and that
`the breeder
`
`controls the genetics. To achieve the benefits of genetic
`improvement
`the processor must be prepared to
`appropriate some of this benefit back along the chain.
`In a genetic
`context,
`clear understanding of
`the
`requirements for developing each of the industry’s diverse
`production
`environments
`requires
`industry-level
`characterisation within and between these environments. To
`
`interactions
`realise the strategy, genotype >< environment
`(GEIs) must be central to the design of all major R&D activity.
`
`Genotype X environment interaction
`Globally, over time GEls have been extensively studied at
`the quantitative genetic breed and animal
`levels in most
`domestic animal species, for a comparatively small number
`of breeds, traits and particular environments. A summary
`overview of the substantial research follows. For some traits,
`
`

`
`Strategic directions for Australian beef breeding
`
`Australt'an Journal ofExperimental Agricttittrre
`
`18'!‘
`
`breeds and environments, there were marked differences in
`
`ranking of the genotypes between environments studied,
`these rank changes being larger
`the more diverse the
`environments and genotypes considered. For other traits
`there were changes in relative position of the genotypes
`between environments, without changes of rank. With a few
`traits, environments and studies no GEIS were detected.
`The more thoroughly traits were examined, the greater the
`likelihood of GE! detection. This outcome is not at all
`
`surprising given that phenotypes are the end product of
`genetic constitution and total environment experience.
`Cunditf (I989) gave two broad reasons for needing to
`understand GEIS:
`to
`establish appropriate
`analytical
`procedures for genetic evaluation across and within breeds,
`and to match genetic potential with the climate,
`feed
`resources and market opportunities during breeding. To
`properly address both areas requires that quantitative genetic
`studies be conducted jointly with comprehensive studies
`directed at understanding the functional biology of the
`production systems involved. Beef production GEI studies
`though have tended to focus only on quantitative genetic
`analysis. Of course there were reasons for this approach.
`Production of beef is biologically complex and dependent on
`the environment, and the tools for doing R&D directed at
`understanding functional biology have until very recently
`been relatively crude. It was much simpler and far less costly
`and time consuming for those interested in GEIs to fit
`statistical models
`including GEI
`terms
`to
`existing
`performance recorded data. This has been a common and
`frequently a further serious constraint of GE] work, where
`the efficiency of alternate experimental designs can vary
`greatly (e.g. Solkner and James 1990).
`The required R&D must be based upon large-scale,
`detailed field trials for the industry to achieve the most
`cost-effective, rapid and sustainable improvement
`in the
`genetic and non-genetic factors that influence efficiency and
`consistency of quality beef production for each market
`segment. Designed and conducted well, this work could now
`be performed as a once-off study, which would provide
`information for decades. Its basic design provisions must
`enable subsequent, reliable incorporation into the research
`program results, studies of new methods, procedures, and the
`inputs and output demanded. The basic design must
`incorporate
`the
`industry's
`important
`production
`environments, the breeds being used and considered for
`production, together with particular crosses of these, and the
`traits of importance. An account is required of all input and
`output quantity and quality traits of importance to profitable
`beef production in each environment. It is imperative that
`these studies incorporate the functional levels of animals and
`inputs to them such as production of feeds. Properly
`achieving these requirements in the past was generally
`prohibitive. Now, with current biological, statistical and
`other informatic technologies, and careful
`integration of
`
`this industry-level activity should be feasible,
`resources,
`although still challenging. Some staging would be possible
`but will
`increase substantially overall cost and timing of
`results. Design ‘short-cuts’
`impose potentially serious
`deficiencies for matching genetic potential with non-genetic
`inputs and market opportunities through neglect of some
`important breeds, environments
`and traits. Short-cuts
`generate the need for costly, time-consuming repeat R&D,
`constraining the
`industry’s ability to further develop
`competitive and profitable supply chain packages within
`available time horizons.
`
`The design and operational approach to these industry-
`level studies of the functional biology of beef production
`should directly assist the industry to maintain its competitive
`position and profit while minimising its costs. The results
`should provide the necessary information for use in the many
`breeding and commercial beef producing sector decisions
`concerned with how to generate increased genetic gains via
`improved
`sampling,
`selection and mating strategies,
`between, as well as within, breeds and crosses. Of course,
`lack of this information should not delay the establishment of
`breeding goals
`and execution of designed breeding
`programs; these can be progressively upgraded as results
`develop. The results should directly contribute to a broad
`range of strategic decision-making in the non-genetic
`biological and economic aspects of commercial production
`and processing. The R&D and its outcome would serve to
`closely and properly integrate the range of genetic and
`non-genetic R&D required to meet the industry’s needs. In
`addition to assisting all industry sectors to further develop
`the current breeds and production environments, and
`respond to market opportunities,
`this R&D would also
`contribute valuable information to help the industry respond
`cost-effectively to future change.
`The Beef CRC phases l and ll have begun to address this
`major strategic challenge (Bindon 2001). The second phase
`CRC work is focused in the commercial sector (McKiernan
`et at’. 2005), the major contributor to short-term industry
`profitability and competitiveness. Notter (1991) considered
`that GEI may be more important
`in commercial beef
`production than in seed-stock herds. However, executing
`suitably rigorous experimental designs and generating
`adequate genetic
`information in
`this
`sector
`remains
`challenging.
`It may be argued that understanding the functional
`biology of beef production by market
`segment and
`customising production systems to suit
`them is of little
`benefit, as consumer demand and, consequently, product
`specification changes over time. While these system changes
`are important, they generally are second order. Advanced
`understanding of the functional biology and quantitative
`genetics of the production environments will enable rapid
`accommodation in established production systems of such
`second order developments.
`
`

`
`l 88
`
`Attstraliarz Jotrma! ofExperi'ntemar' Agrt'cufrure
`
`K. Hammond
`
`Of great significance to the cost-effective conduct of this
`R&D is the recent rapid development of powerful molecular
`genetics and informatics tools: (i) the major breakthrough
`confirming the presence of ribonucleic acid interference
`(RNAi) post-transcriptional gene
`silencing activity in
`mammalian (human) cells (Paddison et en’. 2002}, and the
`recent development of RNAi tools to quickly and efficiently
`turn off all genes of cells, enabling rapid genome-wide
`screens one gene at a time (for example, see Huesken er of.
`2005), and (ii) the CRC work by Reverter et all. (2005),
`integrating the human genome, beef molecular and advanced
`computing (bioinformatic) algorithms to gene networks,
`e.g. cattle muscle production, and the ‘functional points’ in
`these networks,
`is a major step forward. Combining this
`work with QTL, candidate gene, RNA, proteomic and
`phenomic
`technologies and suitably designed animal
`experimentation should enable
`these
`required highly
`integrated characterisation studies to be directed at important
`industry outcomes for the first time.
`
`2. Maximising the rate qfgeneric r’mprovementfor each
`commercial production envimnmem‘
`The combination of clearly defined market segments and a
`genuine value-based marketing system with an advanced
`understanding of
`the
`functional biology of the key
`input—output
`traits
`for
`each production environment,
`together with an adequate national system of advanced
`extension and technical support addressing all sectors,
`should provide strong stimulus and direction to:
`(i)
`the processing sector, to purchase stock and market beef
`on specification and consistency,
`to better manage
`operational risk and realise greater market penetration;
`(ii) each segment of the commercial beef production sector,
`to better fit all
`input—output elements of systems to
`consistently meet
`the specifications for the market
`segments; and
`(iii) the breeding sector, to crystallise breeding goals and
`plans, execute and maintain breeding programs capable
`of sustaining rapid genetic improvement for these goals
`and of helping to ensure these gains are quickly and
`broadly
`distributed
`to
`the
`relevant
`commercial
`production segments.
`Recall, the term production environment is used here to
`represent the complete supply chain for a segment of the
`industry,
`the on-farm production system and all off-farm
`processing and marketing operations.
`
`Genetic improvement
`During the past century a number of significant initiatives
`in the
`industry have been concerned with genetic
`improvement. There have been frequent
`importations of
`samples of breeds already present here, with quarantine
`facilities and procedures developed to enable this activity.
`Short-term, substantial changes to the pedigree structure of
`
`the national seed-stock herd of the breeds involved, suggest
`that at least some of these importations had major in Iluence
`in the breeding sector. However, there is negligible objective
`information available to characterise their impact on industry
`productivity and beef quality. At least some of the earlier
`importations were sourced from very small closed herds and
`from production environments which differed markedly to
`those of Australia. It is highly likely then that any impact on
`industry-level beef productivity was negative!
`A number of new brccds have also been imported with
`plans to utilise genetic material more than previously to
`address particular production system issues. The 2 most
`prominent examples are the introduction of Bar indfcus
`types to address some northern Australian climatic and
`disease challenges, with strong R&D support by CSIRO.
`Subsequently, a number of large European breeds were
`introduced, with the primary motive of increasing the growth
`rate and carcass yield of local commercial cattle, mainly in
`the southern Australian industry. In Europe, the development
`of this latter group of breeds continues to be strongly
`supported
`by
`industry-wide Al-based
`improvement
`programs. Australian industry trials and uptake of both
`introduced sets, supported by many R&D publications,
`provide strong evidence for them having made some positive
`contributions. For example, Farquharson er at.
`(2003)
`estimated a net present value of AU$8.l billion for the
`infusion of B05 indicus into the northern industry since 1970.
`Still,