Recently I was thinking about an expression that I reckon every breeder, seedstock or commercial, should sit with for a moment. "Great cattle don't show up once. They show up every generation." It's a good line, but there's a caveat. That outcome only happens in herds where management and selection decisions stay consistent over time.
Consistency isn't the word that draws a crowd at a bull sale or dominates conversation at a field day. In my work with producers across Australia, it is the single principle that separates herds that are steadily improving from those that aren't.
“Consistency isn’t the word that draws a crowd at a bull sale. In my work with producers across Australia, it is the single principle that separates herds that are steadily improving from those that aren’t.”
Every herd carries some variation in production, in cow type, and in how well individual animals suit the country they're run on. A degree of that is unavoidable. Variation that comes from a poor fit between genetics and environment is not. It carries a direct cost to the enterprise. Some of those costs are obvious through carcase feedback when cattle fail to meet market specifications. Others are harder to see across a herd, such as the extra feed consumed by cattle that don't suit the system, or the additional labour that inconsistent animals demand. In many of the operations I work with, the most expensive cattle are the ones that don't fit the system. The reason almost always comes back to inconsistency in management, selection, or both.
Start with the breeding objective
Reducing variation starts with a clearly defined breeding objective. Breeding objectives come up regularly at field days and workshops, and there are those who suggest the subject has been covered enough. The degree of variation that persists across many Australian herds suggests otherwise. For a significant number of operations, a functional breeding objective is yet to be firmly established.
A breeding objective is not a vague aspiration. It is a measurable target that reflects two things: the feed base and environment the cattle are run in, and the market those cattle are destined for. Without that clarity, selection decisions lose direction. Producers chase one trait, then another, and the herd moves in different directions across successive joining seasons. Variation increases rather than reduces.
The fundamental goal of any beef breeding system is a calf every 12 months. That sounds straightforward, but the practicalities are more complex than many producers appreciate. Once gestation length and return to oestrus are accounted for, a cow has roughly two heat cycles available to conceive within a 12-month window. There isn't much room for error. Inconsistency in cow type, condition, or nutritional management creates issues that compound quickly across a herd: extended calving periods, lighter average weaner weights, more complex calf management, later turn-off, and reduced cow fertility going into the next joining.
Track the measures that matter
Recording performance against simple, defined measures lets producers see where variation is costing the program and where genetic selection can address it. Three measures every producer should be tracking are pregnancy within four months of joining, a calf on the ground every 12 months, and average weaner weight per cow joined. None of these are complex, but they tell a producer how well the herd is meeting the breeding objective and where the gaps sit.
Understanding the key drivers of a production system, particularly fertility and growth within the available feed base, puts producers in a much stronger position to make use of the genetic tools available to them. BREEDPLAN EBVs allow producers to compare animals on a genetic basis for the traits that matter most to their system. Selection indexes that combine multiple traits relevant to a specific environment and market help producers avoid the decision drift that occurs when there is no clear plan and selection priorities shift from one joining to the next. The value of BREEDPLAN and the broader suite of genetic tools has been frequently demonstrated. That value is most consistently realised in herds with clear, well-established breeding objectives.
What variation actually costs
The value of that accuracy is best understood when variation is measured. After variation in calving, variation in feed consumption is one of the strongest factors determining herd production and profitability. At the recent Genetics Australia conference, Paul Meade of Meade Agri in Victoria presented results from feed efficiency trials conducted over recent years on farm. The results and implications for selecting more feed efficient cattle are highly valuable in their own right. It is the variation recorded across the trial that warrants closer attention.
The average feed-to-gain ratio across the trial was 6.6 kg of feed per kg of liveweight gain. The top 10% of animals tested returned 4.6 kg/kg. The bottom 10% required 9.4 kg/kg. That's a difference of 4.8 kg of feed per kilogram of gain between the best and worst performers in the same contemporary group.
“The top 10% of animals tested returned 4.6 kg/kg. The bottom 10% required 9.4 kg/kg. That’s a difference of 4.8 kg of feed per kilogram of gain between the best and worst performers in the same contemporary group.”
This is variation in one trait alone. The implication for overall herd variation across the range of traits that impact production and profitability is significant.
The opportunity to address that variation depends on two things: accurately describing the trait in question, and producers having access to animals with highly accurate genetic information to support their selection decisions. Using the data Paul Meade presented at Genetics Australia, it is possible to accurately measure the cost of variation. The table below shows the feed cost difference between progeny of two bulls across three feeding programs. With data from trials of this kind feeding into genetic evaluation programs, producers can select sires that reduce variation and its associated costs across a drop of calves.
These opportunities are not limited to feed efficiency. Across the board, producers wanting to address variation in their herds need to draw on genetics that are accurately measured and described. Without that accuracy, selection is harder, and the risk of wider variation and lost income remains embedded in the herd.
If you'd like to discuss how a clearly defined breeding objective and a more consistent approach to selection could lift profitability in your own herd, I'm happy to have a chat. Get in touch through the contact page.