Technology Lag: We Don't Have Time

From Shauna Hermel's Twitter feed, I came across this article about David Buchanan's talk at the 2013 BIF Research Symposium and Convention. Buchanan said,
There is a sizable investment being made in agricultural research, which should result in new technologies, but it takes time for development and adoption, and then for the benefits to be realized. Historically, it takes about 30 years. We don’t have 30 years.
I also see technology adoption as a major shortcoming of the beef industry. This will be a continued theme of this blog and my extension program.

But, in this post I want to discuss the unresolved concern raised in Troy Smith's article. He quotes Buchanan as saying, "“We’ve done pretty well, but we could do better. But better selection tools just get us into trouble faster if we aren’t selecting for the right things.”

Yet, the article does not suggest what are the "right things". In your experience and based on scientific information, what are the right things?

Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.
(I have turned off word verification, so it should be easier to comment on the blog. If spam gets out of control, I'll have to turn word verification back on.)

After you have left a comment, click on the button below to see my thoughts.



Comments

Anonymous said…
respiratory disease resistance
disease resistance in general
across breed causality
April 11, 2014 at 2:43 PM
Don Nicol said…
I attended the farewell dinner for a retiring extension adviser here in Queensland a few years ago. When asked if the rate of adoption had improved over his career, he replied "Well yes, what used to take 20 years now only takes 19 years…."
In many ways the coming of genomics in beef has just made the genetic messages more complex and has added new jargon & new dimensions to the "black box". Genetic improvement as a permanent, sustainable means of herd improvement and supply chain improvement needs continuous education and simple profit messages but how to ramp up adoption is still a challenge
April 12, 2014 at 6:13 PM
Graybull said…
"It is dishonest to suggest, or imply, that BLUP (EPD) analysis will allow accurate genetic comparisons of all economically important traits across all environments. A trait such as fertility is determined by hormonal balance (largely unaffected by environment) and body condition (largely a reflection of environmental adaptation). It is therefore subjected to genotype X environment interaction. Animals performing well in one environment may perform poorly in a different environment. This is reflected in fertility. No mathematical model can correct for this in order to allow animals be compared across environments with regard to traits that are subjected to genotype X environment interaction."


Johann Zietsman


From: Man - Cattle - Veld, A Ranching Revolution: To be published later this year.

Potentially more accurate selection (Genomics) for the wrong things will NOT improve genetics and/or profitability. For the RIGHT things…….

http://profitableranching.com
April 14, 2014 at 5:53 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

New Show-Me-Select Sire EPD Requirements Announced

Image
At the January 4th Show-Me-Select Board of Directors meeting, new service sire EPD requirements were approved. All sires, artificial insemination and natural service, must meet minimum Calving Ease Direct (CED) EPD requirements. In addition to yearly updates, two changes were made. First, no Birth Weight EPD requirement will be published. All commonly used breeds now have CED EPDs available. Second, all breeds in the International Genetic Solutions (IGS) genetic evaluation are now set to a common requirement. In the summer of 2018, breeds within the International Genetic Solutions switched to a single-step BOLT multi-breed genetic evaluation. The EPDs for animals in the IGS genetic evaluation are directly comparable across breeds. In 2017, the Red Angus requirement for CED was a CED of 8, which represents the 30th percentile. Less than 5% percent of heifers breed to a bull with a CED EPD of 8 or larger had calving difficulty. We feel that this require is meeting the need to re
Read more

Show-Me-Select Board Approves Genomic Testing Requirement for Natural Service Sires

Image
All bulls purchased after February 1st, 2019 for use as natural service sires in the Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program ™  must be DNA tested to have genomic-enhanced EPDs. All bulls used as natural service sires after February 1st, 2020 must have genomic-enhanced EPDs, regardless of when they were purchased. Seedstock producers classifying bulls as Show-Me-Select qualified in sale books must have genomic-enhanced EPDs on those lots. Bulls purchased prior to February 1st, 2019 will be grandfathered into the program, as is the common practice with all natural service sires. However, this grandfather grace period will end February 1st, 2020. At that time for a bull to qualify for use in the program, it must have genomic-enhanced EPDs. Why the change? The Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program has the goal of producing premium heifers that perform predictably as 2 year olds. The program has a history of requiring Show-Me-Select producers to go beyond typical cat
Read more

BIF 2019: Economic Impact of Sex Sorted Semen

George Perry South Dakota State University NAAB Symposium Assume that a cow breeds 30 cows per year for 4 years. Regardless of the year, bull price per calf sired was higher than the cost of semen. We could have different bulls for different groups of cows. Bulls for heifers, bulls for maternal calves, and bulls for terminal calves. Consider breeding a calving ease bull to mature cows- you are giving up additional growth with that mating. Sexed semen causes the differences in sexes of the calves that we would expect to see. The number of bulls and heifers in a calf crop can be skewed even if we do one round of artificial insemination followed by natural service. Perry's groups used 6 herds with 878 cows breed to 5 different bulls. They used conventional semen and sexed semen from each bull. Gender skewed semen had a pregnancy rate of 52.4% and conventional semen had a pregnancy rate of 67%. When cows have displayed estrus (been in heat) at time of AI, pregnancy rate was 6
Read more