Proceedings of the

Beef Improvement Federation

42nd Annual
Research Symposium
& Annual Meeting

June 28 - July 1, 2010

Columbia, MO

Hosted by...
Program and proceedings publication
produced with the support of
The Beef Checkoff Program. ®
 BIF Presidents
Frank Baker. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Chair
Clarence Burch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1969-1970
Doug Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1971-1972
David Nichols. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1973-1974
Ray Meyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975-1976
Martin Jorgensen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1977-1978
James Bennett. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1979
Mark Keffeler. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1980
Jack Farmer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1981
Roger Winn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1982
Steve Radakovich. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1983
Bill Borror. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1984
Gene Schroeder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985
Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986
Harvey Lemmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1987
Bob Dickinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988-1989
Jack Chase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990-1991
Jim Leachman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992-1993
Marvin Nichols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1994
Glenn Brinkman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1995
Burke Healey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1996
Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1997
Jed Dillard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1998
Willie Altenburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1999
Galen Fink. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000
Connee Quinn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2001
Richard McClung. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2002
S.R. Evans, Jr.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2003
Jimmy Holliman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2004
Lynn Pelton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005
Chris Christensen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2006
Lora Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2007
Tommy Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2008
Brian McCulloh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2009
Brian McCulloh
Photo courtesy Angus Productions, Inc.
 2009-2010 BEEF IMPROVEMENT FEDERATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

President Historian Producer Reps Darrh Bullock

Brian McCulloh Twig Marston Mark Cowan (at large) 804 W.P. Garrigus Building
57589 Tainter Hollow Road University of Nebraska Cain Cattle Company University of Kentucky
Viroqua, WI 54665 NE Research & Extension 4591 Attalla Road 4167 Lexington, KY 40546-0215
608-606-3238 (cell) 601 E. Benjamin Ave., Ste 104 Sallis, MS 39160 859-257-7514 (O)
608-675-3238 (H) Norfolk, NE 68701 662-289-3770 (O) 859-257-3412 (F)
woodhill@mwt.net 402-370-4001 (O) 662-582-2246 (C) dbullock@uky.edu
402-649-2365 (C) markc@caincattle.com
402-370-4010 (F) Tom Field
Vice President Troy Marshall (west) NCBA
tmarston2@unl.edu
Ben Eggers 30649 Co Rd 53 9110 E Nichols Ave. #300
3939 S Clark Street Burlington, CO 80807 Centennial, CO 80112
Mexico, MO 65265 Breed Association Reps 303-850-3373 (O)
719-342-0201 (P)
573-581-1225 (O) Larry Keenan
marshallcattlecompany@ 303-770-7109 (F)
eggers@socket.net Red Angus Association of
hotmail.com 970-217-6233 (Cell)
America
tfield@beef.org
4201 N I-35
Executive Director Larry Mehlhoff (west)
Denton, TX 76207
Joe Cassady 97 Duncan District Road Brian House
940-387-3502
Department of Animal Science Sheridan, MT 59749 Select Sires, Inc.
larry@redangus.org
North Carolina State University 406-842-5693 11740 US 42 North
Box 7621 406-596-1204 Plain City, OH 43064
Sally Northcutt
Raleigh, NC 27695-7621 5lranch@3rivers.net 614-733-3420 (O)
American Angus Association
919-513-0262 (O) 614-406-8449 (cell)
3201 Fredrick Avenue
919-515-6884 (F) Gordon Stucky (central) ssbeef@selectsires.com
St. Joseph, MO 64506
joe_cassady@ncsu.edu Stucky Ranch
816-383-5157 (P)
421 NE 70 Avenue Don Mackenzie
816-233-9703 (F)
Regional Secretaries Kingman, KS 67068 Canadian Beef Breeds Council
snorthcutt@angus.org
Mark Enns (west) 620-532-4122 320, 6715 – 8 Street N.E
Dept. of Animal Sciences gordon@stuckyranch.com Calgary, Alberta T2E 7H7
Wade Shafer
Colorado State University CANADA
American Simmental Associa-
Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171 Steve Whitmire (east) 403-938-7543 (O)
tion
970-491-2722 (O) Ridgefield Farm 403-938-7543 (F)
1 Simmental Way
970-491-5326 (F) 1960 Brasstown Road info@canadianbeefbreeds.com
Bozeman, MT 59715
menns@lamar.colostate.edu Brasstown, NC 28902
406-556-9627 (O)
828-837-6324 Mike Tess
406-587-9301 (F)
Jane Parish (east) 828-835-8376 Montana State University
wshafer@simmgene.com
Animal and Dairy Sciences swhitmire@aol.com Linfield Hall
Box 9815 Bozeman, MT 59717
Jack Ward
Mississippi State, MS 39762 Kevin Yon (east) 406-581-9071 (O)
American Hereford Association
662-325-7466 (O) Hwy. 392 406-585-4685 (F)
PO Box 014059
662-325-8873 (F) P.O. Box 737 michaelwtess@gmail.com
Kansas City, MO 64101
jparish@ads.msstate.edu Ridge Spring, SC 29129
816-842-3757 (O)
803-685-5048 (O) Mark Thallman
816-842-6931 (F)
Bob Weaber (central) 803-685-0548 (F) U.S. Meat Animal Research
jward@hereford.org
S134A ASRC kyon@pbtcomm.net Center
University of Missouri PO Box 166
Susan Willmon
Clay Center, NE 68933-0000
Columbia, MO 65211 American Gelbvieh Association Others
573-882-5479 (O) 402-762-4261 (O)
10900 Dover Street Tommy Brown
573-884-4545 (F) 402-762-4173 (F)
Westminster, CO 80021 111 Charles Street
weaberr@missouri.edu mark.thallman@ars.usda.gov
303-465-2333 Clanton, AL 35045
303-465-2339 (F) 205-351-1328 (C)
susanw@gelbvieh.org 205-755-5431 (O)
tbrown205@bellsouth.net

1
 BIF Proceedings
Table of Contents

BIF Presidents . . . . . . . . . . . Inside front cover
2009-2010 BIF Board of Directors. . . . . . . . . 1
Schedule of Events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Animal Breeding Then to Now: A Tribute to
Dick Quass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
General Session Speaker Biographies . . . . . . . 9
• Barry Dunn, Ph.D.
• Matt Spangler, Ph. D.
• Mike John
• Imogene Latimer, DVM
• Eric DeVuyst, Ph.D.
• Tom Field, Ph.D.
• Jerry Taylor, Ph.D.
• Curt Van Tassell, Ph.D.
• Sally Northcutt, Ph.D.
• Larry Cundiff, Ph.D.
General Session Speaker Proceedings Papers
A Systems Approach to Beef Improvement . . . 13
Barry Dunn, Ph.D., Dean, College of Agricultural &
Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University
Production (And) or Profit? Focusing Our Breeding
Objectives By Selecting For Profitable Genetics,
Not Necessarily High Production Genetics . . . 22
Matt Spangler, Ph.D., Extension Specialist, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln
Adding Value to a Weaned Calf Marketing
System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Mike John, MFA Inc. and John Ranch Inc.
Evaluation of Investment in
Agricultural Technology. . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Eric DeVuyst, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University
How the Next Generation of Genetic Technologies
Will Impact Beef Cattle Selection . . . . . . . 46
Jerry Taylor, Ph.D., University of Missouri
Implementation and Deployment of
Genomically Enhanced EPDs: Challenges
and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Sally Northcutt, Ph.D., American Angus Association
Technical Session Speaker Proceedings Papers
Understanding Cow Size and Efficiency . . . . . 62
Jennifer Johnson and J. D. Radakovich, King Ranch
Institute for Ranch Management, Texas A&M
University, Kingsville
Across-Breed EPD Tables for the Year 2010
Adjusted To Breed Differences for Birth Year
Of 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Larry A. Kuehn, Ph.D., L. Dale Van Vleck, Ph.D., R.
Mark Thallman, Ph.D., and Larry V. Cundiff, Ph.D.,
USDA-ARS, MARC
Mean EPDs Reported By Different Breeds . . . 93
Larry A. Kuehn and R. Mark Thallman, USDA-ARS,
MARC
Value of DNA Marker Information for Beef Bull
Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., University of
California-Davis
Use of BovineSNP50 Data for Feed Efficiency
Selection Decisions in Angus Cattle . . . . . 103
Megan Rolf, University of Missouri
Frank Baker Memorial Scholarship Award . . . 118

Raising Beef in a First World Country: Science, Frank Baker Memorial Scholarship
Media and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Past Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Tom Field, Ph.D., National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association
2
2010 Winning Frank Baker Memorial
Scholarship Essay - Kent Gray . . . . . . . . 121
Roy Wallace Scholarship . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
2010 Beef Improvement Federation Student
Travel Fellowship Recipients. . . . . . . . . 136
Seedstock Producer Honor Roll
of Excellence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Seedstock Producer of the Year
Past Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Seedstock Producer of the Year Nominees. . . 147
Commercial Producer Honor Roll
of Excellence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Commercial Producer of the Year
Past Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Commercial Producer of the Year Nominees. . 160
Pioneer Award Past Recipients . . . . . . . . . 164
Continuing Service Award Past Recipients . . . 167
Ambassador Award Past Recipients. . . . . . . 169
3
2009 Frank Baker Memorial
Scholarship Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Scott Speidel, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado
Lance D. Leachman, Virginia Tech, Christiansburg,
Virginia
2009 Seedstock Producer of the Year. . . . . . 172
Champion Hill, Inc., of Bidwell, Ohio
Harrell Hereford Ranch of Baker City, Oregon
2009 Commercial Producer of the Year . . . . . 174
JHL Ranch, Ashby, Nebraska
2009 Pioneer Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Bruce Orvis of Orvis Cattle Company, Farmington,
California
Bruce Golden, Ph.D., California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, California
Roy McPhee (posthumously), Lodi, California
2009 Continuing Service Award . . . . . . . . . 179
Darrh Bullock, Ph.D., Lexington, Kentucky
David A. Daley, Ph.D., Oroville, California
Renee Lloyd, McCormick Company, Johnston, Iowa
Mark R. Thallman, Ph.D., U.S. Meat Animal Research
Center (USMARC), Clay Center, Nebraska
2009 Ambassador Award . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Kelli Meged Toledo,Trailhead Designs,Visalia,
California
2010 BIF Sponsors. . . . . . . . . . . 184, 186-187
2010 BIF Pre-Conference Tour . . . . . . . . . 185
2010 BIF Post-Conference Tour. . . . . . . . . 185
 -Schedule of Events-
All conference events will be at the Holiday Inn Select Executive Conference Center unless otherwise noted.

Monday, June 28, 2010

7:00 am – 5:00 pm General Session I: Genetic Selection to Achieve
Pre-conference Tour Your Profit Objective: Using Today’s Tools. . . . .
Depart from hotel lobby at 7:00 am. Tour will drop Expo
participants on MU Campus for final tour stops and Sponsored by Pfizer Animal Genetics
Opening Reception. 8:00 – 8:30 am
Noon – 5:00 pm Welcome
Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8:35 – 9:25 am
Atrium Foyer A Systems Approach to Beef Improvement
Sponsored by Osborn and Barr Barry Dunn, Ph.D., Dean, College of Agricultural &
1:00 – 4:30 pm Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University
Beef Improvement Federation Board of Directors 9:30 – 10:30 am
Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Production (And) or Profit? Focusing Our Breed-
Parliament II ing Objectives By Selecting For Profitable Genet-
5:00 – 9:00 pm ics, Not Necessarily High Production Genetics
Bus Shuttle to MU Campus & Return to Hotel Matt Spangler, Ph.D., Extension Specialist,
Sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. University of Nebraska-Lincoln
10:30 - 10:50 am
5:30 – 7:00 pm Break
Opening Reception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sponsored by National Association of Animal
Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center, Univer- Breeders Beef Committee Members- ABS Global,
sity of Missouri Campus Accelerated Genetics, Genex CRI, ORIgen,
Sponsored by Land O’Lakes Purina Feeds Select Sires
7:00 – 8:30 pm 10:50 – 11:30 am
Making Selection Tools Work for Us: Producer
Animal Breeding Then to Now: A Tribute to
Panel Discussion
Dick Quaas
Moderated by Brian McCulloh, BIF President
Adding Value to a Weaned Calf Marketing
System
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Mike John, MFA Inc. and John Ranch Inc.
6:00 am – 6:00 pm
Adding Value to a Retained Ownership/End
Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Product Marketing System
Atrium Foyer
Imogene Latimer, DVM, NEMO Premier Beef
Sponsored by Osborn and Barr
Marketers
6:00 am – 9:00 pm
11:30 am – Noon
Media Room Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How to Evaluate Investment in New Technologies
Polo Room
Eric DeVuyst, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University
Sponsored by Angus Productions, Inc.
6:30 am – 8:00 am
Continental Breakfast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expo
Sponsored by University of Missouri Extension

4
Noon – 2:30 pm 2:30 - 3:10 pm
Beef Improvement Federation Awards Differences in Hair Coat Shedding and Effects
Luncheon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expo on Calf Weaning Weight And BCS Among
Sponsored by BEEF Magazine Angus Dams
• Commercial Producer of the Year Trent Smith, Ph.D., Mississippi State University
• Baker Scholarship Award 3:10 - 3:50 pm
• Roy Wallace Award Show-Me Select Replacement Heifer Program
• Ambassador Awards Update
• BIF Continuing Service Awards Mike Kasten, Kasten Ranch, Millersville, MO
• Graduate Fellowship Recipient Recognition
3:50 - 4:10 pm
Break
Concurrent Technical Keynote Sessions Sponsored by Missouri Show-Me-Select
Replacement Heifer Program
2:30 – 5:30 pm
4:10 - 4:50 pm
Joint Session: Advancements in Cowherd Efficiency
Understanding Cow Size and Efficiency
And Live Animal, Carcass and Endpoint
Jennifer Johnson and J. D. Radakovich,
Windsor III & IV
King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management, Texas
Chairmen: Mark Enns, Ph.D., Colorado State
A&M University, Kingsville
University and
Robert Williams, Ph.D., American International 4:50 - 5:30 pm
Charolais Association Animal Care Issues Are Here to Stay: Are You
Sponsored by GrowSafe Systems, Ltd. Prepared to Deal with Them?
Craig Payne, DVM, University of Missouri
2:30 - 3:10 pm
Evaluating Cow Maintenance
John Evans, Ph.D., SWB Consulting Inc. 5:30 -10:00 pm
3:10 - 3:50 pm Bus Shuttle to MU Campus & Return to Hotel
Genetic Evaluation of Residual Gain as an Sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc.
Alternative Measure of Efficiency of Feed 6:00 - 9:30 pm
Utilization Evening BBQ and Social Event with Music by
Mike MacNeil, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, LARRL Becky Blackaby
3:50 - 4:10 pm Venue: Trowbridge Livestock Arena, MU Campus
Break Sponsored by IGENITY
Sponsored by Missouri Show-Me-Select
Replacement Heifer Program Wednesday, June 30, 2010
4:10 - 4:50 pm
6:00 am – 6:00 pm
Genetic Improvement of Feed Utilization in the
Registration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Atrium Foyer
Swine Industry
Sponsored by Osborn and Barr
William Herring, Ph.D., Smithfield Premium
Genetics Group, Rose Hill, NC 6:00 am – 9:00 pm
Media Room Open . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polo Room
4:50 - 5:30 pm
Sponsored by Angus Productions, Inc.
A Breed Association Perspective on Feed Efficiency
Dan Moser, Ph.D., Kansas State University 6:30 am – 8:00 am
Continental Breakfast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expo
Sponsored by American Angus Association
2:30 – 5:30 pm
Advancements in Producer Applications General Session II: The Future of Beef Cattle
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor I & II Selection in the U.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expo
Chairman: Jane Parish, Ph.D., Mississippi State Sponsored by Pfizer Animal Genetics
University
Sponsored by California Beef Cattle Improvement
Association
5
8:00 – 8:55 am 2:30 - 3:10 pm
Raising Beef in a First World Country: Science, Advances Including DNA Tests in Genetic
Media and Politics Evaluations
Tom Field, Ph.D., National Cattlemen’s Beef Mike MacNeil, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, LARRL
Association 3:10 - 3:50 pm
9:00 – 9:30 am Genetic Evaluation for Reproductive Traits
How the Next Generation of Genetic Technologies Matt Spangler, Ph.D., University of Nebraska-
Will Impact Beef Cattle Selection Lincoln
Jerry Taylor, Ph.D., University of Missouri 3:50 - 4:10 pm
9:35 – 10:00 am Break
The Case and The Place for Genomic Tools in Beef Sponsored by University of Missouri Extension
Cattle Selection: How Beef’s Implementation 4:10 - 4:50 pm
Model Will Be Different from the Dairy Industry’s 2010 Update to Across-breed EPD Adjustment
Curt Van Tassell, Ph.D., USDA-ARS-AIPL-BFGL Factors
10:00 – 10:30 am Larry Kuehn, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, MARC
Break 4:50 - 5:30 pm
Sponsored by American Hereford Association/ International Bovine Genetics Collaboration
Certified Hereford Beef Gary Bennett, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, MARC
10:30 – 11:00 am
Implementation and Deployment of Genomically 2:30 – 5:30 pm
Enhanced EPDs: Challenges and Opportunities Advancements in Emerging Technologies
Sally Northcutt, Ph.D., American Angus Association
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor IV
11:00 – 11:15 am Chairman: Jack Ward, American Hereford Association
BIF’s Role in Charting Our Future: Charge and Sponsored by Sydenstricker Genetics
Session Wrap-Up 2:30 - 3:10 pm
Larry Cundiff, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, MARC (retired)
2000 Sires Project at USDA-MARC
11:15 am - Noon Larry Kuehn, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, MARC
Annual meeting, Regional Caucuses, Election of 3:10 - 3:50 pm
Directors Genetics of Heifer Fertility
Noon - 2:30 pm Milt Thomas, Ph.D., New Mexico State University
Beef Improvement Federation Awards Luncheon 3:50 - 4:10 pm
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expo
Break
Sponsored by Missouri Beef Industry Council
Sponsored by University of Missouri Extension
• Seedstock Producer of the Year Award
• Pioneer Award 4:10 - 4:50 pm
• President’s Address Genetics of Healthfulness of Beef
• Afternoon Program Review Jim Reecy, Ph.D., Iowa State University
• 2011 BIF Conference Invitation 4:50 - 5:30 pm
• International Guest Recognition Genetics of Feedlot Cattle Health
Mark Enns, Ph.D., Colorado State University
Concurrent Technical Keynote Sessions
2:30 – 5:30 pm
2:30 – 5:30 pm Advancements in Selection Decisions
Advancements in Genetic Prediction . . . Windsor III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor I & II
Chairman: Mark Thallman, Ph.D., USDA-ARS, MARC Chairman: Bob Weaber, Ph.D., University of
Sponsored by University of Missouri Extension Missouri
Sponsored by Canadian Beef Breeds Council

6
2:30 - 3:10 pm
Evaluation of Genetic by Environment Interactions
in Beef Cattle Using Reaction Norms
Bill Lamberson, Ph.D., University of Missouri
3:10 - 3:50 pm
Factors Affecting the Selling Price of Arkansas
Feeder Calves and Implications on Selection
Decisions
Brett Barham, Ph.D., University of Arkansas
3:50 - 4:10 pm
Break
Sponsored by University of Missouri Extension
4:10 - 4:50 pm
Value Of DNA Marker Information for Beef Bull
Selection
Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D., University of
California-Davis
4:50 - 5:30 pm
Use Of BovineSNP50 Data for Feed Efficiency
Selection Decisions in Angus Cattle
Megan Rolf, University of Missouri

5:30 – 6:30 pm
Beef Improvement Federation Board of Directors
Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Parliament II
5:30 pm
Evening on your own, or departure

Thursday, July 1, 2010

7:00 am - 6:00 pm
Post-conference Tour
Depart from hotel lobby at 7:00 am. Tour will return
participants to hotel at approximately 6:00 pm

7
 ­Animal Breeding Then to Now: A Tribute to Dick Quaas

Richard “Dick” L. Quaas, Ph.D., has recently retired from Cornell Universi-
ty as Professor of Animal Breeding and Genetics after a long and distinguished
career. Dick made numerous contributions to the field of quantitative genetics
where his work focused principally on the genetic evaluation and improvement
of beef cattle. It is on the occasion of his retirement that we take time during the
Beef Improvement Federation meetings, often attended by Dick, to pay tribute
to a man whose work as a research scientist has enabled beef producers around
the world to make meaningful changes in the genetic merit of their livestock.

Dick was born to Roy and Genevieve Quaas. Along with his parents
and siblings, Max and Marry, Dick was a member of a farm family residing
near Alburnett, Iowa. As a young man, he attended Iowa State University and
earned a BS degree in Animal Science in 1966. Dick served as volunteer mem-
ber of the Peace Corp in Gualaquiza, Ecuador during 1966-67. He then farmed
in Linn County Iowa for a year before entering graduate school in 1968. Fol-
lowing his interest in population genetics and animal breeding stimulated by
Dr. Lanoy Hazel at Iowa State University, Dick enrolled in Colorado State University to further his training in
these fields. Dick earned a MS in 1970 and PhD in 1973 at Colorado State University under the direction of Dr.
Thomas Sutherland.

Upon completion of his PhD, Dick joined the faculty at Cornell University as an assistant professor. He
was promoted to Associate Professor in 1980 and Professor in 1989. Dick taught several graduate courses in quan-
titative genetics, served as the Director of Graduate Studies for the Field of Animal Science and advised under-
graduate students. Dick is the author or co-author of more than 75 peer reviewed publications. He was a frequent
invited speaker at international and national conferences such as ASAS/ADSA, BIF, WCGALP and others. Quaas
served as an ad hoc peer reviewer for a variety of publications including the Journal of Animal Science, Journal
of Dairy Science, Genetics, Genetics Selection Evolution, Biometrics, and Heriditas. Dick’s sabbatical and study
leaves from Cornell took him to CSIRO Tropical Cattle Research Center, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia,
the Animal Breeding and Genetics Unit at the University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
and the Animal Breeding Group at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Dick worked with the American Simmental Association for 25 years. Many of Dick’s methodologies and
research results were first applied in the genetic evaluation of Simmental cattle. The evolution of this leading
genetic evaluation system follows a chronology of the discoveries made by Dick and research partner, E. John
Pollak. Dick was instrumental in the development of the first multi-breed genetic evaluation system and early
incorporation of DNA marker data into a genetic evaluation for Warner-Bratzler Shear Force. He chaired the
National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium’s Quantitative Trait Loci committee charged with validation of com-
mercial DNA marker panels and development of strategies for incorporation of marker data into national cattle
evaluation systems.

Dick is the recipient of numerous industry and academic awards including the Rockefeller Prentice Me-
morial Award in Animal Breeding and Genetics given by American Society of Animal Science in 2006. In 2002,
he was received the Golden Book Award, the highest honor from the World Simmental Federation. The BIF
recognized Dick’s contribution to beef cattle improvement by presenting him the Pioneer Award in 1999. He re-
ceived the J. L. Lush Award in Animal Breeding and Genetics given by the American Dairy Science Association
in 1990 and the Young Scientist Award in 1982 from ASAS/ADSA.

8
 General Session Speakers

Barry H. Dunn, Ph.D. nationwide. The majority of this effort is centered on

Dean, College of Agriculture
& Biological Sciences
South Dakota State University
Barry Dunn’s family began
ranching and raising cattle
in South Dakota since the
1880’s. Educated at South
Dakota State University, Barry
received his B.S. in 1975 and
a M.S. in Animal Science in 1977. After two years
managing a cow-calf research herd for North Dakota
State University, Barry returned to South Dakota to
manage his family’s ranch near Mission. Barry re-
turned to academia in 1997 and received his Ph.D. in
Animal Science in 2000. He served on the Animal
and Range Science faculty at SDSU from 2000-2003.
In 2004, Barry became the first Executive Director and
Endowed Chair of the King Ranch Institute for Ranch
Management at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.
In May of 2010, he assumed the position of Dean of
the College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences at
SDSU.
Matt Spangler, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Matt Spangler grew up on a
diversified crop and livestock
farm in south-central Kansas
where his family still farms
and has a cow/calf operation.
After receiving his B.S. de-
gree in Animal Science from
Kansas State University (2001) he attended Iowa State
University and received his M.S. degree in Animal
Breeding and Genetics in 2003. He received his Ph.D.
at the University of Georgia in Animal Breeding and
Genetics (2006) and is currently an Assistant Professor
and Extension Beef Genetics Specialist at the Univer-
sity of Nebraska-Lincoln. Matt focuses on developing
and delivering extension material related to the ge-
netic improvement of beef cattle, within Nebraska and
the use of genomic tools. From a teaching perspective,
he coordinates the Nebraska Beef Industry Scholars
program and is responsible for the UNL teaching herd
and annual bull sale. His research interests include the
integration of molecular data into national cattle evalu-
ations. He has served on the Ultrasound Guidelines
Council, is a member of the National Beef Cattle Evalu-
ation Consortium Producer Education Team, and serves
as a member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of
Animal Science.
Mike John
Director of MFA Health
Track Operations
Huntsville, Missouri
Mike John currently serves as
the Director of MFA Health
Track Operations. Health
Track is a Vac 45 and ASV
certified preconditioning pro-
gram that has enrolled nearly
400,000 head since 2001. In addition, Mike is actively
involved in the management of his family’s commer-
cial cow/calf and retained ownership operation near
Huntsville, Mo. He is a 1980 graduate of Kansas State
University and holds BS in Animal Science. Mike is
known across the U.S. through his leadership roles in
the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA)
where he has served as President and was Chairman of
the commission on animal ID and was Vice-Chair of
the NCBA Mark of Quality Commission. He has also
served NCBA as membership committee chairman,
group chair for Industry and Member Services division
and served as a board member for the US Meat Export
Federation. Mike was Chairman of the Missouri Beef
Industry Council, is a past President of the Missouri
Cattlemen’s Association, and former board member
and Scholarship Chairman of the Missouri Cattlemen’s
Foundation.

9
Imogene Latimer, DVM Thomas G. Field, Ph.D.
NEMO Premier Beef Marketers Executive Director of Producer
Hunnewell, MO Education
National Cattlemen’s Beef
Dr. Imogene Latimer helped organize NEMO Premier Association
Beef Marketers in 1999 with the help of members
of the University of Missouri Extension Beef Team. Tom Field is Executive Direc-
She currently keeps the records and helps distribute tor of Producer Education for
the proceeds for sale of cattle for the group. She and the National Cattlemen’s Beef
her husband, Kenny, farm and raise cattle in Shelby Association in Centennial,
County, and are members of NEMO Premier Beef Colorado. Prior to joining
Marketers, participating from the beginning. Dr. Lat- NCBA in 2008, Dr Field served students and industry
imer also is a bovine veterinarian working part time as a faculty member in the Department of Animal Sci-
with the General Veterinary Clinic, LLC in Monroe ences at Colorado State University for nearly 20 years.
City since 1987. The author of “Beef Cattle Management and Deci-
sion Making” and “Scientific Farm Animal Produc-
tion”, he has published with 44 other faculty members
Eric DeVuyst, Ph.D. representing 7 different universities and 8 academic
departments. A frequent speaker at beef cattle events
Associate Professor, in the U.S. and abroad, he has consulted with a num-
Oklahoma State University ber of beef cattle and agricultural organizations, and
has served on numerous boards related to education,
Eric DeVuyst was raised on agriculture, and athletics.
a farm in central Michigan.
He holds a BS and MS from Tom, his wife Laura and three sons are partners in a
Michigan State University in family-owned 350 head commercial cow-calf opera-
Agricultural Economics. He tion in western Colorado.
earned a PhD from Purdue Field received his Ph.D., MS and BS degrees from CSU.
University, also in Agricultural
Economics. He current is on
faculty at Oklahoma State University with a research/ Jerry Taylor, Ph.D.
extension appointment. He has held previous appoint-
ments at the University of Illinois and North Dakota Professor and Wurdack Chair in
State University. Among other topics, Eric has pub- Animal Genomics, University of
lished scholarly articles on the influence of genetics on Missouri
fed cattle profits and calf weaning weights. His exten-
sion work is largely focused on develop farm deci- Jerry Taylor is a Professor
sion tools. He lives with his wife Cheryl and daughter of Animal Sciences and of
Megan on a small ranch north of Morrison Oklahoma. Genetics and holds the Wur-
dack Chair in Animal Genom-
ics in the Division of Animal
Sciences at the University of
Missouri-Columbia. He is an
elected Fellow of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and is the 2008 Celebration
of Excellence Distinguished Researcher Award in the
College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
at the University of Missouri. He is a member of the
iBMAC Consortium which developed the Illumina
BovineSNP50 assay for which the team won the 2008
USDA Technology Transfer Award and the 2009 FLC

10
Award for Excellence in Technology Transfer. He
has received in excess of $21 million in competitive
research funding as PI or co-PI, has mentored 11 post-
doctoral fellows and has chaired 36 M.S. and Ph.D.
graduate programs. Along with his co-investigators
and graduate students he has authored 152 peer re-
viewed research articles, 4 book chapters, 4 patents
and has edited one book. He has assembled DNA
samples and phenotypes on over 18,000 Angus, Lim-
ousin, Charolais, Hereford, Simmental and Holstein
cattle and his research focuses on the identification
of mutations responsible for phenotypic variation in
growth, carcass composition, feed efficiency and milk
production. From 1986 to 2000, he was an Associate
and then full Professor in the Faculty of Genetics and
Department of Animal Science at Texas A&M Uni-
versity. His postdoctoral research was in the Depart-
ment of Animal Science at Cornell University where
he studied the genetic bases of fertility in male and
female Holstein cattle. Jerry received a B.Sc. degree
in Mathematics and a B.Sc. Honors degree in Math-
ematical Statistics from the University of Adelaide and
a Ph.D. in Quantitative Genetics from the University
of New England in Australia.
Sally Northcutt, Ph.D.
Director of Genetic Research,
American Angus Association
Sally Northcutt is the genetic
research director for the Amer-
ican Angus Association and
Angus Genetics Inc. Her pri-
mary responsibilities include
selection tool development,
beef cattle data analysis, and
the modeling and application of the National Cattle
Evaluation. She also works with universities and ARS
across the nation to coordinate the expansive research
activities of the Association.
Before coming to the Association, Northcutt was an
Extension beef cattle breeding specialist for nine years at
Oklahoma State University, and she directed the Okla-
homa Beef Inc. (OBI) central bull test at Stillwater. She
is actively involved in industry organizations, such as the
Beef Improvement Federation, in which she has served in
various leadership roles during the past 12 years.
A Kentucky native, Northcutt received her bachelor’s
and master’s degrees from the University of Kentucky
11
and her doctorate in beef cattle breeding and genetics
from Iowa State University.
Curt Van Tassell, Ph.D.
Research Geneticist,
USDA-ARS-AIPL-BFGL
Dr. Curt Van Tassell is a Re-
search Geneticist at the Bovine
Functional Genomics Labora-
tory and the Animal Improve-
ment Programs Laboratory,
Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, in Beltsville, Maryland.
Dr. Van Tassell’s research program spans three major
areas: Development and implementation of genome
enabled selection in cattle; Improvement of systems
used in the national and international genetic evalu-
ation of dairy cattle; Development of bioinformatic
tools to acquire, store, and analyze genomic data. He
began his career in 1994 with ARS as a postdoctoral
researcher in quantitative genetics. During that time
he was solely responsible for the development of a
flexible parameter estimation program called Multiple
Trait Gibbs Sampler of Animal Models (MTGSAM).
In 1997 he was appointed to his current position, with
a joint appointment between the genomics and genetic
evaluation groups in Beltsville. In that position he
has continued quantitative genetics research, includ-
ing the development of the revised US national calv-
ing difficulty genetic evaluation that added maternal
genetic effects. He has developed a bioinformatics
infrastructure of computing and human resources to
facilitate genomics research in agriculturally important
species. Most recently, Dr. Van Tassell’s active role in
the bovine genome project has included identifying
the breeds and specific animals selected for SNP dis-
covery, coordinating funding and DNA acquisition for
the Holstein, Jersey, and Brown Swiss breeds. Finally,
he has led a consortium that developed a high-density
genotyping assay for use in cattle and led U.S.D.A. ef-
forts to use this tool for prediction of genetic merit in
dairy cattle. Dr. Van Tassell has been instrumental in
communicating the importance of integrating, quanti-
tative genetics and genomics research to the dairy and
beef cattle industries, and fostering their support for
ongoing research. Dr. Van Tassell earned a Ph.D. in
Animal Breeding from Cornell University.
 Larry V. Cundiff, Ph.D.
Research Geneticist (retired),
USDA-ARS-MARC

Dr. Larry Cundiff retired in

January 2007 after 40 years
service as a Research Geneti-
cist with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service. He was
Research Leader of the Genetics and Breeding Re-
search Unit at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center
from 1976 until 2005, when he accepted an interim
8-month appointment as Acting Center Director. His
research efforts have involved evaluation and utiliza-
tion diverse breeds, effects and utilization of hetero-
sis through alternative crossbreeding systems, and
evaluation and effectiveness of selection for traits of
economic importance in beef production. Since his
retirement, he has continued service as a collaborator
at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center assisting
with preparation of research reports and speaking at
beef industry meetings and conferences.
Dr. Cundiff has served as chairman of the Beef Im-
provement Federation (BIF) Committee on Genetic
Prediction from 1973 until 2007, and as the Agricul-
tural Research Service, USDA representative on the
BIF Board of Directors from 1981 until 2007. Recent-
ly, he has served as Editor of the Beef Improvement
Federation’s 9th Edition of Guidelines for Uniform
Beef Improvement Programs.

12
 A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO BEEF IMPROVEMENT

Barry H. Dunn1 and Jennifer J. Johnson2

1
South Dakota State University and 2Texas A&M University-Kingsville

Introduction

“To obtain understanding, we need to supplement the quantitative techniques

brought to us through the march of science, with the artistic understanding
of qualities that our obsession with science has brushed aside.”
Roger Martin, 2010, Dean of the Rotman
School of Management, University of Toronto

From many important perspectives, beef improvement efforts since World War II,
particularly the Beef Improvement Federation’s work over the last 42 years, have resulted in
tremendous progress. Cattle reproduce more frequently and grow faster and more efficiently
than their ancestors of little more than half a century ago. In many respects, the meat products
these cattle yield are not only healthier than in the past, they are well accepted in a complex,
consumer driven world economy. To a large extent, these changes are the direct result of a
linear, scientific approach. This reductionist approach might best be described as an elaborate
attempt to solve a complex puzzle by searching for missing puzzle pieces. The puzzle is
analogous to the quest for beef improvement. The pieces represent the genes identified and
associated with economically important traits. The puzzle is generally accepted as solved by
either increasing gene frequency for important traits or by increasing those traits’ dominant
allele. The two primary tools used to accomplish this noted beef improvement have been the use
of breeding systems and the application of the principles of animal selection. Over the last four
decades, the popularity and use of breeding systems has waxed and waned. However, the
application of the principles of animal selection has only gained momentum and prominence.
Progress via animal selection is limited by three critical constraints. The first is selection
differential. The second is generation turnover. The third is the heritability of the trait of
interest. Since heritability is generally accepted as fixed, changes in gene frequency are due
primarily to the identification of outstanding individuals and the accelerated diffusion of their
genes into the population through various techniques and technologies. Therefore the success of
this “puzzle” approach to beef improvement has been and remains dependent on the constant
development of more advanced technologies. From simple ratios of key metrics to whole animal
genomic panels, piece after piece has been added to the puzzle, whose success is widely
understood to be change.

But what if beef improvement was approached not as a puzzle, whose solution was just a
technology away, but as a mystery? In his provocative book What the Dog Saw, author Malcolm
Gladwell challenges the reader with such a question (Gladwell, 2009). Gladwell suggests that
puzzles are “transmitter dependent, they turn on what we are told.” That is to say, solutions to
puzzles depend on “pieces.” In this case, in order to improve beef, the cattle industry has been
dependent on the regular transmission of techniques and technologies that fall into one of two
categories. The first are technologies that aid in the identification of individuals that possess
unique characteristics in order to increase the selection differential of a breeding program. For

13
example, ratios, breeding values, EPDs, genetic markers, and whole animal panels are all
designed to aid in the identification of animals with traits that deviate from the average of the
population. The second category of techniques and technologies speed the diffusion of a
selected animal’s genes through a population. These techniques and technologies include rapid
generation turnover, artificial insemination, estrus synchronization, sexed semen, embryo
transfer, and cloning. And so, with this puzzle approach, beef improvement has been and
remains dependent on the regular transmission of techniques and technology derived from
science and industry.

In contrast, Gladwell (2009) says that mysteries are “receiver dependent, they turn on the
skills of the listener.” In the case of beef improvement then, his message challenges an industry
to be thoughtful and contemplative in its application of techniques and technologies by honing its
skills of listening and understanding. For example, is the most economical and effective way of
improving beef accomplished by manipulating the bovine genome to increase gene frequency?
Or could it be the mechanical treatment of the meat itself? Could it lie with the emerging field of
epigenetics? Or perhaps it lies “back to the future” in a learned application of the principles of
breeding systems? Perhaps it lies in the thoughtful and strategic combination of multiple
strategies. The successful development, evaluation, and application of complex strategies to
unravel the “mystery” of improving beef requires knowledge and skills in fields not generally
associated with the historic work of beef improvement. Examples are micro and macro
economics, managerial accounting, system dynamics, and systems thinking; fields whose
mastery is “receiver dependent.”

Complex Systems

“Society has become so complex that traditional ways and means are not sufficient
anymore. Approaches of a holistic or systems nature have to be introduced.”
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, (Laszlo, 1972)

Bertalanffy’s challenge resonates with a beef industry that struggles with profitability
across its many segments and, perhaps even more importantly, shrinking cattle numbers that
threaten its place in a dynamic economy. These powerful trends, that seem to have a life of their
own, clearly represent a serious challenge to the stability of the entire beef industry. The choice
then is to approach this challenge as either a puzzle or a mystery. If this daunting challenge is
viewed as a mystery to be unraveled, it needs to be understood as a complex system. But what is
a complex system? Hall and Fagen (1968) classically defined systems as “a set of objects
together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.” They define
objects as “the parts or components of the system,” attributes as “properties of the objects,” and
relationships are the things that “tie a system together.” Waldrop (1992) describes systems as
networks of agents acting in parallel, but interacting with each other in a system, where nothing
is fixed and control is highly dispersed. Providing deeper elucidation, MIT professor John
Sterman (1998) described five fundamental characteristics of a complex system:

1. They are tightly coupled: everything influences everything else.

2. They are dynamic: change occurs on many scales.
3. They are policy resistant: obvious solutions to problems fail or actually make things
worse.
4. They are counterintuitive: cause and effect are distant in time and space.

14
 5. They exhibit tradeoffs: advantageous short-term behavior is often different, or even
antagonistic, to advantageous long-term behavior.

Is the work of improving beef a complex system? Based on the definitions and
characteristics listed above, it clearly is. Evidence abounds. Many of the economically important
genetic traits of beef cattle are correlated with each other. However, some are antagonistic.
Phenotypic change may exhibit itself in the first calf crop following a mating, or many years
later in the offspring of those calves. After generations of work to increase the percentage of
“choice” cattle in the marketplace, their proportion in the population of the fed cattle marketed
remains remarkably the same (Rhoades et al., 2008). The lethal genes associated with dwarfism
in Hereford cattle in the 1950’s, and more recently with curly calf in Angus cattle, provides
classical examples of how rational decisions related to animal selection may have unexpected
and unpredictable consequences that exhibit themselves decades later. Increasing the growth
traits of cattle through selection and breeding systems in the 1970s provided a short-term benefit
for individual cattle producers as they increased the pounds of beef for sale from their ranches
and farms. But as consumer demand for beef dropped precipitously in the 1980s and 1990s, the
oversupply of beef only added to severely depressed prices for cattlemen. The question becomes;
why does the beef industry and other complex systems behave the way they do?

MIT Professor Emeritus Jay Forrester described the following principles of complex
systems that offer insight into this question (Sterman, 1998).
• The nature of “feedback” tends to mislead people into taking ineffective and even
counterproductive action.
• People do not understand the complex interactions in a system and cannot correctly
predict the outcome of their actions.
• Most difficulties are internally caused, even though there is an overwhelming tendency to
blame outside forces.
• The actions people take, usually with the belief that the actions they take are a solution,
are often the cause of the problems.

Continuing to approach complex systems like beef improvement as simply the cause and
effect of selected parts is naïve, misleading and problematic (Senge et al., 1994; Goodman 1994).
There is important intrinsic value in viewing things like beef improvement as a complex system
(Senge, 1990; Leibold et al., 2005; Haines, 2009). It clearly contains fundamental elements of
several foundational sciences including biology, ecology, economics, and human behavior. To
solve the mystery of beef improvement, the basic relationships between the fundamental
elements of the system are as important, if not more important, than the foundational science of
any of the component parts.

Beef Improvement as a Complex System

“The weather never settles down. It never repeats itself exactly. It’s essentially
unpredictable more than a week or so in advance. And yet we can comprehend and
explain almost everything that we see up there. We can identify important features such

15
 as weather fronts, jet streams, and high-pressure systems. We can understand their
dynamics. We can understand how they interact to produce weather on a local and
regional scale. In short, we have a real science of weather without full prediction. And
we can do it because prediction isn’t the essence of science. The essence is
comprehension and explanation.
Waldrop (1992)

Epigenetics. What might beef improvement look like if it were approached as a complex
system? Perhaps it would include an application of the principles of epigenetics. The definition
of the Greek prefix epi means “on, upon, over, above, after, near, beside, and after” (The
American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, 2010). Epigenetics are mechanisms that
seem to allow an organism to respond to its environment through changes in gene expression
(Jaenisch and Bird, 2003). They are the mechanisms that come into play “after” genetics. As a
field of study, epigenetics is the exploration of how genes are expressed, and occurs both pre and
postnatally as well as long into adulthood (Jaenisch and Bird, 2003). It is now widely held that
gene expression is modulated by outside forces (Shenk, 2010). For example, the diet of a
pregnant woman can affect her offspring’s susceptibility to disease (Hazani and Shasha, 2008).
The diet of an individual can affect his or her susceptibility to cancer late in life (Jaenisch and
Bird, 2003). Also, and contrary to current dogma, heritable variation can arise as a response to
the environment, and is not always random (Shenk, 2010).

The study of epigenetics during pregnancy is often referred to as developmental

programming or fetal programming. A growing body of work from the University of Nebraska
(Stalker et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2007; Larson et al., 2009) provides clear and compelling
evidence of fetal programming in beef cattle production systems. In particular, protein
supplementation of pregnant cows improved weaning weights of calves (Stalker et al., 2006), the
fertility of their female progeny (Martin et al., 2007), and the health and some carcass
characteristics of male progeny in the finishing phase (Larson et al., 2008). In their review paper
on the effects of maternal nutrition on fetal growth and the performance of their progeny,
Funston et al. (2009) offers sophisticated explanations concerning how the mechanisms of fetal
programming work. This is extremely important work, because a widely adopted strategy to
improve profitability has been to lower winter fed costs by cutting or lowering supplementation
levels. It also provides an excellent example of how, in a complex system, short-term results
may be different than long-term consequences. In this case, lowering feed costs during
pregnancy may improve profitability in the near-term, but decrease profitability in the long-term.
It also provides evidence that, in complex systems like beef improvement, cause and effect are
distant in time and space.

There is also compelling evidence of the role of epigenetics in growth and development
after parturition. Long thought to occur late in the finishing phase, marbling is now recognized
to begin at a relatively young age and progresses at a constant rate through the finishing phase
(Bruns, 2004) and can be improved by creep feeding (Myers et al., 1999). However, in contrast
to the effect of pre-partum nutrition on improving a heifer calf’s productivity as a cow, in a 21-
year study, creep feeding adversely affected lifetime productivity of cows (Martin et al., 1981).
It would seem then that improved nutrition affects animal performance differently depending on
sex and whether supplementation occurs pre or post partum. Interestingly, aggressive implant
treatments affect marbling differently, depending on the age of the animal when they are
administered (Bruns et al., 2005). These examples are clear evidence, that regardless of an

16
animal’s genetic propensity, its actual phenotype can be affected by not only by its physical
environment, but by exogenous factors, like pre and post partum nutrition and hormones, that
control the biochemical processes required for gene expression.

Learned Behavior. What if the observations made concerning animal production and
performance were not due to the genetics of the animal, the environment in which it is living, or
epigenetics, but instead to learned behavior? Clearly, in confined animal production, where an
animal’s nutritional needs and immediate physical environment are controlled, this is not
relevant. But consider production systems on pastures or rangeland. The science of herbivory is
based on the assumption that all animals in the population behave predictably, as reflected by
treatment means, which are then extrapolated to populations (Provenza, 2004). Variation within
treatments is treated as a statistical problem to be dealt with mathematically, rather than with
curiosity or opportunistic viewpoint. What if variation in response to pasture or rangeland
treatments was viewed as a potential source of solutions to problems, much like residual feed
intake is in the exploration of efficiency? Provenza (1995) argues that an animal’s diet while
grazing pastures or rangelands reflects their ability to select from a smorgasbord of sedges,
grasses, and forbs, and that much of that selection is learned (Provenza, 1995). He proposes that
this learned behavior is based on aversion, which yields benefits like a balanced diet, and a
reduction in the ingestion of toxic foods (Provenza, 1996). The fact that there is variation in diet
selection, and that it is learned, provides fertile ground for research in the quest for optimization
in forage based beef cattle production systems.

Micro-economics. If the goal of beef improvement is positive change in a trait of interest

to beef cattle producers specifically, or the beef industry in general, then the application of the
principles of economics should be applied. The basic micro-economic principle of marginality
as related to technology in beef cattle production systems cannot be ignored (Dunn, 2004). The
cost of producing more of anything is not fixed, but lies on a curve, referred to as a marginal cost
curve. For example, the cost of producing each unit of a product is not equal. It decreases as the
production function achieves efficiency but then increases as the point of diminishing returns is
reached and surpassed. The cost of increasing the gene frequency of a trait falls on a marginal
cost curve. When the cost of adding an additional unit exceeds its value, it is irrational to add
more. Increasing the gene frequency of genes that affect a trait like marbling makes sense when
the carcass premiums for choice versus select are large and exceeds the marginal cost. But
consumer demand for beef is elastic, and carcass premiums reflect not only the elasticity of
demand, but also of supply. Further, the elasticity of consumer demand for beef is much greater
than the elasticity of the supply of beef, let alone for specific characteristics like marbling. This
inelasticity of the supply of beef in general, and for specific traits in particular, is a function of
the long production cycle associated with beef production and the relatively low hereditability
and slow generation turnover associated with beef cattle genetics. A logical explanation of why
the choice/select spread has narrowed in 2010 is because the protracted worldwide recession has
caused a decline in consumer demand for choice beef in relation to its relatively inelastic supply.

If the principles of micro-economics are applied in a systems analysis of a trait like

marbling, several key aspects need to be considered. First, the value of marbling would be
determined or estimated in a dynamic economy, taking into account economic trends and the
elasticity of demand for choice beef. Secondly, optimum levels of the frequency for genes
associated with marbling would be established based upon the marginal cost of achieving each
level. Thirdly, the marginal cost of alternatives like fetal programming or creep feeding would be

17
determined. Finally, if the marginal cost of increasing marbling is below the projected return, a
combination of technologies would be applied that keep the return on investment as high as
possible.

Examples of System Thinking as Related to Beef Improvement. During the 37th Annual
Research Symposium and Annual Meeting of the Beef Improvement Association, Dr. Bryan
Melton challenged the beef cattle industry to include economics as part of multi trait selection
indices and to follow those with economically weighted EPDs (Melton, 1995). While widely
used in the pork and poultry industry, his 1995 challenge seemed novel to the struggling beef
industry. Today, the major breed associations provide bioeconomic values based on
economically weighted multi-trait selection indices to assist their members and customers in the
genetic selection process. While not always transparent, they are an excellent example of solving
the mystery of beef improvement in a thoughtful, multi-disciplinary, receiver dependent
approach.

In 2002, Splan et al. (2002) published heritability estimates for weaning weight based on
the records of 23,681 crossbred steers and heifers from the USDA-Meat Animal Research Center
in Clay Center Nebraska to be 0.4 ± 0.02. Texts on beef cattle production and extension
publications generally report that weaning weight is moderately heritable at 0.35 to 0.40. But is
the heritability of weaning weight the same across all geographical locations? Could the
environment in some locations be so extreme that it could reduce the heritability of this
important trait? Although anecdotal, in 2008, John Genho analyzed the production records of
over 20,000 Santa Gertrudis cattle from King Ranch, Kingsville, Texas. Using the Cornell
Animal Model, he reported that the heritability estimate for weaning weight from these records
to be 0.10 (Genho, 2008, Personal Communication). In terms of environmental conditions and
nutritional availability, the subtropical environment in which these cattle were raised is extreme.
Perhaps these animals from south Texas had a reduced opportunity to express their true genetic
potential for weaning weight when compared to cattle raised in conditions that are more similar
to those reported in the literature. Could this be true in other environments? If it is, it could have
important economic implications for cattle producers from areas of outside the Midwest.

In conversation last winter Steve Radakovich, one of the early system thinkers in the beef
industry as well as a longtime leader in the Beef Improvement Federation, posed a provocative
question. “In beef cattle metabolism, maintenance energy is used for bodily function and repair.
Since longevity requires the constant repair and maintenance of critical organ systems, and if
efficiency is gained by lowering the portion of energy partitioned to maintenance, could we be
selecting against longevity as we improve efficiency?” (Radakovich, 2010, Personal
Communication)? This question is representative of the creative thought necessary to solve the
complex challenges of beef improvement. It has at its core the fundamental principles of
complex systems as outlined by Forrester (Sterman, 1998).

The pork and poultry industries have long been viewed as competition for beef. A
general response of the cattle industry has been to find production systems that mimic theirs, and
to find ways to compete with them from a feed efficiency basis. What would beef improvement
look like if the environment was viewed not as a variable to be controlled, as it has been in the
pork and poultry industries, but as a competitive advantage to exploit? Variation in wine is the
backbone of the industry. Regional differences in fruits and vegetables are being promoted.

18
This question is easy to dismiss in an industry that is singularly focused, but is worthy of
discussion in an industry willing to look outside the box.

Answers to the questions above, and many more, will challenge the very best scientists
and thought leaders in beef cattle research and industry. But the primary question centers on the
beef industry’s willingness to ask them.

Conclusion

“I doubt if we stand a good chance of achieving understanding of the components,

and of the interactions among them, as long as we insist on maintaining the comfort
of our specialist or discipline zone. All indications to me are that we need more
integrations of our disciplinary efforts both within and among beef cattle problem
areas if we are to make the greatest contribution to developing technology for
maximizing the amount of edible beef of a given quality per unit of resource use.”
Gregory (1972)

The debate about beef improvement shouldn’t be centered on a validation of the past.
The historic path chosen by the industry has achieved its goal of change. But the beef industry’s
serious and compelling problems lie in the future. The challenge for the Beef Improvement
Federation at its 42nd Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting concerns the path it
chooses for tomorrow. Will it continue as a “transmitter dependent” organization in search of
puzzle pieces? Or will it become a “receiver dependent” organization that accepts Keith
Gregory’s challenge to break out of the “comfort of our specialist or discipline zone(s)” and
expand its view as it unravels the mystery that is the complex system of beef production and
improvement?

Literature Cited

Berlinski, D. 1976. On System Analysis: An Essay Concerning the Limitations of Some

Mathematical Methods in the Social, Political, and Biological Sciences. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bruns, K. W., R. H. Pritchard and D. L. Boggs. 2004. The relationship among body weight, body
composition, and intramuscular fat content in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 82:1315-1322.

Bruns, K. W., R. H. Pritchard and D. L. Boggs. 2005. The effect of stage growth and implant
exposure on performance and carcass composition in steers. J. Anim. Sci. 83:108-116.

Dunn, B. H. 2004. Technology: Price tag and profit. Proceedings of the Beef Improvement
Federation’s 36th Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting. Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.

Funston, R. N., D. M. Larson, and K. A. Vonnahme. 2009. Effects of maternal nutrition on

conceptus growth and offspring performance: Implications for beef cattle production. J.
Anim. Sci. 88:E205-E215.

19
Gladwell, M. 2009. What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures. Little, Brown and Company.
New York, New York.

Goodman, M. 1994. A Beginner’s Guide to Systems Thinking. Pegasus Communications.

Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Gregory, K. E. 1970. Beef cattle type for maximum efficiency “putting it all together”. J. Anim.
Sci. 34:881-884.

Haines, S. 2009. Strategic and Systems Thinking: The Winning Formula. Haines Centre for
Strategic Management. San Diego, California.

Hall, A. D., and R. E. Fagen. 1968. Definition of System in N. Buckley, ed., Modern Systems
Research for the Behavioral Scientist. Aldine Press. Chicago, Illinois.

Hazani, E. and S. M. Shasha. 2008. Effects of the Holocaust on the physical health of the
offspring of survivors. Israel Medical Assoc. J. 10:251-255.

Jaenisch, R. and A. Bird. 2003. Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome
integrates intrinsic and environmental signals. Nature Genetics 33:245-254.

Larson, D. M., J. L. Martin, D. C. Adams and R. N. Funston. 2008. Winter grazing system and
supplementation during late gestation influence performance of beef cows and steer
progeny. J. Anim. Sci. 87:1147-1155.

Laszlo, E. (ed. 1972). The relevance of general systems theory: Papers Presented to Ludwig von
Bertalanffy on His Seventieth Birthday. Braziller. New York, New York.

Leibold, M., G. Probst, and M. Gibbert. 2005. Strategic Management in the Knowledge
Economy: 2nd edition. Publicus KommunikationsAgentur. Erlangen, Germany.

Martin, T. G., R. P. Lemenager, G. Srinivasan and R. Alenda. 1981. Creep Feed as a Factor
Influencing Performance of Cows and Calves. J. Anim. Sci. 53:33-39.

Martin, J. L., K. A. Vonnahme, D. C.Adams, G. P. Lardy and R. N. Funston. 2007. Effects of

dam nutrition on growth and reproductive performance of heifer calves. J. Anim. Sci.
85:841-847.

Melton, B. E. 1995. Conception to consumption: the economics of genetic improvement.

Proceedings of the Beef Improvement Federation’s 27th Annual Research and
Symposium and Annual Meeting. Sheridan, Wyoming.

Myers, S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F.A. Ireland, L. Berger and D. F. Parrett. 1999. Production systems
comparing early weaning to normal with or without creep feeding for beef steers. J.
Anim. Sci. 77:300-310.

Provenza, F. D. 1995. Postingestive feedback as an elementary determinant of food preference

and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manage. 48:2-17.

20
Provenza, F. D. 1996. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on
rangelands. J. Anim. Sci. 74:2010-2020.

Provenza, F. D. 2004. Adaptability, foraging, and the complexity of landscapes. 2004 HOLT
CATR Symposium on Excellence in Ranch Management. Texas A&M University:
Kingsville, Kingsville, Texas.

Rhoades, R. D., J. E. Sawyer, A. D. Herring, PAS, and D. P. Anderson. 2008. Case Study: Has
Beef Quality Grade Declined? The Professional Animal Scientist 24:619-627.

Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. Currency Doubleday. New York, New York.

Senge, P. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Currency Doubleday. New York, New York.

Shenk, D. 2010. The Genius in All of Us. Doubleday New York, New York.

Splan, R. K., L. V. Cundiff, M. E. Dikeman, and L. D. Van Vleck. 2002. Estimates of parameters
between direct and maternal genetic effects for weaning weight and direct genetic effects
for carcass traits in crossbred cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2002. 80:3107–3111.

Stalker, L. A., D. C. Adams, T. J. Klopfenstein, D. M. Feuz and R. N. Funston. 2006. Effects of

pre-and postpartum nutrition on reproduction in spring calving cows and calf feedlot
performance. J. Anim. Sci. 84:2582-2589.

Sterman, J. D. 1998. Introduction to systems dynamics. System Dynamics: Modeling for

Organizational Learning. MIT Sloan. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary: 2nd edition. 2004. Houghton Mifflin
Company. Wilmington, Massachusetts.

Waldrop, M. M., 1992. Complexity; The Emerging Science At The Edge Of Order and Chaos.
Simon and Schuster, New York, New York.

21
 PRODUCTION (AND) OR PROFIT? FOCUSING OUR BREEDING OBJECTIVES
BY SELECTING FOR PROFITABLE GENETICS ,NOT NECESSARILY HIGH
PRODUCTION GENETICS

Matt Spangler

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Introduction

Steep increasing genetic trends for growth traits (weaning and yearling) and mature
cow weight can be seen in many breeds but perhaps more alarming are those producers that
have dramatically increased the genetic potential for milk production in their cow herds.
Conditional on the assumption that the Beef Cattle Industry is a For Profit organization, then
it would seem logical that profit (Revenue – Expense) should drive our selection decisions.
In order to actually do this, knowledge of environmental constraints, genetic antagonisms,
and the selection tools that have the potential to measure profit are critical.

Environmental Constraints

The development of an obtainable breeding objective begins by clearly identifying

environmental constraints and marketing goals. Table 1 illustrates levels of production that
are suited for differing production environments.

Table 1. Matching genetic potential for different traits to production environments1

Production Environment Traits

Feed Stress2 Milk Mature Ability Resistance Calving Lean
Availability Size to store to stress4 ease yield
energy3

High Low M to H5 M to H L to M M M to H H
High M L to H L to H H H M to H
Medium Low M to H M M to H M M to H M to H
High L to M M M to H H H H
Low Low L to M L to M H M M to H M
High L to M L to M H H H L to M
1
Adapted from Gosey, 1994.
2
Heat, cold, parasites, disease, mud, altitude, etc.
3
Ability to store fat and regulate energy requirements with changing (seasonal) availability of feed.
4
Physiological tolerance to heat, cold, internal and external parasites, disease, mud, and other factors.
5
L = Low; M = Medium; H = High.

22
 If feed resources are limited in a stressful environment then selection for increased
extreme output (high growth, milk, and red meat yield) could have negative impacts on the
ability of cows to be successful breeders without the need for large quantities of harvested
forage. The beginning of a profitable breeding objective is identifying what the environment
will allow you to produce, at least until we have tools to apply direction selection to traits of
adaptation.

Crossbreeding

At a BIF meeting in 2010, it hardly seems fit to even mention crossbreeding.

Commercial producers who have not yet adopted it are a burden to the beef industry.
However, it is an excellent example of selection for profitability. We know that the two
primary benefits of crossbreeding are complementing the strengths of two or more breeds
and heterosis, neither of which create trait maximums. If we think about it simplistically,
crossbreeding for a trait like weaning weight leaves us with a calf crop that is better than the
average of the parental lines, not better than both parental lines. Crossbreeding, if done
correctly, seeks to optimize many traits through complementing breed strengths and produce
animals that are better than the average of the parental lines that created them. The best tool
that the commercial cattleman ever had is based on optimization, not the production of
extremes. So, it would stand to reason that within breed selection should have the same goal,
optimums and not maximums.
Genetic Correlations

Unfortunately, all traits that might be included in a breeding objective are not
independent of each other. Sometimes this is beneficial as we see a favorable correlated
response, and other times these genetic correlations pit revenue against cost. A good
example of this comes from the suite of weight traits. Depending on the targeted marketing
endpoint either weaning weight (WW), yearling weight (YW) or carcass weight (CW)
become a source of revenue and all are related to a major factor influencing the cost of
production, mature cow weight (MW). Table 2 illustrates the genetic correlations between
MW and WW, YW, and CW, respectively.

Table 2. Genetic correlations between mature cow weight (MW)

and weaning weight (WW), yearling weight (YW), and carcass
weight (CW).

WW1 YW1 CW2

MW 0.62 0.45 0.81
1
Estimates from Northcutt and Wilson, 1993.
2
Estimate from Nephawe et al., 2004.

Although it is not intuitive, literature results show that of the immature traits, WW
has the highest genetic correlation with mature cow weight. Other similar estimates have
been shown in the literature ranging from 0.65 to 0.82 in Red Angus field data (Williams et
al., 2009). The same authors estimated the genetic correlation between postweaning gain and

23
MW to range between 0.48 and 0.59. This is particularly relevant in the context of producers
that sell some portion of calves but also keep back their own replacement females. Care
should be given not to focus solely on the revenue portion, sale weight, but rather optimizing
input costs associated with mature weight and revenue sources from calf sale weight. The
mature sale weight, CW, shows a strong and positive relationship with MW and again care
should be taken to optimize selection between the two.

Selection For Decreased Input

  Traditionally, there have been few EPDs that could be used to directly select against
input costs. However there has been one for some time, milk. Research has shown that cows
with the genetic propensity to milk heavily require more energy for lactation and
maintenance. The National Research Council (NRC) data shows that a cow who produces 25
lbs. of milk at peak lactation requires 10% more feed energy than a cow producing 15 lbs. of
milk at peak lactation. To see a 10% difference in feed energy with regards to mature weight
it would require moving from a 1,000 lb. cow to a 1,200 lb. cow, or a change of 200 lbs. of
body weight. Moderating mature cow size and selecting for an optimal window of milk
production is beneficial when it comes to cutting costs regardless of your production
environment given that milk production has been estimated to explain 23% of the variation in
maintenance requirements (Montano-Bermudez et al., 1990). However, in limited feed
environments females with high maintenance energy requirements may also have difficulty
maintaining an acceptable body condition score and rebreeding. Nugent et al. (1993)
determined that with limited nutrient availability, breeds with a high genetic potential for
milk production had longer anestrous periods which lead to lower conception rates during a
fixed breeding season. Other researchers have concluded that selection for increased milk
production past an adequate threshold is not economically or biologically efficient if the
marketing endpoint was at either weaning or slaughter (van Oijen et al., 1993). While the
lactation requirements may be intuitive, cows with a higher milk yield also tend to have
increased visceral organ mass this increasing energy requirements even when the cow is not
lactating (Solis et al., 1988).

Other selection tools exist for decreasing input costs including mature weight EPDs
and more recently the Maintenance Energy EPD published by the Red Angus Association of
America (Evans, 2001; Williams et al., 2009). The study by Williams and others clearly
depicts that selection for immature weights is occurring thus increasing MW. Furthermore,
the study illustrates that without accounting for this prior selection in the development of ME
predictions, and inherent bias is created.

Most of the described tools focus on the cow-herd and not in the finishing phase. The
American Gelbvieh Association publishes a Days-to-Finish (DtF) EPD designed to select for
animals that reach slaughter earlier, as measured by a constant fat thickness of 0.4 inches. For
producers that are rewarded for feedlot performance DtF can be an effective way to decrease
input costs derived from a greater number of days on feed or feeding cattle past an optimal
fat thickness. Brigham at al., (2006) estimated the genetic correlation between Dtf and WW
to be -0.29, suggesting that larger weaning weights tend to be moderately associated with few
days on feed.

24
Bio-economic Index Values

In order to mitigate genetic antagonisms in an effort to select for profit economic

index values become the tool of choice. A bio-economic index (H) is simply a collection of
EPDs that are relevant to a particular breeding objective, whereby each EPD is multiplied by
an associated economic weight (a). For example, the economic index value H can be written

H = EPD1a1 + EPD2a2 + EPD3a3 + ...

where EPDs 1, 2, and 3 are multiplied by their corresponding economic weight and summed.
Consequently, a high index value does not necessarily mean that an animal excels in all EPD
categories given that superiority in trait can compensate for inferiority in other traits
depending on how the EPDs are weighted in the index. A high index value should be thought
of as excelling in the ability to meet a breeding objective. These index values do not have a
measure of accuracy directly associated with them because each EPD is weighted differently
in the index and it is not statistically possible to weight the accuracy values. Like EPDs, they
can easily change overtime with the addition of new information (i.e. progeny records) as the
component EPDs change. It is important to note, however, that before proper use of an index
can be ensured, a breeding objective must be clearly identified. For example, the use of an
index such as the American Angus Association’s Dollar Beef ($B) in an enterprise that
retains replacement heifers can lead to adverse effects, given that sire selection pressure has
been placed on terminal traits via $B.

The majority of economic index values are rigid (i.e. not catered to individual
enterprises). A much more desirable method would use individualized index values where
the bull with the highest index value may differ from one herd to the next, depending on how
the animal fits the specific needs of each enterprise. While this would lead to more accurate
identification of parents for the next generation, it becomes a challenging metric to use for
advertisement purposes in the seedstock industry, which probably explains why this more
desirable method of multiple-trait selection has not been exploited by the majority of breed
associations. For example, it is possible to advertise that a bull is in the top 1% of the breed
for $B, but if an index parameters are partially defined by the prospective bull buyer or
semen user the most desirable bull for that producer may not be the best for other producers.
One example to the contrary would be the interactive Terminal Sire index produced by the
International Charolais Association.

New and Improved Tools

Genomic tools hold the potential to provide predictions for hard to measure traits that
focus on input costs such as feed intake. Ideally, genomic predictions for feed intake would
be incorporated into an economic index as a key component of input cost. However,
accurate genomic predictions will require phenotypes.

The improvement of existing phenotypic databases for traits is also needed. It is

critical that seedstock producers routinely turn in mature cow weights along with body
condition scores to further aid in selecting for optimal weights and the development of tools

25
such as the American Angus Associations Cow Energy value index ($EN) and the Red
Angus Associations Maintenance Energy (ME) EPD. This will require participation in
Whole (or Total) Herd reporting, a very necessary process for complete data collection and
the development and delivery of genetic prediction tools.
 
Summary

Trends are rarely flat, as an industry we have measured ourselves by steep lines in
one direction or the other. From a seedstock perspective this may have been perceived as
necessary in order to differentiate themselves (either as breeders or as breeds) from others in
the market place. Clearly identifying your production environment and realistic production
goals given that environment are critical. Profit lies in the optimization of expense and
revenue and optimization is always more challenging than maximizing outputs or minimizing
inputs. It will require more effort, detailed financial records, and a structured breeding
objective that builds a cow herd based on optimum values and not extremes. One final
thought, extremely low maintenance cows will push the lower threshold of what is
biologically possible for weight and produce virtually no milk. High output cows will
represent the other extreme, weigh more than most mature bulls and milk heavier than the
best Holstein. Both excel in some measure of the profit equation (i.e. lowest cost or highest
revenue) but neither promises to be profitable.

Literature Cited

Brigham, B.W., S.E. Speidel, D.W. Beckman, D.J. Garrick, W. Vanderwert, S. Willmon, and
R.M. Enns. 2006. Parameter estimates and breeding values for days to a constant fat
endpoint. In Proc. Western Section, Amercian Society of Animal Science, volume 57.

Evans, J.L. 2001. Genetic prediction of mature weight and mature cow maintenance energy
requirements in Red Angus cattle. Ph.D. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Gosey, J. 1994. Composites: A beef cattle breeding alternative. Proc. Beef Improvement
Federation Annual Meeting. June 1-4, W. Des Moines, IA. P. 93.

Montano-Bermudez, M., M. K. Nielsen, and G. H. Deutscher. 1990. Energy requirements for

maintenance of crossbred beef cattle with different genetic potential for milk. J.
Anim. Sci. 68:2279-2288.

Nephawe, K.A., L.V. Cundiff, M.E. Dikeman, J.D. Crouse, and L.D. Van Vleck. 2004.
genetic relationships between sex-specific traits in beef cattle: Mature weight, weight
adjusted for body condition score, height and body condition score of cows, and
carcass traits of their steer relatives. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 647-65.

Northcutt, S.J., and D.E. Wilson. 1993. Genetic parameter estimates and expected progeny
differences for mature size in Angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1148-1153.

26
NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle 7th Ed. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.

Nugent, R.A., III, T.G. Jenkins, A.J. Roberts, and J. Klindt. 1993. Relationship of post-
partum interval in mature beef cows with nutritional environment, biological
type and serum IGF-I concentrations. Anim. Prod. 56:193-200.

Solis, J. C., F. M. Byers, G. T. Schelling, C. R. Long, and L. W. Greene. 1988. maintenance

requirements and energetic efficiency of cows of different breed types. J. Anim. Sci.
66:764-773.

Van Oijen, M., M. Montano-Bermudez, and M.K. Nielsen. Economical and biological
efficiencies of beef cattle differing in level of milk production. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 44-
50.

Willimas, J.L., D.J. Garrick, and S.E. Speidel. 2009. Reducing bias in maintenance energy
progeny difference by accounting for selection on weaning and yearling Weights. J.
Anim. Sci. 87:1628-1637.

27
 Adding Value to a Weaned Calf Marketing System
Mike John

June 2010

There has been much debate regarding the profitability of preconditioning calves.
The debate seems to be similar to the one surrounding creep feeding and the question is
always “does it pay?” My answer to those questions has always been “well, that
depends”. Sounds like a copout but here’s what I think it depends on. The factors I have
come to understand both on our own operation and through nearly 400,000 head through
the MFA Health Track program are season, genetics, critical mass, health, condition,
shrink, and finally actually capturing any marketing program premiums.

Season

In recent history in the Midwest USA, barring some exceptional corn price
fluctuation, I would argue that the best you can do is to market an 850lb. steer around
August 15th. From then until the end of the year the price spreads between 500 and 900
pounds narrow to negligible. Since feed cost trends downward through summer and
many times through new crop corn harvest, this tells me that the ability to profit from
added weight on spring born calves should be significant.

Genetics

Calves that are bred to perform well in feedlots will also do well in a
preconditioning program. Cross breeding with bulls that have some frame and muscle, as
well as feed efficiency and weaning growth accuracies should pay off in this type of
program. The more consistent a group of calves are the easier they are to feed. In other
words, genetic similarity AND a 60 day calving period are worthwhile goals.

Critical Mass

Since the average herd size in most of the country is less than 40 head, people
tend to turn a deaf ear to this discussion. Even though we all know that a large draft size
or truckload quantities increase efficiency and garner higher prices. Backgrounders
figured this one out decades ago. Tighter calving periods, combining producers,
preconditioning programs that allow pooling, are some of the options available to anyone
looking to capture more market value.

Health

Although I didn’t put this one first, it doesn’t mean it isn’t extremely important in
a preconditioning program. We have kept records of Health Track calves that get sick
during the 45 day preconditioning period. In our dataset, morbidity ranges from .35% to

28
nearly 5% based more on when the vaccinations are given, than on what brand. Using
MLV 4-5 way pre-weaning as a first round provides the absolute best protection.
Adequate nutrition plays a key role in developing immunity.

Condition

In the last 10 years I have worked with Health Track, there has been a significant
change in the type of condition most buyers are looking for. Thin and Fleshy are both
negative terms now. The right genetics can provide calves that can gain well and still not
get fleshy. Medium fleshed calves that have frame and muscle will perform well and stay
healthy, it’s as simple as that. Maximizing weight gain into the appropriate season’s
market without getting them too fleshy is the best advice you’ll get.

Shrink

Is it the opposite of compensatory gain? Maybe, but it can also be a harbinger of

health wrecks. If you do the math 5% shrink on a 500 lb calf is 25 lbs. At $1.25/lb that’s
$31.25. If you can save that much shrink, you can save that much money per head.
Preconditioned calves shrink less than bawling calves, it is a fact and easy to understand.
If you don’t believe me go to an auction and watch the behavior of both groups.

Value Added Market Access

There are many practices that if they are properly documented provide access to
market premiums. Notice I said access. There are no guarantees. We all know that the
last person with their hand in the air gets the cattle and the price is only based on that.
There are well documented premiums for ASV cattle these days but back verification is
proof that cow/calf producers don’t always capture it. Weaned, Vaccinated, Vac 45
process verified, Natural, NHTC, Organic, are all examples of value added processes.
There is a cost to all of them and you have to determine if you have any chance in your
marketing scheme to capture enough premium to pay it. I will summarize this way.
Weaning and vaccinating, and “Maximizing weight gain into the appropriate season’s
market without getting them too fleshy” is still the best advice you’ll get.

29
 EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY

Eric A. DeVuyst

Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078

Abstract

Agricultural producers are continually faced with decisions regarding the adoption of
new technologies. This paper reviews the applied decision tools available for use in assessing
technology adoption decisions with emphasis on livestock production decisions. Decisions and
decision tools are categorized by relative scale, perceived risk and degree of reversibility. The
tools required to assess decisions increase in sophistication and information requirements as the
investment’s scale, risk and reversibility decrease. Tools discussed include partial budgeting,
enterprise budgeting, whole farm budgeting, cashflow budgeting, capital budgeting, and real
option pricing models. How investment in technology can increase value by increasing future
options to producers is also discussed.

Introduction

Investment in agricultural technology can be expensive. New livestock production

facilities can require investment of millions of dollars. New harvest equipment can run into the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Genetic testing of breeding stock can be equal or even exceed a
year’s average return on a per head basis. Further, the returns from adopting new technology are
usually uncertain. For example, will buyers pay for genetic information? What if a producer
discovers through testing that his stock does not have genetics desired by the market? While
theoretical-based tools are available to analyze even the most complex decision problems, the
information requirements or training needed to utilize these tools are often too onerous to be
practical for most real world decisions. Here, I discuss the practical shortcomings of theory-
based decision analysis and review several applied alternatives. While these applied decision
tools require numerous simplifications, they have lower informational requirements and are
accessible to most real-world decision makers. These tools are discussed in relation to three
criteria: relative scale of the decision, perceived riskiness of the decision and the degree of
reversibility of the decision.

Theory versus Practice of Decision Making

Economic theory of investment under uncertainty utilizes the expected utility hypothesis
(von Neumann and Morgenstern 1949). Under this framework, investors allocated limited funds
between competing investment alternatives in order to maximize their individual expected
utilities. In a multi-period model, expected utilities over time are discounted and summed. There
are several well-known criticisms of this framework (see, e.g., Fishburn 1981). Despite the
economists’ “rational man” assumption of economic behavior, there are several well-known
inconsistencies (or paradoxes) with the expected utility hypothesis (see, e.g., Hirshleifer and
Riley). Perhaps most relevant criticism in the context of this paper is the difficulty in obtaining
subject joint probability distributions that characterize the randomness of returns from competing
investment alternatives. If investments are mutually exclusive (e.g., technology A versus

30
technology B), the difficulty is only somewhat mitigated as the joint distributions of returns
associated with each new technologies and existing enterprises must still be determined.

To further mitigate the difficulties in applying the expected utility framework,

assumptions regarding the utility function and independence of investments are often imposed.
For example, by assuming constant absolute risk aversion and independence of return
distributions, the model simplifies to analyzing the expected utility associated with one
investment at a time while ignoring other on-going investments. This assumption is maintained
for many applied decision frameworks. With this simplification, only the distributions of returns
from the technologies being considered must be determined. While greatly simplifying the
analysis, elicitation of subjective probability distributions is a non-trivial and potentially
impossible task. It requires the decision maker to subjectively determine all possible outcomes
from an investment and the relative likelihood of each outcome. For unproven technologies,
asking a producer to assess the potential outcomes and likelihoods may result in highly
unrealistic probability distributions. This is due to the presence of ambiguity, rather than risk1.
While alternative decision models have been developed when ambiguity is present (Fox and
Tversky 1995), these models are even more difficult to apply to practical decision making.

To illustrate some of the difficulties associated with probability distribution elicitation,

consider a seed stock producer decision to adopt marker-assisted selection for tenderness. At the
time of this writing, there are no large-scale marketing channels that reward tenderness. While it
is not certain when or if market channels will develop to reward tender carcasses, it does seem
likely that eventually packers or other market channels will pay premiums on carcasses that meet
some tenderness criteria. However, when that will happen and what the level of premiums will
be are both uncertain. In order to use the formal decision analysis method, a producer would
need to subjectively assess 1) the probability that premiums will be paid for tenderness for all
future marketing dates, 2) the probability distribution for returns paid for premiums in all future
time periods, 3) the probability distribution for premiums paid to seed stock producers with
verified markers for tenderness for all future time periods, and 4) the distribution of tenderness
markers in his herd for all future time periods. The difficulty associated with these assessments
means that formal decision analysis is not useful in most real world applications.

Given the difficulty in employing formal decision analysis for practical decision making,
a wide variety of managerial tools have been developed for use by agricultural producers. Some
are “back-of-the-envelop” calculations; others would likely require the assistance of an
economist trained in their use. To help aid in the choice of decision tools, I suggest three criteria
for aiding the determination of the tools required. These three criteria are relative scale of the

1
To illustrate risk and ambiguity, consider an urn containing 50 black balls and 50 red
balls. Most people would correctly conclude that the odds of drawing a black ball is 50%. This
scenario can be described as risky or uncertain. Now, consider an urn with a total of 100 black
and red balls. What is the probability of drawing a black ball now? Subjective probability
assessment may fail miserably to reflect reality. A “naïve” distribution of 50% black and 50%
red balls might be significantly in error. If the person filling the urn put in 100 black balls, the
naïve believe is highly inaccurate. This second scenario demonstrates ambiguity.

31
investment, perceived riskiness of the investment and the degree of reversibility of the
investment.

First is the relative scale of the investment. Relative scale might be in terms of percent of
business being changed or in terms of dollars invested. For example, consider a US soybean
producer considering changing 160 acres to a new variety. For a 2000-acre farm, this is probably
a fairly minor change. In contrast, a 10-acre change for an African subsistence farmer might be a
large percent of the farm’s acres.

Second is perceived risk. In the previous US farm example, a 160-acre change to a new
variety is most likely a low-risk decision. Producers routinely make these decisions, seed
companies and land grant universities routinely publish varietal trial results, and markets likely
exist for the new variety. So, this decision has a low-level of perceived risk. While for the
African subsistence farmer, a 10-acre change might have very significant consequences. Get the
decision wrong and his family could suffer malnutrition and lose their farm and home. So, the
decision might have a high-level of perceived risk.

Third is the degree of reversibility. Some decisions can be “un-done” at a low cost and in
a short-time period. In the soybean example, the US producer can switch back to the old variety
in the next growing season, a low-cost and short-time reversal. An example of a potential high-
cost and long-time reversal is the decision to change hide color in a breeding herd. Individually
and collectively, many US producers have selected for black-hided cattle in response to
premiums associated with Certified Angus Beef (CAB). While a rational response to economic
conditions, it would be costly and take several years to “undo” this decision. Few producers have
the financial ability to sell off existing breeding animals and replace them in a short-time period,
say one or two years. Perhaps most US producers would take eight to ten years or more to either
replace their existing breeding herd by buying new bulls and breeding in the desired hide color or
buying replacement females over several years.2 

Reversibility is essentially an option. It gives the producer the option to revert to previous
production practices and has real economic value. Economists call these types of options “real
options” as opposed to financial options (e.g., futures options), also called financial derivatives.
However, determining the value of an option is difficult—especially for non-traded options.
Financial options, such as puts and calls, are traded on exchanges and their market values readily
observed. Real options are not traded in markets. Real option pricing models are mathematically
complicated and, similar to decision analysis, are information intensive. Few people, other than a
subset of economists, are trained in modeling real options. Given the complexity of modeling the
value of real options, real option price models are not used by agricultural producers. Their
usefulness is discussed later in the context of how investment in technology can increase options
and, therefore, add value. 

Applied Decision Tools 

Given the practical difficulties of employing formal decision analysis, Extension

specialists and farmers utilize several less formal decision making tools or aids. Only under the
2
This is not a criticism of black-hided cattle or the decision to select for black hides but to demonstrate the
difficulty/costs associated with reversing or “undoing” some decisions.

32
most severe assumptions are these tools compatible with the expected utility hypothesis.
However, the reduced informational requirements and lack of sophistication can be viewed
strengths in the practice of decision making. A number of these tools are discussed below. Most
are variants of budgeting. Budgeting is used to test a production, marketing and/or investment
plan on paper before real world implementation. These tools are used to identify bottlenecks to
profitability, compare the profitability of alternative plans, and assess cashflow difficulties. 

Partial Budgeting 

The simplest form of applied decision tools is partial budgeting. This tool is useful when
considering small-scale, low-risk and highly-reversible decisions. In a previous example, a 2000-
acre US soybean producer was considering switching 160 acres to a new soybean variety. A
partial budget is an appropriate tool for analyzing this decision.  

With a partial budget, only changes in revenues and expenses are included. In the
soybean example, rent would not change with the adoption of a new variety. So, rent is not
included as an item on the budget. Table 1 provides a suggested format for a partial budget. In
the table, the left column lists the “cons,” reduced revenues and additional costs, from proposed
change and the right column lists the “pros,” additional revenue and reduced costs, from the
adoption. The columns as summed with the left column summing to A and the right column
summing to B. If B-A > 0, then the change appears to be advisable. Given the simplicity of the
method, there are other factors that might need to be considered. For example, are there impacts
on labor or machinery constraints? Is convenience improved or reduced? Is the family’s lifestyle
affected? Before implementing a change, a producer should assess these potential factors, even if
the partial budget suggests that the change would be beneficial. 

Table 1. Partial budget format*  

Reduced revenues  Additional revenues 

 
Additional expenses  Reduced expenses 
 
Reduced revenues + Additional expenses = A  Additional expenses + Reduces expenses = B 
 
*
Adapted from Kay, Duffy and Edwards (2008). 
 
Partial budgeting has been used to analyze a wide range of beef production. Examples
include preconditioning of calves (Dhuyvetter et al. 2005), testing for disease in feeder cattle
(Larson et al. 2005), and estrus synchronization in beef heifers (Gaines et al. 1993). 

Enterprise Budgeting 

Similar to partial budgeting, enterprise budgeting is used to compare competing

enterprises. An enterprise budget projects all revenues, variable expenses, and fixed (overhead)
expenses that can be allocated to a given enterprise. Decisions cDonsidered may be less
reversible, larger in scale and somewhat more risky. For example, consider switching acres to a

33
new crop. There may be more than a few minor changes in revenues and expenses. The producer
may need to purchase new equipment, incurring additional ownership expenses. This also
reduces the degree of reversibility as the disposal of the additional equipment may require time.
And, risk exposure may increase as the producer may not be as familiar with the production,
handling, storage and marketing of the new crop. 

While risk is not formally incorporated into enterprise budgeting, ad hoc methods are
frequently employed. Producers can analyze “what if” type questions. For example, what if yield
is 25% below expectation? What if price falls by 15%? By assessing a wide range of yield, price
and expense scenarios, producers can develop a sense of the range of possible returns from
alternative levels of competing enterprises. 

Enterprise budgets are available for most crops, fruits, nuts, berries, and livestock. Many
can be found at the website for the Digital Center for Risk Management Education, University of
Minnesota (UM DCRME 2010). 

Whole Farm Budgeting 

Whole farm budgeting builds on enterprise budgeting. Enterprise budgets are aggregated,
and unallocated expenses are subtracted from aggregate returns. With the focus on the whole
farm, even larger scale decisions can be analyzed. These include, for example, the implications
of discontinuing an entire enterprise or investment/disinvestment in facilities. Impacts on the
farm’s bottom line are the focus of whole farm budgeting. While larger scale, higher-risk and
less reversible decisions might be analyzed with this method, it is only slightly more illuminating
than enterprise budgeting. Risk is again considered using ad hoc measures, and the degree of
reversibility is not formally considered. 

Cashflow Budgeting 

The budgeting tools discussed up to this point are focused on profitability and the
economic advisability of investments. In contrast, cashflow budgeting is focused solely on cash.
This tool is used to project time periods where cash is short or in excess of current cash demands.
It is particularly useful in assessing the feasibility of an investment rather than the advisability. 

An annual cashflow budget is typically developed using month to month sources and
used of cash. Importantly, all projected sources and uses of cash are included. Unlike budgets
focused on profitability, cash items such as projected capital asset purchases and sales, principal
payments, planned new borrowings, withdrawals for family living expense and contributed
capital from off-farm income are considered in a cashflow budget. Also unlike most other
budgeting tools, non-cash expenses, e.g., depreciation, are not considered. 

Even if one of the profit-focused budgeting tools suggests that an investment will be
profitable, it may not be self-liquidating. That is, the additional income generated may not be
sufficient to cover debt service on the investment. For example, land investments often do not
self-liquidate, i.e., cashflow. But, the land investment might still be economically advisable, i.e.,
profitable. Cashflow budgeting is useful in determining if additional sources of cash are needed
to make an investment feasible. So, cashflow budgeting is recommended for all investments,
even if they appear to be profitable. 

34
Capital Budgeting 

Capital budgeting is concerned with investments that are long-lived. That is, revenues
and expenses are incurred over multiple years. There are several tools that are used for capital
budgeting. Three of the most commonly used tools are payback period, net present value (NPV),
and internal rate of return (IRR) (Barry et al. 2000). The payback period calculates the number
years required for the sum of annual net returns to equal the investment cost. This method ranks
investments that quickly self-liquidate as most advisable. However, it ignores the potential
differences in productive lives of alternative investments and the time value of money. 

The net present value method discounts future cashflows and sums them up. If the NPV
is positive, an investment is projected to be profitable. When comparing mutually exclusive
investments (e.g., investment A vs. investment B), the investment with the highest NPV is
chosen. The NPV method is consistent with an objective of maximizing expected profits and is
recommended by economists. 

The IRR method is similar to the NPV method, except that the discount rate is solved for
rather than assumed. With the IRR method, the discount rate needed to make an investment’s net
present value equal zero is calculated. The investments are ranked then using IRR, with a higher
IRR preferred. In most cases, the IRR will rank investments the same as NPV, but there are cases
where the IRR method will generate incorrect rankings (Barry et al. 2000). 

Since NPV is consistent with a profit maximizing, it is used for investment analysis. Net
present values can be mathematically converted to annuities. An annuity is computed as the
constant annual dollar amount that has the NPV as an investment. Using an annuity equivalent, it
is possible to project the optimal timing of some investments. Perrin (1972) developed investment
decision rules that utilize annuity equivalents. The rules are used to decide when to replace an
existing investment (called the defender) with a new investment (called the challenger). Returns
for the defender are projected several years into the future. In the year when the projected annuity
equivalent return for the challenger exceeds the projected returns for the defender, the investment
should be made. 

Capital budgeting techniques do not explicitly consider risk and irreversibility. Again, ad
hoc approaches to risk analysis are often used. However, capital budgeting methods allow for
more analysis of sophisticated investment decisions by considering the optimal timing of
investments.  

Real Options 

As discussed above, real options are options related to future actions. Reversibility is a
real option and has value to decision makers. Budgeting tools do not adequately account for the
degree of reversibility of alternative investments. Real option pricing models explicitly model
the value of real options, including reversibility (Dixit and Pindyck 1994). Using real options
modeling, the optimal timing of investments can be found. However, this richness is not costless.
These models are mathematically sophisticated and require more information than budgeting
tools. Most challenging is assessing the variability of returns from investment over time. As was
discussed in the introduction, probability elicitation is challenging. Few producers will be able to

35
use real option modeling to evaluate investment in new technology, and few—if any—software
tools are available to aid producers. Producers might be able to get assistance at a land grant
university. 

Technology and real options 

There are cases where a budgeting tool does not project profitability from an investment,
but the investment might still be advisable. New technology can create flexibility in future
activities. In other words, new technology can create real options. Deterministic budgeting tools
(partial budgeting, enterprise budgeting, whole farm budgeting, cashflow budgeting, and capital
budgeting) do not adequately account for the value of these options. 

To illustrate, return to the example of a seed stock producer considering the use of
tenderness marker-assisted selection. Since there are currently no large-scale markets for beef
with verified tenderness genetics, simple budget tools would suggest that this is not a profitable
investment. However, given there is some probability that markets will provide incentives to
producers of tender beef, a real option can be created by using marker-assisted selection. If the
seed stock producer begins using this selection tool, he will be in a position to market seed stock
with desired genetics if and when the channels develop to reward tenderness. This is flexibility
can have value. 

Note, however, there is risk associated with this strategy. The markets might not be
created during the farmer’s productive time horizon. Lower-cost methods producing tender beef
might be found, perhaps as simple as feed additives or post-slaughter treatment. Or worse, the
US market for beef might collapse due to some unforeseen circumstance. So, the producer might
invest in a technology that does not eventually result in improved profitability. 

The tools required to analyze this type of investment are real option pricing models and
stochastic programming models. Both are likely more sophisticated than can be readily
developed and used on farm or in an Extension context. The proof of this can be found in the
lack of research literature utilizing these approaches. A few applied economics studies (Lusk
2007, DeVuyst et al 2007; Mitchell et al. 2009) have used analyzed the value of alternative
markers in fed cattle. However, at the time of this writing, no economic studies have analyzed
the investment in marker-assisted selection. 

Resources available to producers 

Most land grant universities provide enterprise budgets for a wide range of crops,
livestock, fruits, nuts and vegetables. And, many of those budgets are available on the internet.
For example, Oklahoma State University has enterprise budgets available on line (OSU Ag Econ
2010). The University of Minnesota maintains a farm management budget database (U of M
DCRME 2010) with budgets from several states. Also, some land grant universities have the
ability to work with producers to generate budgets for specialized investments. Again using OSU
as an example, the Food and Agricultural Products Center (OSU FAPC 2010) provides services
to individuals and companies considering investment in agricultural-related technology and
businesses. Producers can contact their local Cooperative Extension Service office to find similar
resources available in their home state. 

36
Conclusion 

Decision making in the real world is complex, suggesting that complex decision models
are appropriate. However, the information requirements of most complex decision models render
them useless in an applied context. So, producers and Extension specialists rely on several
readily available low-information requirement budgeting tools. Partial budgets, enterprise
budgets, whole-farm budgets, cashflow budgets and capital budgeting tools are most often used
to assess investment in new technology at the farm level. The cost of using these tools is a lack
of ability to formal assess risk and the degree of reversibility associated with alternative
investments. More sophisticated tools, including real option pricing models, do consider risk and
reversibility but are not accessible to most agricultural producers. 

Literature Cited 

Barry, P.J., C.B. Baker, P.N. Ellinger, J.A. Hopkins. Financial Management in Agriculture 6th
Edition. Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers. 2000. 

DeVuyst, E.A., J. Bullinger,, M. Bauer, P. Berg and D. Larson. 2007. “An economic analysis of
genetic information: Leptin genotyping in fed cattle,” Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 32(2): 291-305. 

Dhuyvetter, K.C., A.M. Bryant, and D.A. Blasi. 1995. “Preconditioning beef calves: Are
expected premiums sufficient to justify the practice?” Professional Animal Scientist
21(6):502-514.

Dixit, A.K. and R.S. Pindyck. Investment under uncertainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press. 1994. 

Fishburn, P.C. 1981. “Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories,” Theory and
Decision 13(2):139-199.

Fox, C.R. and A. Tversky. 1995. “Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance,” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3):585-603.

Gaines, J.D., J. Galland, D. Schaefer, R. Nusbaum and D. Peschel. 1993. “The economic effect
of estrus synchronization in beef heifers on average weaning weight of calves,”
Theriogenology 39(3):669-675 .

Hirshleifer J. and Riley, J.G. The analytics of uncertainty and information. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press, 1992. 

Kay, R.D. W.M. Edwards, and P.A. Duffy. Farm Management, 6th Edition. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 2008. 

Larson, R.L, R.B. Miller, , S.B. Kleiboeker, M.A. Miller, B.J. White. 1995. “Economic costs
associated with two testing strategies for screening feeder calves for persistent infection
with bovine viral diarrhea virus,” JAVMA 226(2):249-254.

37
Lusk, J. 2007. “Economic value of selecting and marketing cattle by leptin genotype,” Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 32(2):306-329.

Mitchell, J., E.A. DeVuyst, M.L. Bauer, and D.L. Larson. 2009. “Cow-calf profitability and
leptin genotyping,” Agricultural Economics 40:113-118.

Oklahoma State University, Department of Agricultural Economics Budgets.

http://agecon.okstate.edu/budgets/. Accessed 26-May-2010. 

Oklahoma State University, Food and Agricultural Products Center.

http://www.fapc.okstate.edu/index.html. Accessed 26-May-2010. 

Perrin, R.K. “Asset replacement principles,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 54:60-
67. 

University of Minnesota Digital Center for Risk Management Education.

http://www.agrisk.umn.edu/budgets/. Access 27-May-2010. 

von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1944. 

38
 RAISING BEEF IN A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY:
SCIENCE, MEDIA AND POLITICS

Tom Field, PhD

Executive Director, Producer Education, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

These are chaotic times for those who make their living from animal agriculture
enterprise. For a good portion of the last century, the industry was focused on improving
productivity and it generated fantastic improvements in production per animal by systematically
applying the principles of nutrition, genetics, animal health, reproductive physiology, and a host
of other scientific disciplines. The impact has been to provide a bounty of animal-based protein
capable of meeting the needs of U.S. consumers and key export markets while utilizing fewer
resources in the process. As a result, the industry contracted as economies of scale and size
favored larger enterprises that could deliver lower costs of production while better meeting the
demands of an increasingly target-specific markets. Simultaneously, well fed U.S. consumers
had the luxury of approaching their food choices from a life-style and often philosophical
vantage point. Thus agriculture finds itself in a paradoxical situation framed by its own
productive success, a smaller policy voice as the number of practicing agriculturalists declines,
and the naivety and low level of agricultural knowledge of contemporary food system critics,
governmental officials, educators, and reporters. As a result, many in agriculture feel unduly
criticized and unfairly battered by the social and political climate.

In an affluent society with a reasonably functional free market, agriculture plays a

significantly more complex role than it does in emerging economies where the cloud of chronic
persistent hunger lingers at the vast majority of doorsteps. In the developing nations of the
world, food production and distribution has a focused urgency – provide more calories to better
meet the minimal dietary needs of the population. Achieving this objective typically requires
improving infrastructure (transportation, access to capital, etc), introducing technologies as
simple as fertilizers, pest management compounds, and basic irrigation and as complex as
genetically modified plants and other biotechnologies. Yet, in developed nations the value of
these technologies and protocols is being hotly debated. Norman Borlaug must have felt a
certain degree of bewilderment, if not outright frustration, at the end of his long and fruitful
career as he witnessed the demonization of the very technologies he championed to save millions
from the scourge of hunger.

While the growing food needs of developing nations loom on the horizon, agriculture in
more affluent societies finds itself under increasing levels of scrutiny from activists, social
elitists, governmental regulators, and opinion influencers. These vocal critics of the U.S.
agriculture system have been reasonably successful in framing the debate. Four trends have
begun to shape the discussion about food value and quality, the processes used to grow,
fabricate, and distribute foodstuffs; and the multi-faceted interactions between farmers/ranchers,
grocery distributors and retailers, food service operators, consumers, and communities. These
trends are as follows:

39
 • “Industrial” agriculture challenged on multiple fronts including concerns about food
safety, environmental impact, animal welfare, human nutrition and wellness as well as
local and regional economic effects. Consumers yearn for simplicity in the face of
complex challenges and it is this disconnect that has been successfully leveraged by the
food elitists such as Michael Pollan into celebrity status and an even broader platform
from which to portray large scale, technology inclusive agriculture as “bad” and small,
traditional agriculture as “good”.

• Food emerges as a social platform and flashpoint for change driven by ethanol policy, the
push for organic and local production by USDA and other governmental agencies, and
the glamorization of the local food movement, farmer’s markets, and other unique niche
markets. Food Foresight (2009) suggests that “private foundations, environmental, and
public health groups, chefs, media, and the marketplace call for change in the name of
healthier consumers, healthier farm animals, and a healthier planet.”

• The consumer mass market continues to fragment while experiencing an erosion of trust.
Concerns about economic instability, international unrest, and political turmoil add to the
growing tension that is palpable in the consumer marketplace. Consumer markets cannot
be categorized into several easily defined categories as the divergence of values
expressed by the “baby boomers”, generation X, and the millennial generation has
created a host of unique food marketing opportunities.

• Science becomes less of an authority as the web facilitates the rapid diffusion of
information and misinformation. Fueled by an increasingly opinion driven media and
urban myths transmitted at the speed of light by the internet, contemporary consumers
who are several generations removed from any agricultural experience find it
increasingly difficult to make sense of the swirling messages about the food system.
Nuffer, et al, 2008

In light of these trends, growing consumer demand centers on the ability of agriculture and
the food system to deliver several clear values to customers:

• Transparency
• Authenticity
• Healthfulness of product and PROCESS
• Experience
Nuffer, et al, 2008

In a survey of consumers from the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Argentina,
and China – taste (75%), quality (73%), and price (70%) were the dominant factors affecting
food purchases (Ketchum, 2008). In the same survey, consumers were asked which factors
would be their highest priority if they were CEO of a global food company. Their top three
responses were to improve human nutrition (65%), improve food safety (64%), and make foods
that taste great (52%). Results of the survey showed that while consumers indicated a preference

40
for local foods, they were not willing to pay more for locally grown foods nor were they willing
to sacrifice eating satisfaction in exchange.

Today’s consumer climate can best be characterized as uneasy and uncertain as the chaos
of the times creates fear due to the lack of predictability in nearly all phases of American life.
The economic crisis has affected consumer behavior in the short-term certainly and most likely
for the foreseeable future. Food Foresight (2009) describes this emerging consumer as “one
more mindful about desires versus necessities, more vigilant about spending, and more prone to
make trade-offs to save money.” The report goes on to say that “interest in things such as green
products and healthy foods will continue to grow in a post-crisis world, but consumer will be less
willing to pay a premium for them, and will demand more value for their money when they do.”

Today’s consumers are the least knowledgeable about agriculture and food production in
U.S. history. This knowledge gap creates the environment in which activists and special
interests have the ability to exploit consumer ignorance and potentially implement public policy
which puts American agriculture at risk in terms of its ability to sustain profitability and thus
puts homeland security in an even more precarious position. Nonetheless, agriculturalists have
no choice but to engage in the discussion and to develop strategies to successfully advocate for
sustaining the opportunity for both consumers and producers to make choices from a range of
viable options.

While the vortex created by consumer confusion, market chaos, and poorly implemented
agricultural policy hurls itself at the industry an even more critical challenge is emerging as
agriculture undergoes substantial concentration and down-sizing. Concentration has impacted
every level of the beef supply and distribution chain. For example, Wal-Mart now has
approximately 29% of the food retail trade while the second through fifth largest food retailers
(Kroger Company, Costco Wholesale Company, SuperValu Stores, and Safeway) add an
additional 23.2 percent share. Thus the top 5 grocers have just over one-half of all food retailing
share. Add in the next five largest and the percent market share climbs to nearly 70%
(Supermarket News, 2010). At the front end of the supply chain, cow-calf herds with less than
50 head of inventory account for almost 80% of operations but only 28% of the beef cow
inventory. Herds with over 100 cows in inventory account for only 11% of the total enterprises
but almost one-half of the nation’s beef cows (NASS, 2010).

Since 1987, nearly 250,000 beef cattle enterprises have ceased operations leaving
approximately 760,000 producers managing a beef cow inventory of 32.5 million head and
generating $49.2 billion in cash receipts. While the economic impact of the industry continues to
be substantial, the cow herd has declined to its lowest level since World War II. Perhaps most
concerning about the decline in numbers of producers and the beef herd is that the significant
profitability of the cow-calf sector from 1999 to 2008 was not able to reverse the trend (LMIC,
2010). While drought played a role in herd reduction over the past 10-15 years, it is clear that
producers voluntarily exited the business during a profitable time in the beef cycle. Age of
producer, opportunities to sell land to capture equity, lack of interest by the next generation, and
the trend for rising input costs likely played a role but the impacts of rising levels of regulatory
activity, negative press, activist pressure, and lack of community support may have played a
determining factor in many decisions. What results in the beef industry and in the vast majority

41
of agricultural enterprises is a landscape of fewer but larger growers, processors, and distributors
of food.

An important issue confronting the beef industry and all of agriculture are the declining
resources allocated to agricultural research, development, outreach and education by the public
sector. While space precludes a detailed discussion of this dilemma, the decline of federal
agricultural research efforts, shrinking of land grant university budget allocations for agriculture,
and the rapidly growing disconnect between land grant university faculty and the agricultural and
food systems must be addressed if the beef industry and all of agriculture is to assure its long
term health.

The market and economic chaos alone is sufficiently challenging but when the regulatory
and political issues related to the environment, food safety, and animal well-being, are tossed
into the fray; the scene takes on a decidedly brawl-like atmosphere. Take environmental
regulation as an example of adding complexity to an already strained agricultural system. Here
are just a few of the potential new regulations that loom on the horizon:

a. Redefinition of the “waters of the United States of America” would in effect place all wet
areas of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the federal Clean Water Act including lakes,
rivers, streams (continuous and intermittent), mudflats, sand flats, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, and natural ponds with no recognized exclusions to
cover ditches, stock tanks, manmade ponds, drain tiles, etc.
b. Regulation of dust and particulate matter created by tilling, planting and harvesting crops,
feed mixing, cattle movement, driving on unpaved roads, and other agricultural uses
under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
c. Regulation of ammonia under the Clean Air Act.

Source: NCBA, 2008

In each case, if either Congress or the agency implements even part of the proposed rules,
the net effect will be to increase the level of industry concentration as only the largest enterprises
will have the resources to comply with these new regulations which typically leads to additional
criticism about the industrialization of agriculture and loss of family-farms.

Perhaps no issue is so fraught with emotional pitfalls, divergent philosophical positions,

and misconceptions as the realm of animal well-being. This issue is bookended by two wildly
divergent approaches – on one end of the spectrum are those who intentionally inflict pain and
discomfort on animals out of cruelty or willful neglect while the opposite vantage point is
characterized by those who would seek any means, including violence against property and
humanity, to further an animal liberation agenda. Neither of these are appropriate or defensible
positions in light of our social contract with the livestock under our care and stewardship and the
larger community of human beings who are served by animal agriculture.

The provision of safe and wholesome food is an overarching objective for the entirety of
the food and agricultural system. The responsibility for food safety is shared space occupied by
the production and processing phase, the distribution and marketing phase, and the food

42
preparation, service and storage components of the industry which includes consumers. While
our attention has been largely focused on interventions to pathogens, some in society question
the use of many production technologies such as antibiotics, growth enhancement technologies,
pest management compounds, and feed additives out of fear that these technologies may result in
a food supply that fails in terms of safety or lacks the ability to fulfill consumer expectations
about the wholesomeness of their food supply.

With all of these factors at play coupled with the constant reminder that we must feed the
equivalent population of an additional two Chinas over then next 4 to 5 decades, much is at stake
– food security at home and abroad, the viability of rural economies, the sustainability of a
vibrant and productive agricultural infrastructure, the livelihood of agricultural producers, and
ultimately the well-being of consumers.

It would be naïve to suggest that there are simple solutions to these challenges given their
complexity. The solutions will likely emerge in fits and starts as we grapple and struggle with
these issues. So where do beef producers and industry leaders begin?

From a 10,000 foot perspective, the focus of the beef industry must be on sustaining an
environment where profitability can be attained, market development domestically and abroad,
and advocating for a free market, limited government landscape. On an individual enterprise
level, the creation of a clearly thought out business plan has never been more important. While
the cowherd continues to contract, the long term opportunities for those who can manage cost,
access land resources though means beyond outright ownership, and build partnerships are
bright.

At the more tactical level, participants in the live animal phase of the beef production
chain should consider the following:

• Assessment - create the vision, determine the goals/objectives, and examine the
prevailing attitudes and values of the enterprise. In many ways, this process is centered
on detailing the legacy of a business and its leaders by determining core values upon
which future activity will be founded. A question to help start the conversation – are you
a craftsman or a technician?

• Evaluate – take a hard look at the specific processes and protocols (calving, branding,
weaning, handling, transporting, processing, and marketing) that affect the profitability of
the ranch, the well-being of the people and livestock, and the health of the resources
(natural, community, etc). In a business rich in tradition that has traditionally been
managed in accordance with seasonal signals, the process of taking a fresh look at
management activities can yield opportunities for improvements in profitability and
quality of life. With respect to animal well-being, environmental stewardship, and food
safety; each participant in the industry has a responsibility to be thoughtful and
intentional in their activities. If our processes or work is not in line with core values or
exposes the business and industry to rational criticism; action is required.

43
 • Commit - dedication and focus is required to seek continuous improvement.
Implementation of best practices, measurement of progress, and commitment to
continuous learning and discover are vital steps.

• Communicate - train people (family members, employees, day help) to meet the
expectations established in the previous steps. Take time to express the expectations,
train people so they have the best opportunity to be successful, and then recognize
performance that meets or exceeds the expectation.

• Partners – effective partnerships are central to profitability. Membership in local, state

and national cattlemen’s organizations is crucial to help protect private property rights,
the opportunity to be profitable, and free of the excesses of government. Careful
consideration must also be given to finding working relationships with non-traditional
partners with whom common goals are shared.

• Educate – the need for industry participants to vigorously pursue knowledge and
understanding of the issues confronting the beef industry as well as its benefits and costs.
Industry leaders and advocates must function from an informed position and with the
skill set to communicate the impact of the beef industry on the community, natural
landscape, economy, consumers, and food system.

• Engage – food and agricultural production have become center plate discussion items in
contemporary culture. Beef producers and others who tackle the difficult job of feeding a
growing consumer population can not afford to stay on the sidelines. Engagement in the
discussion that occurs in social and traditional media, the political and regulatory arena,
in classrooms, boardrooms, and family rooms cannot be ignored.

Agriculture and the food supply chain is a complex system from which consumers,
opinion influencers, and policy makers are typically far removed. The future of the beef industry
depends in large part on bridging that broadening gap. The late Jerry Garcia of Grateful Dead
fame described our situation when he said “somebody has got to do something and it is just
incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.”

Literature Cited:

Ketchum Global Food Practice. 2009. Food 2020: The Consumer as CEO. New York, NY.

Livestock Marketing Information Center. 2010. Estimated average cow-calf returns.

Englewood, CO.

Nuffer, Smith and Tucker. 2009. Food Foresight: Trends Intelligence for the Agri-food Chain –
2009. San Diego, CA.

Nuffer, Smith and Tucker. 2008. Food Foresight: Trends Intelligence for the Agri-food Chain –
2008. San Diego, CA.

44
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. Agricultural Statistics – 2008. USDA,
Washington DC.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 2008. Environmental Regulation in the Beef Industry:
Special Report. Washington DC.

Supermarket News. 2010. Top 75 Food Retailers. New York, NY.

45
 HOW THE NEXT GENERATION OF GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES WILL IMPACT
BEEF CATTLE SELECTION

Megan M. Rolf, Stephanie D. McKay, Matthew C. McClure, Jared E. Decker, Tasia M. Taxis,
Richard H. Chapple, Dan A. Vasco, Sarah J. Gregg, Jae Woo Kim, Robert D. Schnabel and
Jeremy F. Taylor

Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA

Abstract

Recent advancements in sequencing and genotyping technologies have enabled a rapid

evolution in methods for beef cattle selection. The past three decades has seen the advancement
from restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers that were low-throughput, time-
consuming and difficult to score to the newest high-density single nucleotide polymorphism
(SNP) assays where marker genotypes are easily and inexpensively generated. The cattle genome
sequence was published in 2009 and sequencing technologies have now advanced to the point
that a complete genome can be resequenced to a relatively deep coverage for ~$30,000 on
several different next generation sequencing platforms. While a reference genome to align the
reads is currently required for this process, with read lengths increasing with each software or
chemistry update, de novo sequence assemblies will become routine in the very near future.
Once the analytical methodologies are developed and become widely available, animal scientists
will begin to use them to develop cost-effective diagnostics for use in beef cattle production
systems. As a result of this rapid expansion of technology, new tools will become available for
beef producers to implement in the endeavor to efficiently produce high quality beef for today’s
consumer. Tools such as high-density genotyping assays and next generation sequencing
instruments will help to shorten the generation interval, aid in the identification of causal
mutations, increase the accuracy of EPDs on young sires and dams, provide information on gene
expression and enhance our understanding of epigenetic and gut microbiome effects on cattle
phenotypes.

Introduction

There will be many changes in methodologies for the genetic evaluation of beef animals
in the near future due to rapid technological advances. These advances provide the momentum
for change in the industry and will enhance our ability to produce beef efficiently in today’s
marketplace. The ability for beef producers to accurately select for genetically superior animals
began over four decades ago when mixed model methods were first published by Henderson
(1975). The first national cattle evaluation (NCE) was performed in 1974 (Willham, 1993), and
since then, models have evolved from single-trait sire models to the multi-trait animal models
used today. The next large step looming on the horizon will be the genomic revolution.

Current technologies are beginning to shape the next generation of genetic evaluation.
One of the most useful advances has been the public availability of a published genome sequence
for beef cattle. Baylor College of Medicine was the first to sequence the bovine genome and
used a combination of bacterial artificial clone (BAC) methods as well as whole genome shotgun
sequencing (The Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2009). The University

46
of Maryland quickly released their genome assembly based upon the sequences produced by the
Baylor College of Medicine and this assembly has also been annotated (Zimin et al., 2009).
These two assemblies differ slightly according to the methods used to assemble the sequence
reads and the availability of both provides an invaluable resource for genomic studies in beef
cattle.

Microarrays which are used to study the expression profiles of genes within specific
tissues are available in two different forms: long oligonucleotide arrays (typically those spotted
on glass slides that can be bought privately from researchers) and short oligonucleotide arrays
(typically those commercialized by companies such as Affymetrix). Microarray technologies can
allow the simultaneous profiling of very large numbers of genes and can be used to identify the
pathways that are up- or down-regulated in different tissue types or disease states. This allows
the identification of the key genes that regulate the behavior of entire pathways and possibly
even phenotypes. These genes then become the targets of pharmocological intervention (drug
targets) or even genetic manipulation. The greatest disadvantage of microarrays is that they can
only query the genes for which probes are designed onto the array. Thus, we have to know the
full complement of “genes” within a species genome to be able to design a comprehensive
microarray, and unfortunately this is not the case even for humans, which have the most
extensively studied genome. Microarrays also suffer from a loss of information in that, often,
only probes are generated for one region of a gene and the gene may actually produce more than
one type of transcript or protein. Finally, microarrays require quite a lot of technical skill and
large numbers of replicates, normalization and dye swaps must be used to filter the true signal
from the biological and technical noise.

The first high-density and high-throughput genotyping assay was the 10K single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip commercialized by Affymetrix (The Bovine HapMap
Consortium, 2009). However, the density of SNPs in this panel was insufficient for many
genomic studies (including genomic selection (GS) and genome-wide association analyses
(GWAS)) which led to the need for a higher density chip. The Illumina BovineSNP50 chip was
developed by a consortium of animal scientists using SNP discovery populations in Holstein,
Angus and mixed breeds of beef cattle (Van Tassell et al., 2008) and provided much higher
density (~50,000 SNPs per animal) than previous high-throughput genotyping assays
(Matukumalli et al., 2009). This assay has become the international standard for GS and GWAS
in cattle and has even been applied to other species to resolve the evolutionary relationship
among the horned ruminants (Decker et al., 2009; MacEachern et al., 2009), testing the number
of SNPs needed to form a genomic relationship matrix (Rolf et al., 2010) and investigating the
amount of introgression of cattle DNA into bison populations (Schnabel et al., unpublished data).
While the Illumina BovineSNP50 assay has proven to be extremely useful for many different
types of genomic studies, our current data suggest that even higher density assays will be needed
to build models for GS with utility across breeds.

New Technologies

High Density SNP Genotyping Chips from Affymetrix and Illumina

Two new high-density SNP genotyping chips will be introduced in 2010. The first is an
assay from Illumina that will utilize the same bead technology and single base extension

47
chemistry that is used for the current BovineSNP50 50K chip. The Illumina assay will genotype
approximately 800K SNPs per animal and should be available by the time of this BIF meeting.
The second high density SNP chip will be marketed by Affymetrix and will also genotype
approximately 800K SNPs. This chip uses a different chemistry to the Illumina chip, but the
ligation-based assay should result in almost the same call rate (% of genotypes called per
sample) and the produced genotypes should be very high quality (low intrinsic error rate). Best
of all, the two companies will compete for business and the cost of these assays may end up as
low as we are currently paying for the Illumina 50K assay! With 50K SNPs available per
animal, why do we need 800K? There are several important applications and advancements that
will be made possible with the addition of more SNPs. The first is that SNPs will be distributed
much more closely together in the genome. With 50K SNPs in a genome of approximately 3
billion base pairs, we would expect 1 SNP about every 60 Kb, but with 800K SNPs, we would
expect 1 SNP approximately every 3.8 Kb. This inter-marker distance provides much finer
resolution for mapping the causal mutations that underlie variation within a trait and also allows
a much greater opportunity for identifying SNPs that can predict genotype at these causal
mutations when scored in animals of different or even mixed breed content for use in GS.

SNP discovery for the Illumina BovineSNP50 assay was performed using pools of DNA
samples from Angus, Holsteins and a group of bulls sampled from the next most important US
beef breeds. As a result, there is a bias inherent in the assay towards SNPs that have high minor
allele frequency in Angus and Holsteins and the assay performs slightly better for GWAS and
GS in these breeds. However, the SNP discovery for the design of the Illumina and Affymetrix
800K panels was performed by sequencing a large number of animals from many different
breeds (including both Bos taurus and Bos indicus) to minimize the ascertainment bias in SNP
informativeness across breeds. The end result should be a panel of SNPs that will have high
average allele frequencies in almost all cattle breeds but will also contain many loci with low
allele frequencies. This is especially important for performing GWAS, since common SNPs
cannot be strongly associated with rare or low frequency variants within a population. The
larger, more variable panel will contain some SNPs which are at low frequency in the population
of interest to facilitate the detection of rare variants within that population.

Perhaps the greatest immediate value of the 800K chips will be the potential for
implementing across-breed GS in the beef industry. The real advantage of GS is its ability to
simultaneously select for desirable combinations at all loci responsible for genetic variation in a
trait using panels of closely linked markers. Figure 1 provides a representation of the difference
between traditional marker assisted selection (MAS) – the “single marker” tests that have been
used in the industry to this point - and GS. MAS typically involves selecting for desirable
genotypes at a small number of loci, which are usually of large effect, as these loci are usually
the easiest to identify in association or linkage analyses. In contrast, GS allows the simultaneous
selection for desirable genotypes genome-wide. The 50K SNP chip has been shown to be
effective for GS within breeds of cattle such as for Net Merit in Holsteins (VanRaden et al.,
2009). However, the computation of molecular breeding values with high accuracies requires
that a large numbers of animals with high accuracy EPDs be genotyped and the lack of a
centralized DNA repository (such as are utilized by the dairy breeds) has limited the numbers of
animals available for genotyping within each of the beef breeds. Because of the shortage of
DNA samples on animals with high accuracy EPDs, individuals from different breeds will need
to be genotyped and the analysis performed across breeds. The assumption here is that the

48
causal variants that create variation in traits are the same set of loci across breeds but they differ
in frequency which leads to breed differences in the mean of these traits across breeds.
However, SNP allele frequencies also differ across breeds and these differences in marker and
causal variant frequencies mean that different SNPs are going to be more or less strongly
associated with trait variation in different breeds. The density of SNPs on the 50K assay is not
sufficient in an across breed analysis to arrive at a model for the prediction of molecular breeding
values that will be highly accurate across breeds and the 800K chips will be vitally important for
this application. With a SNP every 3.8 Kb, there will be a sufficient SNP density to surmount
these issues and obtain accurate molecular estimates of genetic merit across breeds by
identifying the markers that are very close to the causal mutations and that have the same SNP
allele on the chromosomes harboring the trait enhancing allele at the causal mutation across all
breeds. For example, in the Carcass Merit Project (CMP) 50K data for Warner-Bratzler shear
force (WBSF) the correlations between SNP effects (Table 1) and molecular estimates of
breeding value estimated from SNP effects produced within each of the breeds (Table 2) were
low. However, in the region from 44,000,728-44,208,978 nucleotides on chromosome 29 which
harbors the µ-calpain gene, we scored 37 additional SNPs to the 6 SNPs present on the
BovineSNP50 assay to produce a mean marker spacing of 4.8 Kb. In the analysis of these data,
we found one SNP was consistently associated with WBSF across breeds and that the same allele
was predictive of increased tenderness across all 5 analyzed breeds.

Next Generation Sequencing

The ability to quickly, accurately, and inexpensively sequence the genomes of individual
animals has the potential to revolutionize selection in beef cattle. Recent technological
advancements have made great improvements in the affordability and accessibility of genomic
sequence data. Two currently marketed platforms are the Illumina Genome Analyzer (or HiSeq
2000) and ABI SOLiD. Initially, read lengths for the Illumina and SOLiD were in the range 35-
36 base pairs (bp) with a cost per million bases of sequence of approximately $2 (Shendure and
Ji, 2008). However these platforms have been rapidly developed with improvements in
chemistry and software allowing the Genome Analyzer to achieve reads of 125 bp and both
technologies currently support paired-end reads in which each end of a 300 bp fragments are
sequenced to a depth of 85 bp. More importantly, these instruments are now capable of
producing up to 95 Gb of sequence in a single run of the instrument. After quality control
processing of the data and mapping fragments to a genome assembly, this results in as much as a
15X coverage of animal genome. Two such runs at a cost of less than $30,000 will produce
sufficient sequence data to allow a de novo assembly of an animal’s genome sequence.

The data obtained from next generation sequencing has many applications. One
application is the identification of the actual expression level of all of the genes that are
expressed in essentially any tissue or animal. RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) allows the novel
assembly of a transcriptome (the set of expressed genes) for any tissue and provides quantitative
data to identify differences in gene expression between two samples. The approach also
identifies if alternative exons of a gene are used to create different forms of a protein in different
tissues or animals and also produces the DNA sequence of each transcript. Thus any sequence
differences (SNPs within coding regions) that result in amino acid changes could produce
phenotypic variation within a trait. RNA-Seq produces estimates of the actual number of
transcripts of a particular mRNA from the counts of the number of reads that map to each gene.

49
The top panel in Figure 2 shows the number of sequence reads observed for the PRP gene’s
messenger RNA in the brain of a dog. The figure shows that there is a large number of sequence
reads observed for PRP (location indicated by the box) and another mRNA shown to the right of
PRP.

Both RNA-Seq and genomic DNA sequencing data provide insight into novel and causal
polymorphisms within an individual. The bottom panel in Figure 2 shows a C/G SNP
polymorphism identified in the PRP gene from the RNA-Seq data, which results in the change of
the amino acid at this position from aspartic acid (D) to glutamic acid (E). The discovery of
mutations which actually cause variation within traits will become increasingly important and
their knowledge will allow testing across breeds which will drastically reduce the number of loci
that need to be tested to explain variation within a trait. If we know the causal mutations, we
only have to test for those mutations, rather than using 800K SNPs to estimate the effects of
these variants. This will result in the development of more affordable, accurate panels of SNPs
that work across breeds. It will also suggest the genes that should be screened across populations
in the endeavor to understand all existing naturally occurring variation which may have
important phenotypic effects. Information will also be gained that will suggest drug targets or
targets for genetic modification, if this technology is deemed acceptable for use in animals by
consumers.

A novel application of this technology that is becoming increasingly important in the

human and mouse communities is the sequencing of gut microbiomes. Most work in humans
and mice to this point has focused on profiling the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene to identify
the microbes present in the gut using long-read and low throughput (traditional Sanger)
sequencing methods. However, this type of research has recently expanded to utilize next
generation sequencing technologies (Qin et al., 2010). The study of “gut microbiomes” and their
interactions with the genotype of the host is important because previous studies have shown that
there is substantial genetic diversity in the species present within the gut microbiome (Li et al.,
2009; Turnbaugh et al., 2006, 2009) and that the gut microbes have a significant impact on
energy harvest and obesity in humans and mice (Backhed et al., 2004). One study observed that
when germ-free mice were inoculated with a gut microbiome from either a lean or an obese
individual, the mice that received the gut flora from the obese mice gained more weight than
their counterparts which received the gut flora from the lean mice (Turnbaugh et al., 2006).
Because of the way that nutrients (especially those from forages) are harvested in ruminants, it is
likely that gut microbiomes have an even greater impact on energy metabolism than in human or
mouse. Furthermore, the composition of these gut populations may also be related to feed
efficiency, methane/greenhouse gas emissions and manure production; thus, it is imperative that
we explore whether the host genotype has an effect on the composition of the gut flora, and if so,
select for favorable gut populations. Currently, these relationships are poorly understood, and
the host interactions that may be under nuclear genetic control are either confounded with
additive genetic effects (which would be desirable) or are being placed in the residual component
of our genetic models, where they are not selectable.

Epigenetics

Epigenetics is a field of rising importance in genetics and genomics. Epigenetics

involves DNA and histone modifications which can influence gene expression and thus the

50
genetic variation in a trait, even if animals have identical genotypes and DNA sequence. Some
examples of these modifications include imprinting, X-inactivation, gene silencing and
embryonic reprogramming (Sellner et al., 2007). Epigenetic effects such as methylation involve
the addition of methyl groups to cytosines and if these occur in the promoters of genes,
transcription machinery can be blocked from binding to the DNA. DNA methylation is
influenced by both the genetics and environment of the individual, but has been shown to be
stably transmitted from parents to offspring for several generations. Once the bovine epigenome
(the set oft nucleotides that are methylated in the DNA that is present across different tissues) has
been characterized, there is the potential to select or perhaps even induce favorable effects and
include this information into breeding programs. Most of the new high-throughput sequencing
instruments can elucidate whether nucleotides are methylated (however the new sequencer from
Pacific Biosystems can detect methylation as a by-product of sequencing by measuring the time
it takes to incorporate a new base while reading genomic sequence), which will allow rapid
advances into the understanding of these effects and their influence on phenotypes in beef cattle.

Finally, technologies such as ChIP-Seq (which allows determination of which proteins,

such as transcription factors, interact with DNA to influence gene expression and also allows
examination of epigenetic chromatin modifications) and Bis-Seq (massively parallel sequencing
of bisulfate-treated DNA, which converts unmethylated cytosines to uracils) are powerful new
tools for providing insight into the nature and extent of epigenetic modifications within the
genome.

Conclusions

The fantastic pace at which new technologies are being developed to study the genome
make it an exciting time in the beef industry for producers and scientists alike. High-density
genotyping assays will soon revolutionize the way we conduct genetic prediction and whole-
genome sequencing of animals and their gut populations along with epigenetic profiling will lead
to new tools to ethically and efficiently provide high quality beef that meets consumer demands
in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

51
Table 1:  Correlation coefficients between SNP effects estimated for Warner‐Bratzler shear force (WBSF) 
between five different breeds of animals involved in the NCBA sponsored Carcass Merit Project.  The 
number of animals used in the analysis are shown on the diagonal. 
WBSF SNP 
ANGUS  CHAROLAIS  HEREFORD  LIMOUSIN  SIMMENTAL 
Effects 
ANGUS  651  0.0267  0.0351  0.0134  0.0260 

CHAROLAIS    695  0.0135  0.0019  0.0081 

HEREFORD      1095  ‐0.0196  0.0251 

LIMOUSIN        283  ‐0.0047 

SIMMENTAL          516 
 
Table 2:  Correlation coefficients between molecular estimates of breeding value (MBVs) estimated from 
SNP allele substitution effects for Warner‐Bratzler shear force (WBSF) in five breeds of animals involved 
in the NCBA sponsored Carcass Merit Project.  Elements in each row represent correlations between 
MBVs computed using the SNP effects for the breed in that row with MBVs computed for the breed in 
that row using SNP allele substitution effects for the breed in each column.  
Angus SNP  Charolais SNP  Hereford SNP  Limousin SNP  Simmental SNP 
WBSF 
effects  effects  effects  effects  effects 
Angus MBVs  1.0000  0.2229  0.2500  ‐0.0625  0.0661 
Charolais 
0.0442  1.0000  0.0407  0.0035  0.0715 
MBVs 
Hereford MBVs  0.2997  0.1100  1.0000  ‐0.3259  ‐0.0068 

Limousin MBVs  ‐0.0220  ‐0.0391  ‐0.1794  1.0000  ‐0.1875 

Simmental 
0.1502  0.1624  0.1160  ‐0.0255  1.0000 
MBVs 
 

52
 
 
 
 

Figure 1:  Depiction of traditional marker assisted selection (MAS) versus genomic selection 
(GS).  The box represents the genome of an animal and the circles represent variation within 
the genome.  The size of the circles represents the amount of genetic variation explained at 
that locus.  The white circles represent variation that is not being selected due to a lack of a 
suitable closely‐linked marker and the filled circles represent the variation which is under 
selection using each of the approaches. 

53
Figure 2: Dog RNA-Seq data in a NextGene viewer showing the PRP region. The top panel shows the number of copies on
the Y axis and chromosomal position on the X axis. The center panel shows the reference sequence compared to the sample
sequence assembly and any detected amino acid change. The bottom panel shows the tiled sequences. A SNP can be
observed and is highlighted in the tiled sequence.

54
Literature Cited

Backhed, F., H. Ding, T. Wang, L. V. Hooper, G. Y. Koh, A. Nagy, C. F. Semenkovich and J. I.

Gordon. 2004. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101(44):15718-23.

Decker, J. E., J. C. Pires, G. C. Conant, S. D. McKay, M. P. Heaton, K. Chen, A. Cooper, J.

Vilkki, C. M. Seabury, A. R. Caetano, G. S. Johnson, R. A. Brenneman, O. Hanotte, L. S.
Eggert, P. Wiener, J. J. Kim, K. S. Kim, T. S. Sonstegard, C. P. Van Tassell, H. L.
Neibergs, J. C. McEwan, R. Brauning, L. L. Coutinho, M. E. Babar, G. A. Wilson, M. C.
McClure, M. M. Rolf, J. Kim, R. D. Schnabel and J. F. Taylor. 2009. Resolving the
evolution of extant and extinct ruminants with high-throughput phylogenomics. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. 106(44):18644-9.

Henderson, C. R. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. 1975.
Biometrics 31:423-47.

Li, M., B. Wang, M. Zhang, M. Rantalainen, S. Wang, H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, J. Shen, X. Pang, M.
Zhang, H. Wei, Y. Chen, H. Lu, J. Zuo, M. Su, Y. Qiu, W. Jia, C. Xiao, L. M. Smith, S.
Yang, E. Holmes, H. Tang, G. Zhao, J. K. Nicholson, L. Li and L. Zhao. 2009.
Symbiotic gut microbes modulate human metabolic phenotypes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
105(6):2117-22.

MacEachern, S., J. McEwan, A. McCulloch, A. Mather, K. Savin, and M. Goddard. 2009.

Molecular evolution of the Bovini tribe (Bovidae, Bovinae): is there evidence of rapid
evolution or reduced selective constraint in Domestic cattle? BMC Genom. 10:179.

Matukumalli, L. K., C. T. Lawley, R. D. Schnabel, J. F. Taylor, M. F. Allan, M. P. Heaton, J.

O’Connell, S. S. Moore, T. P. L. Smith, T. S. Sonstegard and C. P. Van Tassell. 2009.
Development and characterization of a high density SNP genotyping assay for cattle.
PLoS One 4:e5350.

Qin, J., R. Li, J. Raes, M. Arumugam, K. S. Burgdorf, C. Manichanh, T. Nielsen, N. Pons, F.

Levenez, T. Yamada, D. R. Mende, J. Li, S. Li, D. Li, J. Cao, B. Wang, H. Liang, H.
Zheng, Y. Xie, J. Tap, P. Lepage, M. Bertalan, J. M. Batto, T. Hansen, D. Le Paslier, A.
Linneberg, H. B. Nielsen, E. Pelletier, P. Renault, T. Sicheritz-Ponten, K. Turner, H. Zhu,
C. Yu, S. Li, M. Jian, Y. Zhou, Y. Li, X. Zhang, S. Li, N. Qin, H. Yang, J. Wang, S.
Brunak, J. Doré, F. Guarner, K. Kristiansen, O. Pedersen, J. Parkhill, J. Weissenbach,
MetaHIT Consortium, P. Bork, S. D. Ehrlich and J. Wang. 2010. A human gut microbial
gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464(7285)59-65.

Rolf, M. M., J. F. Taylor, R. D. Schnabel, S. D. McKay, M. C. McClure, S. L. Northcutt, M. S.

Kerley and R. L. Weaber. 2010. Impact of reduced marker set estimation of genomic
relationship matrices on genomic selection for feed efficiency in Angus cattle. BMC
Genet. 11:24.

55
Sellner, E. M., J. W. Kim, M. C. McClure, K. H. Taylor, R. D. Schnabel and J. F. Taylor. 2007.
BOARD-INVITED REVIEW: Applications of genomic information in livestock. J.
Anim. Sci. 85:3148-3158.

Shendure, J., and H. Ji. 2008. Next-generation DNA sequencing. Nat. Biotech. 26:1135-1145.

The Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. 2009. The genome sequence of
taurine cattle: A window to ruminant biology and evolution. Science 324(5926):522-8.

The Bovine HapMap Consortium. 2009. Genome wide survey of SNP variation uncovers the
genetic structure of cattle breeds. Science 324(5926):528-532.

Turnbaugh, P.J., M. Hamady, T. Yatsunenko, B. L. Cantarel, A. Duncan, R. E. Ley, M. L. Sogin,

W. J. Jones, B. A. Roe, J. P. Affourtit, M. Egholm, B. Henrissat, A. C. Heath, R. Knight
and J. I. Gordon. 2009. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457:480-
485.

Turnbaugh, P. J., R. E. Ley, M. A. Mahowald, V. Magrini, E. R. Mardis and J. I. Gordon. 2006.

An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest.
Nature 444(7122):1027-31.

VanRaden P. M., C. P. Van Tassell, G. R. Wiggans, T. S. Sonstegard, R. D. Schnabel, J. F.

Taylor and F. S. Schenkel. 2009. Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for
North American Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 92:16-24.

Van Tassell C. P., T. P. L. Smith, L. K. Matukumalli, J. F. Taylor, R. D. Schnabel, C. T. Lawley,

C. D. Haudenschild, S. S. Moore, W. C. Warren and T. S. Sonstegard. 2008.
Simultaneous SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by high throughput
sequencing of reduced representation genomic libraries. Nat. Meth. 5:247-52.

Willham, R. L. 1993. Ideas into action: a celebration of the first 25 years of the Beef
Improvement Federation. University Printing Services, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK.

Zimin, A. V., A. L. Delcher, L. L. Florea, D. R. Kelley, M. C. Schatz, D. Puiu, F. Hanrahan, G.

Pertea, C. P. Van Tassell, T. S. Sonstegard, G. Marcias, M. Roberts, P. Subramanian, J.
A. Yorke and S. L. Salzberg. 2009. A whole-genome assembly of the domestic cow,
Bos Taurus. Gen. Bio. 10(4):R42.

56
 IMPLEMENTATION AND DEPLOYMENT OF GENOMICALLY ENHANCED EPDS:
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Sally L. Northcutt

Angus Genetics Inc., American Angus Association

Genomic-enhanced Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) are calculated on animals

using the American Angus Association® (AAA) database along with the results from the
IGENITY® Profile for Angus cattle to provide more thorough characterization of economically
important traits and improved accuracy on young animals. Angus breeders have become
accustomed to the rapid feedback of this new endeavor, and updated weekly carcass EPDs have
become the norm, to provide timely selection tools beyond the classic interim EPD concept.
Implementation by the Association has been rapid. Challenges seem unending since the
technology continues to evolve, but opportunities for future genetic improvement likewise seem
endless.
Implementation Overview

In October 2009, the AAA released National Cattle Evaluation (NCE) genomic-enhanced
EPDs for carcass traits. Nearly two years of research collaboration between Angus Genetics
Inc.® (AGI) and IGENITY has resulted in an IGENITY genomic profile, specific to Angus
cattle. The AAA leadership, through AGI, has a vision to provide Angus breeders with the most
advanced solutions to their genetic selection and management needs. AGI is a subsidiary of the
AAA and is involved in the development and implementation of new technology for use by the
beef industry.
The Association’s weekly carcass EPDs are composed of the typical pieces one would
expect in the NCE, but also include genomic results, or molecular breeding values, as available
on animals. Molecular breeding values from IGENITY are derived from a High Density Whole
Genome Scan with 50,000 markers (HD WGS). Every week, the full NCE for carcass traits is
conducted for the most timely, up-to-date genetic predictions computed on nearly two million
animals. Figure 1 illustrates how samples, animal identification, and genomic results move
through channels to ultimately enter the American Angus Association NCE. Only the Angus-
specific IGENITY profiles received through this data flow process are incorporated into the
carcass EPDs.
Angus breeders submit the DNA sample directly to AGI, located within the parent
company of the AAA in Saint Joseph, MO. The identity of the animal is recorded through the
AGI system with a barcode. Through this process, the animal identity is known within the AAA
records before the DNA sample is sent to IGENITY. An electronic file with this anonymous
animal identification tracking and DNA samples are sent to IGENITY for genomic profiling. In
three to four weeks, an electronic file of genomic results is returned to AGI for system upload
and subsequent weekly carcass genetic evaluation.

57
Figure 1. Information exchange between the breeder, AGI, and IGENITY

Carcass Evaluation Model

With the inclusion of genomic results, the carcass evaluation has an additional piece of
information contributing to the genetic system. The weekly genetic predictions for carcass merit
encompass carcass harvest records, ultrasound scans, and genomic results using methodology
described in previous research (MacNeil and Northcutt, 2008; MacNeil et al., 2010a). The result
of the integrated evaluation is a genomic-enhanced EPD for carcass weight, marbling score,
ribeye area and fat thickness. The units of measure remain in carcass trait format, and ultrasound
data and genomic results serve as indicator traits. Established genetic relationships between the
indicator and carcass traits impact the EPDs and accuracy, with the genetic correlations between
the molecular breeding values derived from HD WGS and the economically relevant carcass
traits ranging from 0.50 to 0.65 (MacNeil et al., 2010b). In a weekly update, typically scheduled
each Friday morning, the genomic-enhanced NCE EPDs are available at
www.angus.org/Animal/EpdPedSearch.aspx.

58
Opportunities
Incorporation of genomic results into NCE procedures has opened the door to new
opportunities in selection tools. By itself, the impact of weekly carcass evaluations has been
sizable, providing breeders with rapid selection tool feedback beyond a traditional evaluation
every six months. Key benefits of generating NCE genomic-enhanced carcass EPDs on a
weekly basis include:
- NCE EPDs are the best genetic predictions for carcass traits, surpassing ratios, interim EPDs,
and profile scores as selection tools.
- Pedigree-estimated interim EPDs for young nonparent animals are short-lived or bypassed to
provide the more informative NCE EPDs each week.

- Carcass NCE EPDs are available on Angus cattle in a rapid timeframe.

- Ultrasound, carcass and genomic databases with a four-generation pedigree are used
simultaneously each week.
- Carcass genomic profile results are incorporated into EPDs without a six-month wait for
biannual evaluations.
- Ultrasound-scanned animals receive NCE EPDs within a week of the scan results being
processed by the AAA, for a comprehensive prediction beyond what is available from interim
EPDs.
- On calves with ultrasound or genomic profiles, dams that had no carcass EPDs in the past now
receive weekly NCE EPDs without the time lag of a biannual evaluation.
- Calves with genomic profile results have calculated NCE EPDs using all data contributing to
the comprehensive EPD system.
- The carcass bio-economic indexes are updated with the change of associated carcass trait
EPDs.
A frequent question to a breed association is the ‘equation’ to calculate EPDs. Mixed
model methodology to generate EPDs is not trivial, but can be referenced in the guidelines for
the Beef Improvement Federation (Beef Improvement Federation, 2002). With efficient
software routines and high-speed computers, the computational process to generate weekly
carcass EPDs is straightforward. Weekly carcass evaluations with genomic results included in
the analysis are part of the evolution to provide Angus breeders with rapid, accurate selection
tools for genetic improvement.
Animal Accuracy Example

The beauty of using the genomic data as an indicator trait is that animals at a young age
can have carcass trait EPDs prior to ultrasound scanning. As an example, for an Angus calf out
of registered parents with no ultrasound scan record and no genomic profile, the EPDs are simply
a parental average EPD, or interim EPD, with a default 0.05 accuracy level. If this calf of any
age has a genomic result reported through AGI/AAA, the weekly carcass evaluation produces an

59
EPD with accuracies ranging from 0.28 to 0.38 depending on the carcass trait. Unlike the
phenotypic data (carcass, ultrasound), the genomic result requires no contemporaries to enter the
genetic evaluation. Thus, the genomic profile can be incorporated from animals of any age. If
this calf is later scanned as a yearling and then accumulates progeny data later in life as a parent,
each new piece of information is rolled into the weekly carcass evaluation.
For animals that already have an EPD in the carcass evaluation, the genomic results still
have impact on the carcass traits. EPDs may move up, down, or stay the same, and the
accuracies increase on animals in cases where there is not extensive data reported for the animal
as a parent thus far. As another example, consider a dam with her own ultrasound scan record
from a proper contemporary group and 11 scanned progeny. With the dam’s own scan record
and progeny information in the evaluation initially, the marbling EPD accuracy is 0.25. After
her profile results are included in the weekly NCE carcass evaluation, her marbling EPD
accuracy improves to 0.37.
Challenges

The opportunity to provide rapid, more accurate carcass EPDs to Angus breeders has
been accompanied with some challenges. Each time the genomic panels are improved, the
correlation between the molecular breeding value and the trait of interest must be re-estimated.
With carcass traits this process has become more straightforward; however, time must still be
allotted to implement any new improvements to the carcass evaluation model.
Also, animals may have existing molecular breeding values in the evaluation and then
additional genomic profiles are subsequently purchased by other breeders. This results in the
need for database storage and evaluation procedures to handle multiple molecular breeding
values on a single animal.
Association databases must be flexible to receive varying amounts of genomic results on
animals, track the source of such data pieces, and check for duplicate records as well. Breeder
access to information relating to the timeframe for which samples are submitted, results received,
and evaluation procedures conducted needs to be flexible. Much of this occurs through the
breeder AAA Login website.
As the advances in characterizing Angus genetics with genomic technology continue to
accelerate, Angus breeders are faced with sale catalog and print advertisement deadlines, and
commercial bull buyer questions as to why EPDs change from one evaluation to the next. While
the most current EPDs are available online and breeders are encouraged to use those tools for
up-to-date information, the deadlines for printed material and the understanding of the new
technology still generate demand for additional outreach from the AAA to its clientele.
Producer uptake and education is a critical challenge. Genomic values presented to
breeders that are outside the realm of EPDs derived from NCE create confusion as to which
selection tools are best for genetic improvement decisions. The Beef Improvement Federation
commission on DNA markers released “Guidelines for Combining Molecular and Quantitative
Approaches in Genetic Evaluation” in December 2008 (Tess, 2008) with the following
statements regarding the reporting of DNA test results:

60
 “It is important the DNA test results be reported to [the] beef industry
in a consistent, understandable format. Further, the format should be
compatible with NCE methods.”
“BIF recommends that DNA test results be reported in the form of an
EPD, in the units of the trait, on a continuous scale, and with a corresponding
BIF accuracy.”
“Guiding Philosophy. BIF believes that information from DNA tests
only has value in selection when incorporated with all other available forms of
performance information for economically important traits in NCE, and when
communicated in the form of an EPD with a corresponding BIF accuracy. For
some economically important traits, information other than DNA tests may
not be available. Selection tools based on these tests should still be expressed
as EPD within the normal parameters of NCE.”
Associations will continue to be challenged to direct breeders to use NCE EPDs as the
seamless route for genomic-enhanced selection. This will be particularly important as genomic
results are available for traits in which phenotypes are more difficult to collect and quantify.
Literature Cited

Beef Improvement Federation. 2002. Guidelines for Uniform Beef Improvement Programs. (8th
Ed.). Athens, GA.

MacNeil, M. D., and S. L. Northcutt. 2008. National cattle evaluation system for combined
analysis of carcass characteristics and indicator traits recorded by using ultrasound in
Angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 86:2518-2524.
MacNeil, M. D., J. D. Nkrumah, B. W. Woodward, and S. L. Northcutt. 2010a. Genetic
evaluation of Angus cattle for carcass marbling using ultrasound and genomic indicators.
J. Anim. Sci. 88: 517-522.
MacNeil, M. D., S. L. Northcutt, R. D. Schnabel, D. J. Garrick, B.W. Woodward and J. F.
Taylor. 2010b. Genetic correlations between carcass traits and molecular breeding values
in Angus cattle. Proc. 9th World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. (in press).
Tess, M. W. 2008. Guidelines for Combining Molecular and Quantitative Approaches in Genetic
Evaluation. Proceedings of the 9th Genetic Prediction Workshop, Beef Improvement
Federation. pp 76-82.

61
   

UNDERSTANDING COW SIZE AND EFFICIENCY

Jennifer J. Johnson1, Barry H. Dunn2, and J.D. Radakovich1

1
Texas A&M University-Kingsville and 2South Dakota State University

Introduction

Cattlemen have debated cow size and efficiency since the early days of the business.
While efficient cattle production has been researched for over a century, it remains remarkably
misunderstood. This misunderstanding can be costly for the industry as well as individual cattle
operations because important and expensive management decisions are erroneously made based
on misinformation or lack of understanding. However, a more productive way to frame the
efficiency question is “which cattle are most efficient in a specific environment and production
system?” In nature, different breeds of the same species can appear markedly different because
they have adapted differently to best fit their specific environment. Similarly, different cattle are
efficient in different environments and production systems. Gaining a better understanding of
the interrelated components of efficiency is critical for cattlemen seeking to maximize profit in
their specific operations.

The Interrelated Components

Defining Efficiency. Achieving optimal efficiency is an important goal in all businesses.

In a food animal production system, overall efficiency is best measured by the ratio of total costs
to total animal product from females and their progeny over a given period of time (Dickerson,
1970). It is important to note that this ratio is the inverse of the output/input ratio most
commonly used in business. Despite this concise definition, defining optimum efficiency in the
cattle business is complicated. Overall efficiency of a cattle production system is a combination
of biological efficiency, or feed consumed to beef produced, and economic efficiency, or dollars
spent to dollars returned. Though related, biological and economic efficiency may not be
identical. Optimizing the relationship between them is a complicated process, and doing so
requires understanding and managing the genetic potential of cattle, the environment in which
cattle are asked to perform, and decisions about when and what product a producer is marketing.

The Efficiency Conundrum. Dickerson (1970) noted that on the ranch, an efficient
cowherd exhibits early sexual maturity, a high rate of reproduction, low rates of distochia,
longevity, minimum maintenance requirements, and the ability to convert available energy
(native or nonnative forage) into the greatest possible pounds of weaned calves. He stated that to
maximize efficiency in the cow calf context, the objective is lean growth and earlier sexual
maturity with minimum increase in mature weight. For a cow on a ranch, the ability to
reproduce is by far the most important contributor towards efficiency, and the ability to
reproduce in a given feed environment is related to its mature size.

Cundiff (1986) reported that in comparison to cattle in a ranch environment, cattle that
excel in the production of retail product typically produce heavier birth weights, reach puberty at
older ages, have lower propensities to marble, and have higher maintenance requirements due to

 
 
62
   

heavier mature weights and greater visceral mass. Continental breeds of cattle with these
characteristics were introduced in the United States beginning in the 1970’s. Their importation
was a reaction to both the “green revolution” of the 1960’s, which reduced the cost per unit feed
in the feedlot industry, and to new industry-changing technologies which favored heavier
slaughter weights for packers (Ferrell and Jenkins, 2006). Essentially, a market was developed
to reward cattle with the genetic potential to take full advantage of low cost feed. Furthermore,
the packing industry continues to reward large framed cattle. Hanging the greatest pounds of
carcass, which yield the largest amount of meat possible in the assembly line, is what is most
efficient for that segment of the industry. It is relatively easy to recognize that efficiency in the
feedlot and packing plants is the driving force behind the market signals incentivizing cattlemen
to select for increased growth traits and carcass weight. Selecting for increased weaning weight
leads to an increase in mature cow size, which, depending on feed availability, may or may not
be efficient in a grass environment (Kelley, 2002). However, in the last several decades,
ranchers have successfully mitigated the increased cost of larger cows with low cost
supplemental feed. Doing so is a rational response to market signals, as long as supplemental
feed remains inexpensive and readily available.

Making the efficiency conundrum even more complicated are the differences that also
exist in how economic efficiency is achieved. On a ranch, the goal is to have the highest
percentage of calf crop at the heaviest weight without causing dystocia, and therefore maximum
total pounds of calves, with the minimum amount of investment and costs. In a feedlot, the goal
is simply to produce the most pounds of beef possible in order to profit at a margin above feed
costs. Because the drivers behind the cost structures are different, the solution to the puzzle, an
efficient animal, may also be different.

It is evident then that biological and economic efficiency for cattle production are not
always positively correlated due to the segmentation of the beef cattle industry, which has
logically, and economically, separated itself into three highly competitive segments. The first is
the ranch, where cattle must be efficient in what is often a limited energy, forage-based, high
investment per unit business. The second segment is the feedlot, where cattle must be efficient
in a high energy, grain-based, low investment per unit, margin based business. The third is the
packing segment, which has the lowest investment per unit and is also a margin based business.
The reality is that biological traits supporting efficient use of grazed forages in the first segment
of the industry are markedly different from biological traits supporting efficient use of harvested
concentrates in the second (Notter, 2002). Nationwide, only a small number of cow-calf
producers maintain ownership of their cattle through the backgrounding, yearling, or feeding
segments (Melton, 1995). The price received for weaned calves follows prevailing market prices
and is adjusted for a number of factors including weight, lot size, uniformity, health, horns,
condition, fill, breed, muscling, and frame size. Feeder cattle buyers prefer larger framed,
heavier muscled cattle (Schroeder et al., 1998). A cow-calf producer that selects solely for
smaller framed cattle based on the assumption that they are more biologically efficient may find
their cattle heavily discounted in the market place, which, by definition, would decrease the
economic efficiency of the operation.

The Interplay between Genetic Potential and the Environment. Biological efficiency
depends upon the interaction between genetic potential and the environment; specifically the

 
 
63
   

availability and variability of feed resources. Cattle partition food energy in the following order:
maintenance, growth, lactation, and reproduction. Essentially, a cow takes care of herself, then
the calf on the ground, then the calf to come. Energy required for maintenance varies. Ritchie
(2001) described high maintenance cows as those that tend to have high milk production, high
visceral organ weight, high body lean mass, low body fat mass, high output, and high input.
High maintenance cattle also tend to reach puberty at a later age, unless they have been selected
for milk production (Arango, 2002). Low maintenance cows tend to be low in milk production,
low in visceral organ weight, low in body lean mass, high in body fat mass, low output and low
input (Ritchie, 2001). However, it is very important not to confuse maintenance requirements
with efficiency. Efficiency is a ratio of input to output, and maintenance energy is an input, but
not an indication of output.

In one of the most comprehensive experiments conducted on cow efficiency, researchers

at the USDA Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) studied the biological efficiency of nine
different breeds of cattle over a range of feed energy intakes (Jenkins and Ferrell, 1994).
Ranking for efficiency among the breeds, three British and six Continental, depended on feed
intake. At lower feed energy intake, the MARC researchers found that breeds that were more
moderate in genetic potential for growth and milk production (Angus, Red Poll, and Pinzgauer)
were more efficient because of higher conception rates. This clearly underscores the overriding
importance of reproduction in a discussion about efficiency. At lower energy intakes, and
because of their greater maintenance requirements, the breeds with greater growth and milk
potentials had less energy to commit to reproduction. However, at high energy intakes, the
Continental breeds with greater genetic potential for milk production and growth were more
efficient than the British breeds because they were able to reproduce and the extra available
energy was converted into milk, resulting in heavier calves. At high energy intakes those breeds
with lower genetic potential for growth and milk production could not convert the additional
energy into milk and therefore the cows themselves, rather than their calves, got fatter,
essentially an unproductive use of energy.

In another study, efficiency was investigated in three calvings of small, medium, and
large Brahman cattle. The small and medium framed cattle were more efficient for the first two
calvings, but by the third, when the large framed cattle had reached their full growth potential,
the large cattle were more biologically efficient (Vargas, 1999). These results reiterate that, both
between and within breeds, maximum efficiency occurs at a level of feed intake that does not
limit reproduction and also provides sufficient energy for milk production to meet the growth
potential of the breed as expressed in the calf (Jenkins and Ferrell, 2002). Alternatively, if
nutritional input exceeds genetic potential for either reproduction or production, efficiency
declines (Jenkins and Ferrell, 1994).

Matching growth and milk production to the feed resources available is key to creating
efficient cows (Greiner, 2009). The natural availability of feed resources varies greatly across
the United States; Iowa and Georgia are vastly different environments than the arid Great Plains
and the high deserts of Nevada. Utilizing cattle with different genetic potentials for production is
a logical response to environmental variation.

 
 
64
   

In a analysis of a 165,000 cow database, the authors of this paper found a statistical
relationship between cow maintenance energy EPDs and calf weaning weights. As maintenance
energy EPDs increase, so does cow weight; bigger cows generally have higher maintenance
energy requirements. Furthermore, as cow maintenance energy EPDs increase, and, so does calf
weaning weight; bigger cows generally have bigger calves. The important application of these
relationships is in the calculation of how much additional maintenance energy requirements cost
relative to how much additional profit is realized through additional weaning weight. An
increase in 12 additional required Megacalories per year for cow maintenance, which is roughly
two pounds of corn, equates to an additional three pounds of weaning weight. When corn and
calf prices are adjusted for inflation, the additional profit from the extra pounds has exceeded the
additional cost of corn every year since 1975 by at least $2.50. The practical implications of
these findings are that the increase in the nation’s average cow size is a rational response to
inexpensive feed, and, if a cow will get bred in her environment, the additional maintenance
energy requirements of a larger cow is more than paid for by the additional weight of her calf.

Metabolic Weight versus Live Weight. The average elephant weights 220,000 times as
much as the average mouse, but requires only about 10,000 times as much energy in the form of
food calories to sustain itself. This is because of the mathematical and geometric relationship
between body surface area and volume, which in biology is articulated by Kleiber’s Theory. It
states that metabolic weight = live weight^.75 (Kleiber, 1932). Essentially, the bigger the animal,
the more efficiently it uses energy. For instance, eighty seven 1200 lb cows require the same
amount of food energy for maintenance as one hundred 1000 lb cows (Table 1).

Animal Unit Equivalent Herd Size

Live Metabolic Equivalent (% of (Baseline: one hundred 1000
Weight Weight 1000 lbs) lb cows)
800 150 85% 118
850 157 89% 113
900 164 92% 108
950 171 96% 104
1000 178 100% 100
1050 184 104% 96
1100 191 107% 93
1150 197 111% 90
1200 204 115% 87
1250 210 118% 85
1300 216 122% 82
1350 223 125% 80
1400 229 129% 78
1450 235 132% 76
1500 241 136% 74
1550 247 139% 72
1600 253 142% 70
Table 1: Metabolic weight, animal unit equivalent, and equivalent herd size for each fifty pound
live weight class interval in beef cattle.
 
 
65
   

An understanding of Klieber’s Theory is of practical importance when calculating

equivalent herd sizes (Table 1). The biology of maintenance energy requirements dictates that
while a larger cow will consume more food than a smaller cow, its additional feed requirements,
as a percentage, are less than its additional weight, as a percentage. For example, though a 1200
pound cow weighs 20% more than a 1000 pound cow, the 1200 pound cow’s feed requirements
are only 13% more. Knowing equivalent herd sizes based on Kleiber’s Theory is the only way to
accurately compare the efficiency of different sizes of cattle. However, a biological
understanding of how maintenance energy varies with size is not useful unless paired with an
economic understanding of how herd size impacts profitability.

If herd size is adjusted correctly, switching from a larger to smaller cattle will not
increase total fixed costs or feed costs, but will increase variable costs, depreciation costs, and
investment costs in terms of cattle inventory. Therefore, the gross income generated by selling a
greater number of lighter calves must outweigh these additional variable, depreciation, and
investment costs in order to justify the decrease in cow size. Alternatively, switching from
smaller to larger cattle will decrease variable, depreciation, and investment costs, with no change
to fixed costs or feed costs. However, producers in highly variable feed environments may
benefit from a greater number of smaller cattle because of the economic risk associated with low
reproduction rates of larger cows if supplemental feed is unavailable or expensive.

Tools for Approaching Cow Efficiency

If a producer has decided that the current size of their cows is not right for their
production system, the following discussion of both ineffective and effective tools to increase
efficiency provides valuable insight for making a profitable adjustment.

The Problem with Calf Weight/Cow Weight as a Measure of Efficiency. The ratio most
commonly used to quantify efficiency is fundamentally flawed in several respects. Weaning
weight divided by cow weight results in a ratio in which the numerator indicates output and the
denominator assumes a level of input through a commonly accepted association of cow weight
and feed requirements. Several studies have found that this ratio is inferior to weaning weight as
an estimation of efficiency (Dinkel and Brown, 1978, Cartwright, 1979). This is because using
the ratio as a selection measure results in selecting based on two phenotypes of different
individuals and the consequent confounding of direct and maternal genetic effect on these
phenotypes (MacNeil, 2005). For instance, milk production potential, though unaccounted for
directly in the ratio, has a great impact on both the numerator and the denominator.

Using weaning weight divided by cow weight to differentiate between two cows on a
ranch as a measure of efficiency is tenuous at best, for several important reasons. First of all,
blanket estimates and assumptions of feed intake may not be accurate. Feed intake depends on
body condition score, sex, stage of production, age, quality of forage, and environmental stress
(Cartwright, 1979). What makes Jenkins and Ferrell’s (1994) nine breed study of efficiency so
meaningful is that efficiency was not based on assumed or estimated feed intake, but on actual
energy intake, which was measured at every feeding. Secondly, the calf weight/cow weight ratio
dilutes the impact of the most important component, which is reproduction. Both cows are much

 
 
66
   

more efficient than their open counterparts. A fifty pound difference in weaning weight is
minimal compared to a four hundred pound calf versus no calf. Thirdly, the cow with the
heavier calf (assumed heavier milk production) will have greater visceral mass and therefore
greater intake even when dry. Fourthly, the cow with greater milk production may be at greater
risk for not re-breeding because of the order in which feed energy is partitioned. Finally, pasture
observations of calf weight as a percentage of cow weight can be misleading because of
differences in calf age, sex, and other variables.

Though it does not reflect individual cow efficiency, the ratio of total pounds weaned
divided by number of cows exposed is the best measure of efficiency for the entire herd. This
ratio recognizes the most important maternal trait of efficiency, reproduction, without
confounding variables. Increasing this ratio without increasing input costs will result in
increased net profit.

The Problem with Culling for Efficiency. Selecting for genetic change in a cow herd
through female culling is not an effective method for changing the overall efficiency of a
commercial cowherd for several reasons. First, cattle in commercial herds have long generation
intervals, which makes progress in genetic change extremely slow. Secondly, the selection
differential for efficiency within the same herd is probably smaller than is commonly held and,
as has been previously discussed, cannot be effectively and reliably measured. Third, culling
based on traits with low heritability is ineffective. Finally, since an individual cow contributes
little to the overall genetic makeup of a calf crop, it is much more effective to select for
efficiency through bulls.

Optimizing a Breeding System. For a profit-driven producer, no matter the environment

and market end point, the goal is to produce as much product as possible through a cow herd.
Setting up a breeding system to capture genetic potential in a given environment and given
market will optimize efficiency. Cross breeding programs take advantage of breed
complementarity and breed differences, making them an ideal way to positively and relatively
quickly produce genetic change for efficiency. For example, a terminal sire bred to a cross bred
female will wean approximately 28% more pounds of beef per exposed female than a single
breed (Field and Taylor, 2003).

Optimizing a Production System. Indigenous feed resources vary dramatically by

geographic location. The natural variation of animals of the same species around the world
speaks to the fact that nature defines the “right” genetics for efficiency differently in different
environments. Jenkins and Ferrell’s (1994) study concurs with this natural phenomenon. Forage
production west of the 100th meridian is vastly different than ranching in areas with high annual
precipitation, not only in amount but also in frequency and reliability. Availability of low cost
feed also varies by region and even by ranch within a region, and should impact decisions about
efficiency. Price and availability of feed may be a good indicator of whether or not a ranch is in
a high feed environment or not. Furthermore, environments can be categorized not only by level
of feed availability, but also by levels of stress, which include cold, heat, parasites, disease, mud,
and altitude (Bourdon, 1988). For instance, the efficiency of Bos indicus cattle in tropical and
sub-tropical environments is due to their heat tolerance, an advantage the British breeds do not
have (Field and Taylor, 2003).

 
 
67
   

Besides environment, market end point is the other paramount factor impacting the
efficiency of a beef cow-calf production system. Increased milk potential is most beneficial
when calves are sold at weaning and maximum pre-weaning growth is rewarded in the
marketplace. In a retained ownership scenario, calf growth due to maternal milk production is
less critical because the calf’s own growth potential has a longer period of time to capture profit
for the rancher. Furthermore, when selling cattle by the head, as is the case with seed stock or
replacement heifer operations, number of head, not pounds, is the key metric.

In a traditional production system where a rancher sells calves at weaning, the most
efficient cow is the one with the highest milk potential that can, without reducing the percentage
of calves successfully weaned, repeatedly produce a calf by bulls with the growth and carcass
characteristics valued most in the marketplace. Such a cowherd fits with their environment,
native forage, while producing calves best suited for their eventual environment, unlimited grain.
This is why crossbreeding systems that exploit heterosis and complementarity and match genetic
potential with market targets, feed resources and climates provide the most effective means of
breeding for production efficiency (Cundiff, 1993).

Optimizing Herd Size. The optimal herd size for any ranch varies greatly depending upon
its rainfall, infrastructure, investment, and manpower. An efficient cow herd is one that nets the
most profit by keeping marginal revenue above marginal cost. Because of Kleiber’s Law, cow
size, in relation to available feed resources, determines herd size. A rancher can increase herd
size by reducing cow size up to a certain point without increasing feed and fixed costs, but doing
so does increase investment and variable costs. The cost structure of each ranch is unique and
can vary over time, as will profit margins. Each producer must evaluate their unique system and
determine, based upon biological and economic determinants of herd size, what is most
profitable for them.

Conclusion

Efficiency in animal production is a measure of input costs to total animal product.

Determining the right size of cow for any specific production system necessitates understanding
how beef industry segmentation affects the interaction of biological and economic efficiency.
Antagonisms exist between ideal genetic traits at different stages in the chain of cattle
production, and in different environments. Maintenance energy should not be confused with
efficiency and must be calculated and discussed in terms of the animal’s metabolic weight.

Improving efficiency requires measurement, and though popular, literature does not
support calf weight/cow weight as a better measurement of efficiency than weaning weight.
Improving efficiency of a cowherd through culling is ineffective compared to prudent bull
selection. Market end points have a profound impact on efficiency. For the majority of cow calf
producers in the nation, the most efficient cow is the one with the highest milk potential that can,
without reducing the percentage of calves successfully weaned, repeatedly produce a calf by
bulls with the growth and carcass characteristics valued most in the marketplace. Size, of cow,
through the biology of metabolic weight, should dictate herd size, and optimal herd size varies
with the cost structure of a specific production system.

 
 
68
   

No one breed or size category of cattle excels in all traits or is most efficient in all
environments. Any “one size fits all” approach will result in un-captured profit, and therefore
suboptimal efficiency. The question of efficiency needs to be discussed in the context of a
specific system, which requires careful analysis of the environment, market, and goals of that
system.

Literature Cited

Arango, J. A, and L. D. Van Vleck. 2002. Size of beef cows: early ideas, new developments.
Genet. Mol. Res. 1:51-63.

Bourdon, R. M. 1988. Bovine Nirvana – from the perspective of a modeler and purebred breeder.
J. Anim. Sci. 66:1892-1898.

Cartwright, T. C. 1979. Size as a component of beef production efficiency: cow-calf production.

J. Anim. Sci. 48(4): 974.

Cundiff, L. V., S. Szabo, K. E. Gregory, R. M. Koch, M. E. Dikeman, and J. D. Crouse. 1993.

Breed comparisons in the germplasm evaluation program at MARC. Proceedings Beef
Improvement Federation. Asheville, NC.

Dickerson, G. E. 1970. Efficiency of animal production - molding the biological components. J.

Anim. Sci. 30:849.

Dinkel, C. A., and M. A. Brown. 1978. An evaluation of the ratio of calf weaning weight to cow
weight as an indicator of cow efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 46:614–617.

Ferrell, C. L. and T. G. Jenkins. 2006. Matching genetics with production environment.

Proceedings Beef Improvement Federation. Choctaw, MS.

Field, T. G., and R. E. Taylor. 2003. Beef production and management decisions. 4th ed.
Prentice Hall Publishing Company, New Jersey.

Greiner, S. P. 2009. Beef cow size, efficiency, and profit.

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/news/livestock/old/aps-200904_Greiner.html Accessed Dec. 10,
2009.

Jenkins, T. G. and C. L. Ferrell. 1994. Productivity through weaning of nine breeds of cattle
under varying feed availabilities: I. initial evaluation. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2787.

Jenkins, T. G. and C. L. Ferrell. 2002. Beef cow efficiency revisited. Proceedings Beef
Improvement Federation. Omaha, NE.

Kelley, A. L. 2002. The relationship of genetics and nutrition and their influence on animal
performance. Proceedings Beef Improvement Federation. Omaha, NE.

 
 
69
   

Kleiber, M. 1932. Body size and metabolism. Hilgardia. 6:315-349

MacNeil, M. D. 2005. Genetic evaluation of the ratio of calf weaning weight to cow weight. J.
Anim. Sci. 83:794-802.

Melton, B. E. 1995. Profiting from change in the U.S. beef industry: genetic balance for
economic gains. Technical Report of the National Cattlemen’s Association, Englewood,
CO.

Notter, D. R. 2002. Defining biological efficiency of beef production. Proceedings Beef

Improvement Federation. Omaha, NE.

Ritchie, H. D. 1995. The optimum cow – what criteria must she meet? Proceedings Beef
Improvement Federation. Sheridan, WY.

Schroeder, T. C., J. Mintert, F. Barzle, O. Gruenwald. 1988. Factors affecting feeder cattle price
differentials. West. J. of Agri. Econ. 13:71.

Vargas, C. A., T. A. Olson, C. C. Chase Jr, A. C. Hammond, and M. A. Elzo. 1999. Influence of
frame size and body condition score on performance of Brahman cattle. J. Anim. Sci.
77(12):314-3149.

 
 
70
 ACROSS-BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2010 ADJUSTED TO
BREED DIFFERENCES FOR BIRTH YEAR OF 2008

L. A. Kuehn, L. D. Van Vleck, R. M. Thallman and L. V. Cundiff

Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, USDA-ARS,

Clay Center and Lincoln, NE 68933

Summary

Factors to adjust the expected progeny differences (EPD) of each of 18 breeds to the base
of Angus EPD are reported in the column labeled 6 of Tables 1-7 for birth weight, weaning
weight, yearling weight, maternal milk, marbling score, ribeye area, and fat thickness,
respectively. An EPD is adjusted to the Angus base by adding the corresponding across-breed
adjustment factor in column 6 to the EPD. It is critical that this adjustment be applied only to
Spring 2010 EPD. Older or newer EPD may be computed on different bases and, therefore, could
produce misleading results. When the base of a breed changes from year to year, its adjustment
factor (Column 6) changes in the opposite direction and by about the same amount.

Breed differences are changing over time as breeds put emphasis on different traits and
their genetic trends differ accordingly. Therefore, it is necessary to qualify the point in time at
which breed differences are represented. Column 5 of Tables 1-7 contains estimates of the
differences between the averages of calves of each breed born in year 2008. Any differences
(relative to their breed means) in the samples of sires representing those breeds at the U.S. Meat
Animal Research Center (USMARC) are adjusted out of these breed difference estimates and the
across-breed adjustment factors. The breed difference estimates are reported as progeny
differences, e.g., they represent the expected difference in progeny performance of calves sired
by average bulls of two different breeds (born in 2008) and out of dams of a third, unrelated
breed. In other words, they represent half the differences that would be expected between
purebreds of the two breeds.

Introduction

This report is the year 2010 update of estimates of sire breed means from data of the
Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) project at USMARC adjusted to a year 2008 basis using EPD
from the most recent national cattle evaluations. The 2008 basis year is chosen because yearling
records for weight and carcass traits should have been accounted for in EPDs for progeny born in
2008 in the Spring 2010 EPD national genetic evaluations. Factors to adjust Spring 2010 EPD of
18 breeds to a common base were calculated and are reported in Tables 1-3 for birth weight
(BWT), weaning weight (WWT), and yearling weight (YWT) and in Table 4 for the maternal
milk (MILK) component of maternal weaning weight (MWWT). Tables 5-6 summarize the
factors for marbling score (MAR), ribeye area (REA), and fat thickness (FAT).

The across-breed table adjustments apply only to EPD for most recent (spring, 2010)
national cattle evaluations. Serious errors can occur if the table adjustments are used with earlier
EPD which may have been calculated with a different within-breed base.

71
 The following describes the changes that have occurred since the update released in 2009
(Kuehn et al., 2009):

The most significant changes continue to relate to the new sampling in the USMARC
GPE program. Progeny from 16 of the 18 breeds involved in the across-breed EPD process have
been born (approximately 50/yr) and improve the accuracy in predicting the differences between
these breeds. These 16 breeds are the breeds that register the most cattle and have national
genetic evaluations for production traits. Sires are sampled on a continuous basis (every 2 years).
The first progeny of this new sampling were born in Fall 2007. Last year Santa Gertrudis and
Chiangus adjustment factors were estimated for the first time for birth and weaning weight. This
year, these breeds had sufficient progeny numbers for yearling weight and carcass traits to be
included as well. Maternal milk for these breeds will also be reported in future iterations of this
report as daughters from these matings begin to have calves of their own. As numbers of progeny
increase in these breeds, some significant changes can occur. The number of direct progeny with
birth and weaning weight increased by over 30% for Santa Gertrudis and Chiangus and by up to
20% in breeds such as Braunvieh and Salers. Each of these breeds had relatively large changes in
their USMARC breed of sire estimates (labeled column 3 in Tables 2 and 3) for weaning or
yearling weights or both compared to last year. Yearling weight sire breed differences were
particularly prone to change as progeny from new GPE sampling born in Spring 2008 and Fall
2008 were included in the analysis for the first time. These seasons were the first in which
progeny were compared directly to Hereford- and Angus-sired progeny (breeds with the most
data) in over 20 years for many of these breeds.

Changes in national cattle evaluation can also cause across breed adjustment factors to
change relative to previous years. Salers EPDs were put on a new base this year which causes
their adjustment factor (labeled column 6; Tables 1-7) to change relative to last year, though their
sire breed differences (labeled column 5) remained relatively constant. Additionally, Tarentaise
conducted a new national cattle evaluation (last evaluation was in 2006). This evaluation showed
significant genetic trends in weaning and yearling weights causing their sire breed differences
and their adjustment factors to increase substantially from last year’s update. As a last change
relative to national cattle evaluations, we received carcass EPDs for several South Devon sires (8
of 15) that did not have carcass EPDs before this year; therefore, their progeny are now included
in the evaluation.

Materials and Methods

All calculations were as outlined in the 2002 BIF Guidelines. The basic steps were given
by Notter and Cundiff (1991) with refinements by Núñez-Dominguez et al. (1993), Cundiff
(1993, 1994), Barkhouse et al. (1994, 1995), Van Vleck and Cundiff (1997–2006), and Kuehn et
al. (2007-2009). Estimates of variance components, regression coefficients, and breed effects
were obtained using the MTDFREML package (Boldman et al., 1995). All breed solutions are
reported as differences from Angus. The table values of adjustment factors to add to within-
breed EPD are relative to Angus.

72
Models for Analysis of USMARC Records

An animal model with breed effects represented as genetic groups was fitted to the GPE
data set (Arnold et al., 1992; Westell et al., 1988). In the analysis, all AI sires (sires used via
artificial insemination) were assigned a genetic group according to their breed of origin. Due to
lack of pedigree, dams mated to the AI sires and natural service bulls mated to F1 females were
also assigned to separate genetic groups (i.e., Hereford dams were assigned to different genetic
groups than Hereford AI sires). Cows from Hereford selection lines (Koch et al., 1994) were
used in Cycle IV of GPE and assigned into their own genetic groups. Through Cycle VIII, most
dams were from Hereford, Angus, or MARCIII (1/4 Angus, 1/4 Hereford, 1/4 Pinzgauer, 1/4
Red Poll) composite lines. In order to be considered in the analysis, sires had to have an EPD for
the trait of interest. All AI sires were considered unrelated for the analysis in order to adjust
resulting genetic group effects by the average EPD of the sires.

Fixed effects in the models for BWT, WWT (205-d), and YWT (365-d) included breed
(fit as genetic groups) and maternal breed (WWT only), year and season of birth by GPE cycle
by age of dam (2, 3, 4, 5-9, >10 yr) combination (190), sex (heifer, bull, steer; steers were
combined with bulls for BWT), a covariate for heterosis, and a covariate for day of year at birth
of calf. Models for WWT also included a fixed covariate for maternal heterosis. Random effects
included animal and residual error except for the analysis of WWT which also included a
random maternal genetic effect and a random permanent environmental effect.

For the carcass traits (MAR, REA, and FAT), breed (fit as genetic groups), sex (heifer,
steer) and slaughter date (213) were included in the model as fixed effects. Fixed covariates
included slaughter age and heterosis. Random effects were animal and residual error. To be
included, breeds had to report carcass EPD on a carcass basis using age-adjusted endpoints.

The covariates for heterosis were calculated as the expected breed heterozygosity for
each animal based on the percentage of each breed of that animal’s parents. In other words, it is
the probability that, at any location in the genome, the animal's two alleles originated from two
different breeds. Heterosis is assumed to be proportional to breed heterozygosity. For the
purpose of heterosis calculation, AI and dam breeds were assumed to be the same breed and Red
Angus was assumed the same breed as Angus. For purposes of heterosis calculation, composite
breeds were considered according to nominal breed composition. For example, Brangus (3/8
Brahman, 5/8 Angus) × Angus is expected to have 3/8 as much heterosis as Brangus × Hereford.

Variance components were estimated with a derivative-free REML algorithm with

genetic group solutions obtained at convergence. Differences between resulting genetic group
solutions for AI sire breeds were divided by two to represent the USMARC breed of sire effects
in Tables 1-7. Resulting breed differences were adjusted to current breed EPD levels by
accounting for the average EPD of the AI sires of progeny/grandprogeny, etc. with records.
Average AI sire EPD were calculated as a weighted average AI sire EPD from the most recent
within breed genetic evaluation. The weighting factor was the sum of relationship coefficients
between an individual sire and all progeny with performance data for the trait of interest relative
to all other sires in that breed.

73
 For all traits, regression coefficients of progeny performance on EPD of sire for each trait
were calculated using an animal model with EPD sires excluded from the pedigree. Genetic
groups were assigned in place of sires in their progeny pedigree records. Each sire EPD was
‘dropped’ down the pedigree and reduced by ½ depending on the number of generations each
calf was removed from an EPD sire. In addition to regression coefficiencts for the EPDs of AI
sires, models included the same fixed effects described previously. Pooled regression
coefficients, and regression coefficients by sire breed were obtained. These regression
coefficients are monitored as accuracy checks and for possible genetic by environment
interactions. The pooled regression coefficients were used as described in the next section to
adjust for differences in management at USMARC as compared to seedstock production (e.g.,
YWT of males at USMARC are primarily on a slaughter steer basis, while in seedstock field data
they are primarily on a breeding bull basis). For carcass traits, MAR, REA, and FAT, regressions
were considered too variable and too far removed from 1.00. Therefore, the regressions were
assumed to be 1.00 until more data is added to reduce the impact of sampling errors on
prediction of these regressions. However, the resulting regressions are still summarized.

Records from the USMARC GPE Project are not used in calculation of within-breed EPD
by the breed associations. This is critical to maintain the integrity of the regression coefficient. If
USMARC records were included in the EPD calculations, the regressions would be biased
upward.

Adjustment of USMARC Solutions

The calculations of across-breed adjustment factors rely on breed solutions from analysis
of records at USMARC and on averages of within-breed EPD from the breed associations. The
basic calculations for all traits are as follows:

USMARC breed of sire solution (1/2 breed solution) for breed i (USMARC (i)) converted
to an industry scale (divided by b) and adjusted for genetic trend (as if breed average bulls born
in the base year had been used rather than the bulls actually sampled):

Mi = USMARC (i)/b + [EPD(i)YY - EPD(i)USMARC].

Breed Table Factor (Ai) to add to the EPD for a bull of breed i:

Ai = (Mi - Mx) - (EPD(i)YY - EPD(x)YY).

where,

USMARC(i) is solution for effect of sire breed i from analysis of USMARC data,

EPD(i)YY is the average within-breed 2010 EPD for breed i for animals born in the base year
(YY, which is two years before the update; e.g., YY = 2008 for the 2010 update),

EPD(i)USMARC is the weighted (by total relationship of descendants with records at

USMARC) average of 2010 EPD of bulls of breed i having descendants with records at
USMARC,

74
 b is the pooled coefficient of regression of progeny performance at USMARC on EPD of sire
(for 2008: 1.10, 0.84, 1.06, and 1.18 BWT, WWT, YWT, and MILK, respectively; 1.00 was
applied to MAR, REA, and FAT data),
i denotes sire breed i, and
x denotes the base breed, which is Angus in this report.

Results

Heterosis

Heterosis was included in the statistical model as a covariate for all traits. Maternal
heterosis was also fit as a covariate in the analysis of weaning weight. Resulting estimates were
1.44 lb, 12.84 lb, 16.62 lb, 0.032 marbling score units (i.e. 4.00 = Sl00, 5.00 = Sm00), 0.26 in2,
and 0.043 in for BWT, WWT, YWT, MAR, REA, and FAT respectively. These estimates are
interpreted as the amount by which the performance of an F1 is expected to exceed that of its
parental breeds. The estimate of maternal heterosis for WWT was 17.34 lb.

Across-breed adjustment factors

Tables 1, 2, and 3 (for BWT, WWT, and YWT) summarize the data from, and results of,
USMARC analyses to estimate breed of sire differences and the adjustments to the breed of sire
effects to a year 2008 base. The column labeled 6 of each table corresponds to the Across-breed
EPD Adjustment Factor for that trait. Table 4 summarizes the analysis of MILK. Tables 5, 6, and
7 summarize data from the carcass analyses (MAR, REA, FAT). Breed of sire differences and
adjustments for MAR, REA, and FAT are reported in Tables 5-7. Because of the accuracy of sire
carcass EPDs and the greatest percentage of data being added to carcass traits, sire effects and
adjustment factors are more likely to change for carcass traits in the future.

Column 5 of each table represents the best estimates of sire breed differences for calves
born in 2008 on an industry scale. These breed difference estimates are reported as progeny
differences, e.g., they represent the expected difference in progeny performance of calves sired
by average bulls (born in 2008) of two different breeds and out of dams of a third, unrelated
breed.

In each table, breed of sire differences were added to the raw mean of Angus-sired
progeny born 2006 through 2009 at USMARC (Column 4) to make these differences more
interpretable to producers on scales they are accustomed to.

Across-breed EPD Adjustment Factor Example

Adjustment factors can be applied to compare the genetic potential of sires from different
breeds. Suppose the EPD for birth weight for a Limousin bull is +0.5 (which is below the year
2008 average of 1.5 for Limousin) and for a Red Angus bull is +2.0 (which is below the year
2008 average of 0.3 for Red Angus). The across-breed adjustment factors in the last column of

75
Table 1 are 2.6 for Red Angus and 4.2 for Limousin. Then the adjusted EPD for the Limousin
bull is 4.2 + 0.5 = 4.7 and for the Red Angus bull is 2.6 + 2.0 = 4.6. The expected birth weight
difference when both are mated to another breed of cow, e.g., Angus, would be 4.7 – 4.6 = 0.1 lb.
The differences in true breeding value between two bulls with similar within-breed EPDs are
primarily due to differences in the genetic base from which those within-breed EPDs are
computed.

Birth Weight

The range in estimated breed of sire differences for BWT ranged from 0.8 lb for Red
Angus to 7.7 lb for Charolais and 12.2 lb for Brahman. Angus continued to have the lowest
estimated sire effect for birth weight (Table 1, column 5). The relatively heavy birth weights of
Brahman-sired progeny would be expected to be offset by favorable maternal effects reducing
birth weight if progeny were from Brahman or Brahman cross dams which would be an
important consideration in crossbreeding programs involving Brahman cross females. As this is
the second year in which newly sampled bulls for GPE were used in the calculation of sire breed
differences, changes in breed of sire effects were generally small, less than 1 lb for all except
Brahman and Chiangus, relative to last year’s update (Kuehn et al., 2009).

Weaning Weight
Breed effects on weaning weight remained fairly similar to Angus for most breeds—16
of the 17 sire breed differences were within 10 lb of the values in Kuehn et al. (2009). The
average Tarentaise sire breed effect was predicted 15.4 heavier than in Kuehn et al. (2009)
relative to Angus. This change was primarily due to a realized genetic trend in Tarentaise from a
new national cattle evaluation. Sire breed effects of Santa Gertrudis and Braunvieh were 8-9 lb
heavier relative to Angus as compared to last year. These changes can largely be attributed to
larger number of progeny and increased progeny comparisons to Angus- and Hereford-sired
progeny.

Yearling Weight

Santa Gertrudis and Chiangus were reported for yearling weight for the first time this
year. Most other breeds (13 of 15) differences were similar (less than 5.5 lb) relative to Angus
compared to Kuehn et al. (2009). Braunvieh and Salers both changed relative to Angus by +22.4
and -10.8 lb, respectively, primarily due to increased numbers of progeny as summarized for
yearling weight. Most breeds (all except Charolais and Simmental) were lighter than Angus as
has been typical with recent reports (Kuehn et al., 2007-2009). The genetic trend for Angus
yearling weight continues to increase (2008 average EPD 1.5 lb higher than 2009 average EPD).

Maternal Milk

The changes from last year for milk for the current base year (Table 4, column 5) were
generally small. Differences will likely be more substantial in the 2011 update due to heifers
from the most recent GPE cycle reaching calving age. The genetic trend for milk for Angus, like
that for yearling weight, has been steep relative to breeds such as Simmental and Gelbvieh. Thus

76
sire breed differences between Simmental or Gelbvieh and Angus are relatively small compared
to estimates 15 to 30 years ago.

Marbling

Marbling score was estimated to be highest in Angus (Table 5, column 5) with Shorthorn
and Red Angus being the most similar (~0.4 score units lower). Santa Gertrudis and Chiangus
were reported for the first time for marbling and other carcass traits this year. In general,
Continental breeds were estimated to be one-half to a full marbling score lower than Angus with
the exception of Salers. Progeny from Hereford sires were predicted to have the lowest marbling
score relative to other British breeds.

Ribeye Area

Continental breeds had higher ribeye area estimates relative to the British breeds (Table
6, column 5) as would be expected. The estimates of sire breed differences were similar to last
year for almost all breeds. South Devon changed relative to Angus because of an increase of the
number of sires with EPDs reported by the association.

Fat Thickness

Progeny of Continental breeds had 0.1 to 0.2 in less fat at slaughter than British breeds
(Table 7, Column 5). All other breeds were leaner than Angus. Charolais, Salers, and Simmental
were predicted to be the leanest breeds among the 12 breeds analyzed for carcass traits. Limousin
was not included in the FAT analysis because they do not report an EPD for FAT. Changes in
breed of sire effects relative to Angus were all minor compared to the previous year (Kuehn et al,
2009).

Accuracies and Variance Components

Table 8 summarizes the average Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) accuracy for bulls
with progeny at USMARC weighted appropriately by average relationship to animals with
phenotypic records. South Devon bulls had relatively small accuracy for all traits as did Hereford
and Brahman bulls. Charolais and Gelbvieh bulls had low accuracy for yearling weight and milk.
Accuracies for carcass traits, as expected, were considerably lower than accuracies for growth
traits in general. The sires sampled recently in the GPE program have generally been higher
accuracy sires, so the average accuracies should continue to increase over the next several years.

Table 9 reports the estimates of variance components from the animal models that were
used to obtain breed of sire and breed of MGS solutions. Heritability estimates for BWT, WWT,
YWT, and MILK were 0.58, 0.17, 0.46, and 0.17, respectively. Heritability estimates for MAR,
REA, and FAT were 0.42, 0.47, and 0.39, respectively.

77
Regression Coefficients

Table 10 updates the coefficients of regression of records of USMARC progeny on sire

EPD for BWT, WWT, and YWT which have theoretical expected values of 1.00. The standard
errors of the specific breed regression coefficients are large relative to the regression coefficients.
Large differences from the theoretical regressions, however, may indicate problems with genetic
evaluations, identification, or sampling. The pooled (overall) regression coefficients of 1.11 for
BWT, 0.84 for WWT, and 1.06 for YWT were used to adjust breed of sire solutions to the base
year of 2008. These regression coefficients are reasonably close to expected values of 1.0.
Deviations from 1.00 are believed to be due to scaling differences between performance of
progeny in the USMARC herd and of progeny in herds contributing to the national genetic
evaluations of the 16 breeds. Breed differences calculated from the USMARC data are divided
by these regression coefficients to put them on an industry scale. A regression greater than one
suggests that variation at USMARC is greater than the industry average, while a regression less
than one suggests that variation at USMARC is less than the industry average. Reasons for
differences in scale can be rationalized. For instance, cattle, especially steers, are fed at higher
energy rations than some seedstock animals in the industry. Also, in several recent years, calves
have been weaned earlier than 205 d at USMARC, likely reducing the variation in weaning
weight of USMARC calves relative to the industry.

The coefficients of regression for MILK are also shown in Table 10. Several sire (MGS)
breeds have regression coefficients considerably different from the theoretical expected value of
1.00 for MILK. Standard errors, however, for the regression coefficients by breed are large
except for Angus and Hereford. The pooled regression coefficient of 1.18 for MILK is
reasonably close to the expected regression coefficient of 1.00.

Regression coefficients derived from regression of USMARC steer progeny records on

sire EPD for MAR, REA, and FAT are shown in Table 11. Each of these coefficients has a
theoretical expected value of 1.00. Compared to growth trait regression coefficients, the standard
errors even on the pooled estimates are high, though they have decreased from the previous year.
Each coefficient deviates from the expected value of 1.00 more than the growth trait coefficients
with the exception of REA. Therefore, the theoretical estimate of 1.00 was used to derive breed
of sire differences and EPD adjustment factors. The pooled regression estimates would cause
USMARC differences to be larger on an industry scale for MAR and smaller on an industry scale
for FAT. These regressions will change considerably in upcoming across-breed analyses as more
data is added to the GPE program and new sires from most of these breeds are sampled.

Prediction Error Variance of Across-Breed EPD

Prediction error variances were not included in the report due to a larger number of tables
included with the addition of carcass traits. These tables did not change substantially from those
reported in previous proceedings (Kuehn et al., 2007; available online at
http://www.beefimprovement.org/proceedings.html). An updated set of tables is available on
request (Larry.Kuehn@ars.usda.gov).

78
Implications

Bulls of different breeds can be compared on a common EPD scale by adding the
appropriate across-breed adjustment factor to EPD produced in the most recent genetic
evaluations for each of the 18 breeds. The across-breed EPD are most useful to commercial
producers purchasing bulls of two or more breeds to use in systematic crossbreeding programs.
Uniformity in across-breed EPD should be emphasized for rotational crossing. Divergence in
across-breed EPD for direct weaning weight and yearling weight should be emphasized in
selection of bulls for terminal crossing. Divergence favoring lighter birth weight may be helpful
in selection of bulls for use on first calf heifers. Accuracy of across-breed EPD depends
primarily upon the accuracy of the within-breed EPD of individual bulls being compared.

References

Arnold, J. W., J. K. Bertrand, and L. L. Benyshek. 1992. Animal model for genetic evaluation of
multibreed data. J. Anim. Sci. 70:3322-3332.

Barkhouse, K. L., L. D. Van Vleck, and L. V. Cundiff. 1994. Breed comparisons for growth and
maternal traits adjusted to a 1992 base. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 26th Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting, Des Moines, IA, May, 1994. pp 197-209.

Barkhouse, K. L., L. D. Van Vleck, and L. V. Cundiff. 1995. Mixed model methods to estimate
breed comparisons for growth and maternal traits adjusted to a 1993 base. Proc. Beef
Improvement Federation 27th Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Sheridan, WY.
May 31-June 3, 1995. pp 218-239.

Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, and S. D. Kachman. 1993. A Manual for Use of
MTDFREML (DRAFT). A set of programs to obtain estimates of variances and
covariances. USDA-ARS, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay
Center, NE. (120 pp).

Cundiff, L. V. 1993. Breed comparisons adjusted to a 1991 basis using current EPD’s. Proc.
Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Asheville, NC.
May 26-29, 1993. pp 114-123.

Cundiff, L. V. 1994. Procedures for across breed EPD's. Proc. Fourth Genetic Prediction
Workshop, Beef Improvement Federation, Kansas City, MO. Jan. 1994.

Koch, R. M., L. V. Cundiff, and K. E. Gregory. 1994. Cumulative selection and genetic change
for weaning or yearling weight or for yearling weight plus muscle score in Hereford
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 72:864-885.

Kuehn, L. A., L. D. Van Vleck, R. M. Thallman, and L. V. Cundiff. 2007. Across-breed EPD
tables for the year 2007 adjusted to breed differences for birth year of 2005. Proc. Beef

79
 Improvement Federation 39th Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Fort
Collins, CO. June 6-9, 2007. pp 74-92.

Kuehn, L. A., L. D. Van Vleck, R. M. Thallman, and L. V. Cundiff. 2008. Across-breed EPD
tables for the year 2008 adjusted to breed differences for birth year of 2006. Proc. Beef
Improvement Federation 40th Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
Calgary, AB. June 30-July 3, 2008. pp 53-74.

Kuehn, L. A., L. D. Van Vleck, R. M. Thallman, and L. V. Cundiff. 2009. Across-breed EPD
tables for the year 2009 adjusted to breed differences for birth year of 2007. Proc. Beef
Improvement Federation 41th Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
Sacramento, CA. April 30-May 3, 2009. pp 160-183.

Notter, D. R., and L. V. Cundiff. 1991. Across-breed expected progeny differences: Use of
within-breed expected progeny differences to adjust breed evaluations for sire sampling
and genetic trend. J. Anim. Sci. 69:4763-4776.

Núñez-Dominguez, R., L. D. Van Vleck, and L. V. Cundiff. 1993. Breed comparisons for growth
traits adjusted for within-breed genetic trend using expected progeny differences. J.
Anim. Sci. 71:1419-1428.

Van Vleck, L. D. 1994. Prediction error variances for inter-breed EPD's. Proc. Fourth Genetic
Predication Workshop, Beef Improvement Federation, Kansas City, MO. Jan. 1994.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1994. Prediction error variances for inter-breed genetic
evaluations. J. Anim. Sci. 71:1971-1977.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1995. Assignment of risk to across-breed EPDs with tables
of variances of estimates of breed differences. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 27th
Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Sheridan, WY. May 31-June 3, 1995. pp 240-
245.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1997. Differences in breed of sire differences for weights
of male and female calves. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and
Annual Meeting, Dickinson, ND. May 14-17, 1997. pp 131-137.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1997. The across-breed EPD tables adjusted to a 1995 base.
Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
Dickinson, ND. May 14-17, 1997. pp 102-117.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1998. Across-breed EPD tables for 1998 adjusted to a 1996
base. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. July 2, 1998. pp 196-212.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1998. Influence of breed of dam on across-breed
adjustment factors. Midwestern Section ASAS and Midwest Branch ADSA 1998
Meeting, Des Moines, IA. Abstract # 10. p 31.

80
Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 1999. Across-breed EPD tables for 1999 adjusted to a 1997
base. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 31th Annual Research Symposium and Annual
Meeting, Roanoke, VA. June 15-19, 1999. pp 155-171.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2000. Across-breed EPD tables for 2000 adjusted to a 1998
base. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 32th Annual Research Symposium and Annual
Meeting, Wichita, KS. July 12-15, 2000. pp 98-116.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2001. Across-breed EPD tables for 2001 adjusted to breed
differences for birth year 1999. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 33th Annual Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX. July 11-14, 2001. pp 44-63.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2002. Across-breed EPD tables for 2002 adjusted to breed
differences for birth year of 2000. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 34th Annual
Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Omaha, NE. July 10-13, 2002. pp 139-159.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2003. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2003 adjusted
to breed differences for birth year of 2001. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 35th
Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Lexington, KY. May 28-31, 2003. pp
55-63.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2004. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2004 adjusted
to breed differences for birth year of 2002. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 36th
Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Sioux Falls, SD. May 25-28, 2004.
pp 46-61.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2005. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2005 adjusted
to breed differences for birth year of 2003. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 37th
Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Billings, MT. July 6-9, 2005. pp 126-
142.

Van Vleck, L. D., and L. V. Cundiff. 2006. Across-breed EPD tables for the year 2006 adjusted
to breed differences for birth year of 2004. Proc. Beef Improvement Federation 39th
Annual Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, Choctaw, MS. April 18-21, 2006.
Available online at: http://www.beefimprovement.org/proceedings/06proceedings/
2006-bif-vanvleck-cundiff.pdf.

Van Vleck, L. D., L. V. Cundiff, T. L. Wheeler, S. D. Shackelford, and M. Koohmaraie. 2007.

Across-breed adjustment factors for expected progeny differences for carcass traits. J.
Anim. Sci. 85:1369-1376.

Westell, R. A., R. L. Quaas, and L. D. Van Vleck. 1988. Genetic groups in an animal model. J.
Dairy Sci. 71:1310-1318.

81
Table 1. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008 base
and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – BIRTH WEIGHT (lb)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 122 1626 2.1 1.8 0.0 91.5 0.0 0.0
Hereford 127 2067 3.6 2.1 4.1 96.4 4.9 3.4
Red Angus 36 480 0.3 -1.3 -0.5 92.3 0.8 2.6
Shorthorn 42 304 2.3 1.4 6.6 98.1 6.6 6.4
South Devon 15 153 2.6 1.9 5.4 96.8 5.3 4.8
Beefmaster 25 229 0.5 1.2 7.5 97.2 5.7 7.3
Brahman 43 562 1.8 0.6 12.5 103.7 12.2 12.5
Brangus 24 225 -0.4 0.9 4.4 93.9 2.4 4.9
Santa Gertrudis 15 119 0.5 1.1 7.4 97.3 5.8 7.4
Braunvieh 21 306 -0.1 0.6 6.7 96.6 5.0 7.3
Charolais 90 911 0.6 0.3 8.6 99.3 7.7 9.3
Chiangus 14 132 1.2 2.3 6.0 95.6 4.1 5.0
Gelbvieh 63 834 1.3 1.1 4.0 95.0 3.5 4.3
Limousin 53 902 1.5 0.9 3.7 95.2 3.6 4.2
Maine Anjou 34 307 1.9 4.4 8.2 96.1 4.6 4.8
Salers 44 298 1.8 2.5 3.8 93.9 2.3 2.6
Simmental 64 870 1.2 2.1 6.1 95.8 4.3 5.2
Tarentaise 7 199 1.9 1.9 2.6 93.6 2.0 2.2
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Recent Raw Angus Mean: 91.2 lb) with b = 1.11
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

82
Table 2. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008
base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – WEANING WEIGHT (lb)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 122 1496 44.5 25.5 0.0 601.1 0.0 0.0
Hereford 125 1910 42.0 24.7 -0.2 599.1 -2.0 0.5
Red Angus 36 465 30.7 26.3 -1.3 584.9 -16.1 -2.3
Shorthorn 42 289 15.1 11.9 5.9 592.2 -8.8 20.6
South Devon 15 134 40.6 23.4 2.1 601.8 0.7 4.6
Beefmaster 25 222 8.0 16.1 26.4 605.6 4.5 41.0
Brahman 43 481 14.0 6.6 19.3 612.6 11.5 42.0
Brangus 24 217 21.0 21.6 14.3 598.5 -2.6 20.9
Santa Gertrudis 15 116 4.0 9.1 9.2 588.0 -13.0 27.5
Braunvieh 21 291 5.9 5.2 4.5 588.1 -13.0 25.6
Charolais 89 818 24.0 12.0 23.8 622.5 21.4 41.9
Chiangus 14 124 42.0 43.2 0.9 581.9 -19.2 -16.7
Gelbvieh 63 784 41.0 33.4 11.4 603.2 2.2 5.7
Limousin 53 826 42.7 26.9 2.3 600.6 -0.4 1.4
Maine Anjou 34 282 40.1 42.7 6.8 587.5 -13.6 -9.2
Salers 44 283 40.9 31.4 6.8 599.7 -1.4 2.2
Simmental 63 790 31.1 25.0 23.3 616.1 15.0 28.4
Tarentaise 7 191 16.0 -5.6 2.6 606.7 5.7 34.2
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 582.0 lb) with b = 0.84
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

83
Table 3. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008
base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – YEARLING WEIGHT (lb)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 116 1357 81.5 47.3 0.0 1020.2 0.0 0.0
Hereford 122 1763 70.0 41.6 -22.4 993.2 -27.0 -15.5
Red Angus 33 404 55.9 46.0 -7.1 989.2 -31.1 -5.5
Shorthorn 41 255 25.0 18.8 20.0 1011.1 -9.1 47.4
South Devon 15 134 76.1 50.3 -1.0 1010.9 -9.4 -4.0
Beefmaster 22 157 12.0 23.3 20.1 993.7 -26.6 42.9
Brahman 41 416 23.0 11.2 -35.3 964.4 -55.9 2.6
Brangus 21 152 41.3 38.0 12.0 1000.6 -19.6 20.6
Santa Gertrudis 13 90 6.0 11.6 -12.4 968.6 -51.6 23.9
Braunvieh 19 267 11.5 11.1 -10.0 977.0 -43.2 26.8
Charolais 84 716 42.2 22.7 27.7 1031.7 11.5 50.8
Chianina 13 89 77.0 79.2 -7.9 976.3 -43.9 -39.4
Gelbvieh 60 728 75.0 60.1 2.8 1003.5 -16.7 -10.2
Limousin 49 755 80.2 54.8 -22.7 989.9 -30.4 -29.1
Maine Anjou 31 264 78.8 85.7 14.2 992.6 -27.7 -25.0
Salers 43 254 78.1 59.2 6.8 1011.4 -8.9 -5.5
Simmental 54 678 55.7 45.4 27.9 1022.7 2.5 28.3
Tarentaise 7 189 28.6 -3.6 -29.0 990.7 -29.5 23.4
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 986.0 lb) with b = 1.06
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

84
Table 4. Breed of maternal grandsire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the
year 2008 base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – MILK (lb)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Gpr Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 104 2704 559 21.0 11.4 0.0 591.6 0.0 0.0
Hereford 108 3485 743 16.0 8.4 -24.3 569.0 -22.6 -17.6
Red Angus 21 529 119 16.5 14.1 -1.8 582.9 -8.7 -4.2
Shorthorn 26 269 74 2.3 4.9 18.8 595.3 3.7 22.4
South Devon 14 373 70 21.2 19.3 -0.1 583.8 -7.8 -8.0
Beefmaster 20 247 51 2.0 -2.1 -12.1 575.8 -15.8 3.2
Brahman 32 768 176 6.0 3.4 19.4 601.0 9.4 24.4
Brangus 19 229 43 7.2 1.9 -6.9 581.4 -10.2 3.6
Braunvieh 9 544 94 0.3 -1.0 21.9 601.9 10.2 30.9
Charolais 68 1282 260 6.6 3.8 -5.2 580.4 -11.3 3.1
Gelbvieh 47 1256 262 18.0 17.4 16.9 597.0 5.3 8.3
Limousin 40 1404 273 21.4 17.2 -11.4 576.6 -15.1 -15.5
Maine Anjou 20 533 91 20.2 24.5 12.8 588.5 -3.1 -2.3
Salers 27 364 91 19.8 23.0 13.6 590.4 -1.3 -0.1
Simmental 47 1392 267 4.4 8.1 10.1 586.9 -4.8 11.8
Tarentaise 6 367 80 0.6 5.3 19.7 594.0 2.3 22.7
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 582.0 lb) with b = 1.18
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

85
Table 5. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008
base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – MARBLING (marbling score unitsa)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differenceb To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 97 591 0.35 0.13 0.00 5.62 0.00 0.00
Hereford 115 817 0.03 -0.01 -0.47 4.97 -0.65 -0.33
Red Angus 31 117 0.06 0.15 -0.04 5.27 -0.35 -0.06
Shorthorn 38 135 -0.02 0.02 -0.20 5.15 -0.47 -0.10
South Devon 13 49 0.30 -0.02 -0.18 5.54 -0.08 -0.03
Santa Gertrudis 12 39 0.00 -0.03 -0.76 4.67 -0.95 -0.60
Braunvieh 19 130 0.01 -0.01 -0.45 4.96 -0.65 -0.31
Charolais 29 121 0.03 -0.04 -0.59 4.88 -0.74 -0.42
Chiangus 13 39 0.14 0.05 -0.56 4.93 -0.69 -0.48
Limousin 46 278 0.01 -0.08 -0.96 4.52 -1.09 -0.75
Maine Anjou 28 127 0.20 0.17 -0.84 4.59 -1.03 -0.88
Salers 38 119 0.10 -0.24 -0.57 5.17 -0.45 -0.20
Simmental 52 294 0.13 0.07 -0.61 4.85 -0.77 -0.55
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 5.40) with b = 1.00
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
4.00 = Sl00, 5.00 = Sm00
b
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

86
Table 6. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008
base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – RIBEYE AREA (in2)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 97 592 0.18 0.03 0.00 12.58 0.00 0.00
Hereford 115 817 0.20 -0.05 -0.22 12.46 -0.12 -0.14
Red Angus 31 117 0.06 -0.16 -0.26 12.40 -0.18 -0.06
Shorthorn 38 135 0.06 -0.01 0.16 12.66 0.08 0.20
South Devon 13 49 0.21 0.22 0.29 12.72 0.14 0.11
Santa Gertrudis 12 40 0.00 -0.03 -0.36 12.10 -0.48 -0.30
Braunvieh 19 130 0.01 0.00 0.86 13.30 0.72 0.89
Charolais 29 122 0.18 0.09 0.81 13.33 0.75 0.75
Chiangus 13 40 -0.08 0.05 0.61 12.92 0.34 0.60
Limousin 47 279 0.37 0.27 1.29 13.82 1.24 1.05
Maine Anjou 28 127 0.16 0.10 1.12 13.62 1.04 1.06
Salers 38 120 0.02 0.02 0.79 13.22 0.64 0.80
Simmental 52 295 0.11 -0.05 0.86 13.45 0.87 0.94
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 12.43 in2) with b = 1.00
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

87
Table 7. Breed of sire solutions from USMARC, mean breed and USMARC EPD used to adjust for genetic trend to the year 2008
base and factors to adjust within breed EPD to an Angus equivalent – FAT THICKNESS (in)
Ave. Base EPD Breed Soln BY 2008 BY 2008 Factor to
Number Breed USMARC at USMARC Sire Breed Sire Breed adjust EPD
AI Direct 2008 Bulls (vs Ang) Average Differencea To Angus
Breed Sires Progeny (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Angus 97 592 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.538 0.000 0.000
Hereford 115 817 0.002 -0.003 -0.054 0.477 -0.061 -0.050
Red Angus 31 117 0.000 -0.009 -0.061 0.474 -0.064 -0.051
Shorthorn 38 135 -0.014 0.016 -0.144 0.353 -0.185 -0.158
South Devon 13 49 0.010 0.009 -0.111 0.417 -0.121 -0.118
Santa Gertrudis 12 40 0.000 0.002 -0.137 0.388 -0.150 -0.137
Braunvieh 19 130 0.001 -0.013 -0.180 0.361 -0.177 -0.165
Charolais 29 122 0.001 -0.002 -0.236 0.293 -0.245 -0.233
Chiangus 13 40 0.020 0.008 -0.149 0.390 -0.148 -0.155
Maine Anjou 28 127 0.000 -0.005 -0.215 0.317 -0.221 -0.208
Salers 38 120 0.000 -0.007 -0.222 0.312 -0.227 -0.214
Simmental 52 295 0.010 0.010 -0.216 0.311 -0.227 -0.224
Calculations:
(4) = (3) / b + [(1) – (2)] + (Raw Angus Mean: 0.527 in) with b = 1.00
(5) = (4) – (4, Angus)
(6) = (5) – (5, Angus) – [(1) – (1, Angus)]
a
The breed difference estimates represent half the differences that would be expected between purebreds of the two breeds.

88
Table 8. Mean weighteda accuracies for birth weight (BWT), weaning weight (WWT), yearling
weight (YWT), maternal weaning weight (MWWT), milk (MILK), marbling (MAR), ribeye area
(REA), and fat thickness (FAT) for bulls used at USMARC
Breed BWT WWT YWT MILK MAR REA FAT

Angus 0.77 0.74 0.68 0.66 0.48 0.47 0.45

Hereford 0.62 0.58 0.58 0.52 0.22 0.36 0.26
Red Angus 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.70 0.68 0.58
Shorthorn 0.80 0.78 0.72 0.74 0.59 0.57 0.49
South Devon 0.37 0.41 0.37 0.44 0.02 0.05 0.04
Beefmaster 0.84 0.88 0.84 0.73
Brahman 0.64 0.65 0.58 0.55
Brangus 0.83 0.81 0.70 0.73
Santa Gertrudis 0.87 0.84 0.77 0.33 0.52 0.46
Braunvieh 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.79 0.44 0.30 0.46
Charolais 0.77 0.71 0.61 0.62 0.47 0.50 0.44
Chiangus 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.48 0.48 0.53
Gelbvieh 0.80 0.75 0.60 0.59
Limousin 0.92 0.89 0.83 0.85 0.72 0.72
Maine Anjou 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.39 0.39 0.39
Salers 0.83 0.83 0.76 0.83 0.20 0.26 0.28
Simmental 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.79 0.79 0.79
Tarentaise 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94
a
Weighted by relationship to phenotyped animals at USMARC for BWT, WWT, YWT, MAR,
REA, and FAT and by relationship to daughters with phenotyped progeny MILK.

89
 Table 9. Estimates of variance components (lb2) for birth weight (BWT), weaning weight
(WWT), yearling weight (YWT), maternal weaning weight (MWWT), marbling (MAR),
ribeye area (REA), and fat thickness (FAT) from mixed model analyses

Direct
Analysis BWT WWTa YWT
Direct
Animal within breed (19) 70.29 446.48 3606.15
Maternal genetic within breed (17) 450.53
Maternal permanent environment 676.35
Residual 50.50 1206.21 4157.08

Carcass Direct MAR REA FAT

Animal within breed (12) 0.239 0.633 0.0095
Residual 0.332 0.711 0.0151
a 2
Direct maternal covariance for weaning weight was -89.44 lb

90
Table 10. Pooled and within-breed regression coefficients (lb/lb) for weights at birth (BWT), 205
days (WWT), and 365 days (YWT) of F1 progeny and for calf weights (205 d) of F1 dams
(MILK) on sire expected progeny difference and by sire breed
BWT WWT YWT MILK
Pooled 1.11 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.04 1.06 ± 0.05 1.18 ± 0.09

Sire breed

Angus 0.98 ± 0.10 0.77 ± 0.08 1.21 ± 0.08 1.12 ± 0.16

Hereford 1.16 ± 0.07 0.76 ± 0.05 1.03 ± 0.06 1.11 ± 0.16
Red Angus 0.85 ± 0.14 0.78 ± 0.22 0.72 ± 0.25 1.85 ± 0.40
Shorthorn 0.78 ± 0.29 0.67 ± 0.25 0.89 ± 0.31 0.88 ± 0.95
South Devon -0.25 ± 0.63 0.03 ± 0.56 -0.01 ± 0.47 -0.31 ± 1.57
Beefmaster 1.98 ± 0.50 1.16 ± 0.31 0.99 ± 0.47 3.86 ± 0.70
Brahman 2.22 ± 0.23 1.00 ± 0.21 1.12 ± 0.24 0.64 ± 0.57
Brangus 1.85 ± 0.36 0.59 ± 0.39 0.95 ± 0.44 0.59 ± 0.74
Santa Gertrudis 5.83 ± 1.71 1.00 ± 0.44 -0.16 ± 0.48
Braunvieh 0.86 ± 0.31 1.23 ± 0.36 1.30 ± 0.40 2.72 ± 1.31
Charolais 1.08 ± 0.13 0.91 ± 0.12 0.71 ± 0.13 1.09 ± 0.31
Chiangus 1.70 ± 0.42 0.76 ± 0.37 0.25 ± 0.53
Gelbvieh 0.96 ± 0.15 0.89 ± 0.17 1.06 ± 0.18 0.99 ± 0.50
Limousin 0.83 ± 0.11 0.94 ± 0.11 1.14 ± 0.13 1.65 ± 0.30
Maine Anjou 1.78 ± 0.31 0.47 ± 0.30 0.74 ± 0.37 0.88 ± 0.55
Salers 0.98 ± 0.28 0.81 ± 0.33 0.52 ± 0.33 1.90 ± 0.56
Simmental 1.21 ± 0.17 1.56 ± 0.15 1.40 ± 0.15 0.82 ± 0.44
Tarentaise 1.49 ± 1.35 0.70 ± 0.60 1.49 ± 0.82 1.01 ± 0.93

91
Table 11. Pooled and within-breed regression coefficients marbling (MAR; score/score),
ribeye area (REA; in2/in2), and fat thickness (FAT; in/in) of F1 progeny on sire expected
progeny difference and by sire breed
MAR REA FAT
Pooled 0.70 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.09 1.27 ± 0.11
Sire breed
Angus 0.96 ± 0.12 1.09 ± 0.22 1.46 ± 0.19
Hereford 0.63 ± 0.21 0.48 ± 0.17 1.00 ± 0.21
Red Angus 1.03 ± 0.24 1.81 ± 0.37 2.06 ± 0.69
Shorthorn 1.64 ± 0.38 0.51 ± 0.73 2.35 ± 0.62
South Devon 0.10 ± 0.91 1.21 ± 4.12 1.63 ± 5.29
Santa Gertrudis -1.43 ± 1.79 1.03 ± 0.73 1.41 ± 0.78

Braunvieh 3.68 ± 1.71 0.53 ± 0.87 0.09 ± 0.38

Charolais 1.17 ± 0.37 1.30 ± 0.40 1.80 ± 0.83

Chiangus 0.75 ± 0.36 -0.85 ± 0.79 -0.04 ± 1.42

Limousin 1.15 ± 0.45 1.43 ± 0.22

Maine Anjou 1.26 ± 1.46 -1.01 ± 0.85 2.59 ± 1.37

Salers 0.05 ± 0.14 3.64 ± 1.01 -0.38 ± 0.96

Simmental 0.42 ± 0.19 0.66 ± 0.20 2.08 ± 0.49

92
 MEAN EPDs REPORTED BY DIFFERENT BREEDS

Larry A. Kuehn and R. Mark Thallman

Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, USDA-ARS,
Clay Center, NE 68933

Expected progeny differences (EPDs) have been the primary tool for genetic
improvement of beef cattle for over 35 years beginning with evaluations of growth traits. Since
that time EPDs have been added for several other production traits such as calving ease,
stayability, and carcass merit and conformation. Most recently, several breed associations have
derived economic indices from their EPDs to increase profit under different management and
breeding systems.

It is useful for producers to compare the EPDs of potential breeding animals with their
breed average. The current EPDs from the most recent genetic evaluations of 23 breeds are
presented in this report. Mean EPDs for growth traits are shown in Table 1 (23 breeds), for other
production traits in Table 2 (14 breeds), and for carcass and composition traits in Table 3 (19
breeds). Several breeds also have EPDs that are unique to their breed; these EPDs are presented
in Table 4.

Average EPDs should only be used to determine the genetic merit of an animal relative to
its breed average. To compare animals of different breeds, across breed adjustment factors
should be added to animals’ EPDs for their respective breeds (see Across-breed EPD Tables
reported by Kuehn et al. in these proceedings).

This list is likely incomplete; evaluations for some breeds are not widely reported. If you
see a breed missing and would like to report the average EPDs for that breed, please contact
Larry (Larry.Kuehn@ars.usda.gov) or Mark (Mark.Thallman@ars.usda.gov).

93
Table 1. Birth year 2008 average EPDs from 2010 evaluations for growth traits
Birth Weaning Yearling Maternal Total
Breed Weight (lb) Weight (lb) Weight (lb) Milk (lb) Maternal (lb)

Angus 2.1 44.5 81.5 21

Hereford 3.6 42 70 16 37
Murray Grey 3.2 19 29 3 13
Red Angus 0.3 30.7 55.9 16.5
Shorthorn 2.3 15.1 25 2.3 9.9
South Devon 2.6 40.6 76.1 21.2 42

Beefmaster 0.5 8 12 2 6
Braford 1.2 8 13 3 7
Brahman 1.8 14 23 6
Brangus -0.4 21 41.3 7.2 17.8
Red Brangus 1.5 12.5 19.9 5.5 11.8
Santa Gertrudis 0.5 4.0 6.0 0.0 2.0
Senepol 1.1 9.0 13.4 4.1 8.5
Simbrah 2.7 26.8 43.5 2.6 16

Braunvieh -0.14 5.9 11.5 0.3 0.6

Charolais 0.6 24 42.2 6.6 18.6
Chianina 1.2 42 77 9.5 30.5
Gelbvieh 1.3 41 75 18 38
Limousin 1.5 42.7 80.2 21.4
Maine-Anjou 1.9 40.1 78.8 20.2 40.2
Salers 1.8 40.9 78.1 19.8
Simmental 1.2 31.1 55.7 4.4 20.0
Tarentaise 1.9 16 28.6 0.6

94
Table 2. Birth year 2008 average EPDs from 2010 evaluations for other production traits
Scrotal
Calving Ease Calving Ease Circumference Docility Stayability
Breed Direct (%) Maternal (%) (cm) Score (%)

Murray Grey -0.7 -0.3 0.10

Angus 5 6 0.40
Hereford 0.1 0.7 0.6
Red Angus 5.4 3.4 9.3
Shorthorn -1.7 -1.5
South Devon 0.1

Beefmaster 0.10
Brangus 0.69

Charolais 2.6 3.5 0.58

Gelbvieh 105 104 0.4 4
Limousin 7.7 3.3 0.4 15.3 17.3
Salers 0.2 0.2 0.3 7.9 22.9
Simmental 6.9 2.6 17.6
Tarentaise -1.2 0.6

95
Table 3. Birth year 2008 average EPDs from 2010 evaluations for carcass and composition traits
Retail Carcass Ultrasound
Carcass Product Yield Marbling Ribeye Fat Thick- Ribeye Fat Thick- WBSF
2 2
Breed Wt (lb) (%) Grade Score Area (in ) ness (in) IMF (%) Area (in ) ness (in) (lb)

Angus 12.0 0.345 0.18 0.013

Hereford 0.03 0.20 0.002
Red Angus 0.06 0.06 -0.000a
Shorthorn 5.07 -0.016 0.055 -0.014
South Devon 25.1 0.8 0.3 0.21 0.01

Beefmaster 0.000 0.04 0.000

Braford 4.6 0.002 0.040 0.001
Brahman 5.1 0.01 -0.01 0.05 -0.002 0.0
Brangus 0.026b 0.36b -0.001b
Santa Gertrudis 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Simbrah -7.4 0.05 -0.01 -0.17 0.01 -0.05

Braunvieh 1.1 0.01 0.01 0.001

Charolais 13.7 0.03 0.18 0.001
Chianina 3.0 -0.20 0.14 -0.08 0.02
Gelbvieh 8.3c -0.03c 0.10c
Limousin 20.0 -0.02 0.01 0.37
Maine-Anjou 0.2 0.29 0.20 0.16 0.00
Salers 20.4 0.0 0.1 0.02 0.00
Simmental -2.7 -0.01 0.13 0.11 0.01 -0.17
a
Calculated using only actual carcass data (no ultrasound data); all other carcass scale evaluations for Red Angus use a multi-trait
model
b
Reported on an ultrasound scale but calculated using ultrasound and carcass data in a multi-trait model
c
Adjusted to a fat-constant endpoint

96
Table 4. Birth year 2008 average EPDs from 2010 evaluations for other traits unique to individual breeds
Cow Weaned
Mature Mature Yearling Energy Calf Feedlot Grid Beef
Angus Weight (lb) Height (in) Height (in) Value ($) Value ($) Value ($) Value ($) Value ($)
30 0.4 0.4 2.16 24.83 23.66 22.14 41.29

Baldy Brahman Influence Certified Hereford Calving Ease

Maternal Index ($) Beef Index ($) Index ($)
Hereford Index ($)
15 14 18 14

Heifer Pregnancy Mature Cow Maintenance

Red Angus (%) (Mcal/mo)
9.3 4.0

Gelbvieh Feedlot Carcass Gestation Days to

Merit ($) Value ($) Length (d) Finish (d)
8.82 6.74 -1.4 3.5

Limousin Mainstream Terminal

Index ($)
44.4

Simmental All Purpose Terminal Simbrah All Purpose Terminal

Index ($) Index ($) Index ($) Index ($)
101.4 61.2 70 45

97
 VALUE OF DNA MARKER INFORMATION FOR BEEF BULL SELECTION1

A.L. Van Eenennaam

University of California, Davis, CA, 95616

INTRODUCTION

There is clear value associated with using DNA information to identify animals that are
carriers of recessive alleles. Tests are now available for specific genetic defects, color, and
horned/polled status. Prior to the advent of DNA tests, the only way to test if a bull was a carrier
of a genetic defect was to do progeny testing. Even then, definitive conclusions could only be
drawn if he sired an afflicted calf. DNA-marker technology can also be used to verify or assign
parentage, and this has value in terms of pedigree integrity or assigning paternity to calves
conceived in multi-sire breeding pastures. Recently, a range of genetic tests have been developed
to test for production traits ranging from fertility and longevity to growth and carcass merit. A
question that often arises in conversations with producers is “What is the value of these tests?”

The answer to that question depends on what the tests are being used for. Some breeders
are testing animals and listing the results as an additional source of information in sale catalogs.
If this adds value, increasing the animal’s sale price beyond the cost of the test, then this makes
economic sense. Other people are using tests to make culling or selection decisions on traits that
are not currently in breed EPDs (e.g. feed efficiency or tenderness). Working out whether this
pays is a little more complicated. While these traits have obvious value, without more
information, it is not possible to decide how much emphasis should be placed on these traits
versus other important traits. For example, should you eliminate animals from your herd based
solely on a poor feed efficiency DNA test result? That depends on how accurate the test is at
predicting superior versus inferior animals. The more accurate a test is, the more opportunity
there is to accelerate genetic improvement. It also depends on the importance of feed efficiency
versus all the other traits contributing to your overall profitability. One way to make this decision
is to develop a “selection index” that weights all traits on their relative economic importance.
Indexes consider the "input" or expense side of selection decisions and enable cattle producers to
make balanced selection decisions, taking into account the economically-relevant growth,
carcass and fertility attributes of each animal to identify which animals are the most profitable
for their particular commercial enterprise.

From the perspective of a seedstock breeder, the response to selection and therefore the
value associated with the use of a DNA test is dependent upon how much the DNA information
improves the accuracy of genetic evaluations at the time of selection, and the value of a unit of
1
Based on a paper authored by Van Eenennaam*, A. L., J.H.J. van der Werf,† and M.E.
Goddard‡,§ entitled “Value of DNA information for beef bull selection”, given at 9th World
Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany. August 1-6, 2010.
*University of California, Davis, CA, 95616 †University of New England, Armidale, Australia,
2351 ‡Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Bundoora, Australia, 3086 §University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, 3054

98
genetic improvement. To determine the value of DNA testing I recently did a simulation study
with a hypothetical multi-trait DNA test and asked “What is the value of DNA tests to increase
the accuracy of beef bull selection in the seedstock sector?”

Structure of the seedstock herd. A simple two-tier industry example was modeled where the
seedstock breeder was incurring the costs of DNA testing to improve the accuracy of bull
selection. In this example the seedstock tier consisted of a closed nucleus of 600 breeding
females (Table 1). It was assumed that in the absence of DNA test information, breeding value
estimates on young, untested bulls were informed by their own performance records on selection
criteria (Table 2) along with those of their sire, dam and 20 paternal-half sibs. Each year the top
8 bulls were selected to be stud sires, and 125 (remaining bulls from the top half of the calf crop)
were made available for sale to commercial producers. Commercial sires were then used to sire
four calf crops at a mating ratio of 25 females: 1 male (i.e. they were exposed to a total of 100
cows if they were in the herd for 4 breeding seasons).

Parameters Value
Number of live stud calves available for
0.89
sale/selection per exposure
Stud cow:bull ratio 30
Number of stud cows 600
Number of bulls calves available for sale/selection 267
Number of stud bulls selected each year 8 (~3%; i = 2.27)
Number of bulls sold for breeding (annual) 125 (~50%; i = 0.8)
Cull for age threshold of cow 10
Age structure of breeding cow herd (2-10 yr) 0.2, 0.18, 0.17,0.15, 0.12, 0.09, 0.05, 0.03, 0.01
Bull survival (annual) 0.8
Age structure of bulls in stud herd (2-4 yr) 0.41, 0.33, 0.26
Age structure of bulls in commercial herd (2-5 yr) 0.34, 0.27, 0.22, 0.17
Planning horizon 20 years
Discount rate for returns 7%
Maximum age of commercial sire 5 (4 breeding seasons)
Commercial cow:bull ratio 25
Number of commercial females 9225
Table 1. Attributes of the modeled seedstock and commercial herd structure.

99
Breeding objectives and index accuracy.
Breeding objectives were developed for both maternal (self-replacing) and terminal herds
targeting either the domestic Australian market where steers are finished on pasture (GRASS), or
a high value market where steers are finished on concentrate rations in feedlots and marbling has
a high value (FEEDLOT). The proportion of trait genetic
variation explained by the DNA test (r2) was set to the h2 of
ALL selection criteria (Table 2). Selection index theory was
used to predict index accuracy. Discounted gene flow
methodology was used to calculate the value derived from
the use of superior bulls. These values were then compared to
selection based on performance recording alone as a baseline.
It was assumed that all of the bulls in the annual cohort were
DNA tested to enable selection of the best 3% as stud sires,
and 50% as sale bulls. The extra cost of using DNA testing
was assumed to be only the cost of the test, and resulting
benefits were expressed on a per DNA test basis.

Table 2. Selection criteria available from performance recording, and heritabilities (h2).
Results and discussion.

Table 3. Improvement in selection response (%) resulting from a DNA-test enabled

increases in index accuracy as compared to performance recording alone, value of genetic
gain (ΔG) in commercial and stud sires, and value derived per DNA test used to increase
the accuracy of male selection in a closed seedstock breeding program.

100
 DNA test information was combined with performance records to increase the accuracy
of EPDs. This increased selection response 20-41% over that obtained with performance
recording alone, depending upon the index (Table 3). Because DNA information is particularly
useful to improve genetic predictions for traits that cannot be measured on juvenile individuals,
the DNA-enabled selection response was highest for the maternal feedlot index, because the
delayed measurement of maternal and carcass traits means that these traits are hard to improve
based on phenotypic measurement The value of DNA-tests to enable more accurate selection of
genetically-superior commercial bulls ranged from AU$61-135 for commercial bulls, and
AU$3,631-6,359 for stud bulls. Assuming that the entire bull calf crop (n = 267) was tested and
that the top 3% (n=8) bulls were selected as stud sires, and the remaining top half of the bulls
(n=125) were sold as commercial sires, the breakeven value of the genetic gain derived from
DNA testing ranged from AU$143-258 per test.

It is important to understand that these values assumed commercial producers were

willing to pay a price premium for genetically-superior bulls, and some form of industry vertical
integration or profit sharing between sectors such that benefits realized by downstream sectors
(e.g. feedlot, processor) of the beef cattle supply chain were efficiently transferred back to the
seedstock producer incurring the expense of DNA testing. The value of DNA tests to increase
the accuracy of selection criteria to improve traits of direct value to commercial cattle enterprises
(e.g. maternal traits like cow weaning rate or mature cow weight) would be less than that
calculated for the total industry merit indexes modeled in this study. For example, 69% of the
returns from including DNA data in commercial sire selection for the terminal feedlot index were
derived from improved dressing %, saleable meat %, and marbling score; traits that generate to
the processing sector.

These results were based on using a relatively powerful hypothetical DNA test panel that
predicted ALL of the selection traits with relatively high accuracies2. The accuracy of DNA-
based predictions of breeding value is dependent on trait heritability and the size of the training
set used to develop the test. A DNA test like the one modeled in this simulation study might be
expected if it was developed using a relatively large (~2,500 animals) genotyped training
population.

The values obtained in this study assumed that the commercial bull:cow ratio was 1:25. A
20% increase in this ratio (i.e. increasing it from 1:25 to 1:30) would increase the values in Table
3 by 20%. A major determinant of seedstock profitability is the proportion of young bulls that
can be sold for breeding, and eliminating half of possible sale bulls from contention based on
DNA testing may be unrealistic. Some seedstock breeders may only be interested in using DNA
information to improve the accuracy of replacement stud sire selection for their own herd, and

2
Note that the term accuracy here is referring to the genetic correlation (r) between the test result
and the true breeding value, not the “BIF” accuracy.

101
not to additionally select the better half of the commercial bulls for sale as was modelled in this
study.

If a breeder instead chose to sell all physically-sound bull calves, the value associated
with testing commercial sire candidates would disappear. However, it would increase the value
of replacement stud bulls due to the larger number of marketable descendants each stud bull
would produce. For example, selling 80% of the bull crop as commercial sires, assuming 20%
were culled for non-genetic reasons, would increase the value of a stud bull selected based on
performance records for the terminal feedlot market from $14,579 to $24,143. If the DNA
information from the hypothetical test modeled in this study was additionally used to select those
replacement stud bulls, the value derived from each stud bull selected would also increase ~ 66%
to $30,157. The value per DNA test in this case would depend upon what proportion of the bull
crop was tested to select replacement stud bulls. If the seedstock operator continued to test 100%
of the bull calves, this value would be ~ $180/test.

Until recently, commercialized DNA tests for beef cattle targeted only a handful of traits
(e.g. marbling score, tenderness and feed efficiency). As DNA testing becomes more
comprehensive and encompasses a larger number of traits, it will become increasingly important
to integrate this information into national cattle evaluations. The incorporation of this DNA test
information into carcass trait evaluations by the American Angus Association
(www.angus.org/AGI/GenomicEnhancedEPDs.pdf) represents an important milestone in the
application of DNA testing in beef cattle. It is difficult to make optimal selection decisions or
even estimate the value of these multi-trait DNA tests in the absence of information on their
accuracy, and the incorporation of DNA test results and target traits into genetic evaluations.
However these developments will require the availability of additional genotyped, phenotyped
populations to obtain the required genetic parameter estimates. Further, breeds may need to
develop their own populations that are distinct from the original discovery populations to
develop breed-specific estimates of the genetic parameters that will be required for the inclusion
of DNA information into genetic evaluations. Although DNA information clearly has the
potential to provide value to seedstock producers, making optimal use of this information will
likely require the concurrent development of multi-trait selection indexes for breeding objectives
of relevance to U.S. beef production systems.

102
USE OF BOVINE SNP50 DATA FOR FEED EFFICIENCY SELECTION DECISIONS IN
ANGUS CATTLE

Megan M. Rolf*, Jeremy F. Taylor *, Robert D. Schnabel*, Stephanie D. McKay*, Matthew C.

McClure*, Sally L. Northcutt§, Monty S. Kerley* and Robert L. Weaber*
*
Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
§
American Angus Association, St. Joseph, MO 64506, USA

Abstract

The past few years have led to a rapid increase in the use of molecular genetic technologies in
the beef industry. With any new technological advance, the methods for implementation must be
characterized and tested in populations of beef cattle. Recently, large panels of single nucleotide
polymorphism (SNP) markers have become available and a multitude of animals have been
genotyped. The best use of these data will likely be in the form of genomic selection, where the
marker information is incorporated into the current system of genetic prediction and EPDs
(expected progeny differences) will continue to be reported by the breed associations. Genomic
selection methods will be exceptionally valuable for traits that are difficult and expensive to
measure (such as residual feed intake, or RFI) or that are measured late in life (such as
longevity/stayability). One method to utilize information from reduced marker panels is to
utilize genomic relationship matrices (GRMs) in place of traditional pedigree-derived
relationship matrices in genetic evaluation. Traditional pedigree derived matrices (numerator
relationship matrices, NRM) contain a number for each pair of animals describing the average
proportion of DNA two animals share identical by descent, or their “relatedness”. The data in a
GRM may more accurately reflect the kinship between two animals because it is calculated
directly from genomic data. This method is particularly useful for animals that have missing
pedigree data, such as in populations of commercial cattle. We used a GRM to test genomic
selection for feed efficiency traits, quantified the number of markers needed to calculate a GRM,
performed a genome scan for regions influencing feed efficiency and tested model predicted feed
intakes against individual feed intake data in a commercial Angus cattle population.

Introduction

The beef industry has made enormous strides in improving genetic merit for
economically relevant traits (ERTs) such as calving ease, growth and carcass quality over the last
several decades. Much of this improvement has been made possible by the availability of EPDs
published by almost every purebred beef breed association (Crews, 2005), which are based on
best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) methods outlined by Henderson (1975). Most of these
ERTs focus on outputs from the production system. However, production inputs, such as feed
inputs, can have a significant influence on profitability and these traits have remained essentially
unselected.

Feed efficiency is a trait with enormous economic importance, but selection for
efficiency has remained elusive due to the difficulty and expense of gathering phenotypic data
(Archer et al., 1997). In the past, increased growth rate has been selected for in the beef industry
because growth and efficiency are correlated (Koch et al., 1963). Because of the correlated

103
selection response, selection for increased growth rates can result in unintended consequences
like increases in mature size and increased maintenance requirements in the cowherd (Archer et
al., 1999; Okine et al., 2004).

Model predicted feed intakes from programs such as the Cornell Value Discovery System
(CVDS; Guiroy et al., 2001) and the Decision Evaluator for the Cattle Industry (DECI; Williams
et al., 2003a,b) have the potential to increase the number of feed efficiency observations
produced on progeny of registered animals. These models are designed to predict the differences
in intake for cattle that are fed in pens by allocating the total feed fed to the entire pen to
individual animals based on their performance for traits related to growth and carcass
composition. A study by Williams et al. (2006) showed high phenotypic (0.947-0.933) and
genetic (0.97-0.99) correlations between CVDS and DECI predicted dry matter required
(pDMR) values, so only the CVDS model was used in our study. These model predicted intakes
have the potential to serve as an indicator trait for feed efficiency, much the same way that
ultrasound data are indicator traits for carcass quality and yield. Indicator traits such as these do
not necessarily impact revenue or risk themselves, but are easier and more cost effective to
record and are genetically correlated with the ERT of interest (Crews, 2005). As more records
are obtained on an indicator or causal trait, it will become more effective to incorporate these
data into genetic evaluation systems in the beef industry.

Since the first national genetic evaluation in 1974 (Willham, 1993), the beef industry has
been collecting phenotypes and incorporating them into genetic evaluation systems. The
incorporation of feed intake data into genetic evaluation has the potential to dramatically
influence selection on maintenance efficiency and genomic selection has the potential to make
the most of limited data for genetic prediction on a large number of animals using either large
marker panels (such as the 50K or 800K chips) or smaller panels of markers associated with
ERTs. Genomic selection is the ability to (theoretically) select for desirable alleles at all genes
in the genome that influence a trait by using markers spread throughout the entire genome. This
approach has several significant advantages over marker assisted selection. It explains a larger
portion of the genetic variance than a single marker, provides an easy, familiar interface (EPDs)
and the danger suggested by Spangler et al. (2007) whereby producers select only for a few
markers and disregard EPDs is entirely avoided.

Feed Intake Data

Individual feed intake records were collected for average daily feed intake (AFI), residual
feed intake (RFI) and average daily gain (ADG) on 862 commercial Angus steers born between
1998 and 2005 at either the Circle A Ranch (Iberia, Stockton and Huntsville, MO) and research
farms participating in the MFA Inc. feeding trials (Thompson and Greenley, MO). Intake data
were collected using Calan gates (Circle A Ranch steers) or GrowSafe feeding systems (MFA
steers, fed at the University of Missouri) and live weights were taken three times (beginning,
mid-test and final) during the course of the feeding trial. DNA was available for genotyping and
analysis on 698 of the steers as no blood was collected during the first year of the trial.
Cryopreserved semen units were obtained on 1,721 Angus AI sires born between 1956 and 2003
that were used in artificial insemination (AI) within the United States. These animals included
the sires of the steer calves and their male ancestors. Complete 62-generation pedigrees were
provided by the American Angus Association. Half-sib family sizes derived from sire

104
information ranged from 1 to 81 progeny. Due to the fact that this is a population of commercial
animals, dams were unregistered and available pedigree information was determined to be
unreliable based on attempts to phase chromosomes and infer missing genotypes. As not all
maternal grandsires had been genotyped, correct parentage could not be assigned. This
population structure is suitable for testing methods of genomic selection on commercial
populations.

Data Acquisition

Residual feed intake was calculated as the difference between observed and expected feed intake
( ), which was predicted from the regression of average daily feed intake (AFI) on ADG and
metabolic midweight (MMW: mid-weight0.75) as follows:

RFI = AFI –

= b0 + b1ADG + b2MW0.75

Weights were taken at three different times during the feeding trial (first day of the test, mid-test
and end of test). These cattle were commercially owned and the specific ration composition is
unknown, however all of the animals within a feeding group were fed the same ration. RFI was
calculated individually for each feeding group and the mean R2 value for the regression models
was 0.49.

Genotypes were acquired using the Illumina BovineSNP50 assay and were screened for
Mendelian inheritance to verify the accuracy of the sire pedigrees. Genotypes for nine sires were
found to be inconsistent with their paternal pedigree and an additional two animals were split
embryos (identical twins), so these animals were removed from the dataset. Quality control was
performed for genotypes so that the minor allele frequency (MAF) was ≥0.05 and call rate was
>95%. Quality control constraints resulted in 41,028 SNPs being retained for analysis on 698
steers and 1,707 AI sires. Missing genotypes (0.58%) were imputed using fastPHASE (Scheet
and Stephens, 2006) with Btau4.0 positions.

Additive Effects Analysis

A numerator relationship matrix (NRM) was generated using pedigree information on

862 Angus steers, their dams (where available) and 34,864 identified parental ancestors.
Variance components, breeding values and residuals were estimated using an animal model in
the multiple trait derivative free restricted maximum likelihood (MTDFREML; Boldman et al.,
1995) program. Convergence for models using a NRM was assumed when the variance of the -
2*log-likelihood was <1x10-12. The model fit feeding pen as a fixed effect (year and season of
birth were nested within pen, so only one effect was included) and breeding values and residuals
were assumed to be uncorrelated.

105
Genomic Relationship Matrix

The method of calculating a genomic relationship matrix (GRM) used in this analysis
was proposed by VanRaden (2008). It is a regression method that uses a fraction of the
population with complete and accurate pedigree data (in the form of a NRM on those
individuals) to calibrate the allele sharing to the expected value of the relationship matrix, in this
case, E[G]=A. In this dataset, the NRM was generated on 1,707 Angus AI sires with complete
and accurate pedigree data. Complete genotypes for 698 Angus steers and 1,707 AI sires were
assembled into a 2,405 x 41,028 genotype matrix (M) with animals in rows and SNPs in
columns. The elements in M are -1, 0 and 1 for AA, AB and BB genotypes, respectively. The
GRM was calibrated by finding the regression of the upper triangular elements of MM’ on the
corresponding elements of A for the 1,707 AI sires only. The estimated slope and intercept were
used to calibrate the GRM for all 2,405 animals as:

Estimates of these parameters were 9,731.9±0.65 and 15,198±7.26 for g0 and g1, respectively.
The mean molecular inbreeding coefficient over all animals was 0.079. We estimated variance
components, fixed effects, breeding values and residuals using restricted maximum likelihood
under an animal model where the NRM was replaced by the GRM. Convergence was assumed
on models including the GRM when heritability estimates had converged from above and below
to three significant figures.

Variance component estimates and heritabilities are shown in Table 1. Estimated

breeding values (EBVs) and residuals were retained for further analysis. The estimated
heritabilities (AFI 0.14; RFI 0.14; ADG 0.09) reported here were much lower than literature
estimates (AFI 0.45; RFI 0.39; ADG 0.28; MacNeil et al., 1991; Arthur et al., 2001) and standard
errors were fairly high, possibly due to sampling effects resulting from the small number of
animals used in this study. The mean accuracy for all 2,405 animals was 0.32 for AFI and RFI,
while the mean accuracy for ADG was 0.23. Mean accuracies for steers (NRM 0-0.46 vs GRM
0.36-0.43) and sires of steers (NRM 0-0.45 vs 0.37-0.44) indicate that similar accuracies were
achieved when using either the NRM or GRM in this dataset, however the GRM accuracy was
achieved given an approximately 20% loss in phenotypic data. This is most likely the result of
the ability of the GRM to extract information from the genotypes related to the identity by
descent information among the steers due to the relationships among their dams, which was
missing in the NRM analysis. Accuracies for the GRM analyses were lower than those
previously reported for genomic selection (Hayes et al., 2009; VanRaden et al., 2009; VanRaden,
2008; Schaeffer, 2006; Meuwissen et al., 2001), presumably due to the small number of animals
with phenotypic observations and the lower heritabilities estimated in this study. Even though
there are limitations within this dataset, it would be possible to combine datasets from other
Angus research populations in an effort to increase the heritability estimates and obtain more
accurate EBVs.

106
Marker Panel Subsets

MATLAB (The Mathworks, Natick, MA) was used to test the number of markers
necessary to precisely estimate the GRM using the approach outlined above. Subsets of n
markers were randomly sampled with replacement (see Figure 1) from the full set of 41,028
markers. This approach ensures full representation of the entire genome within the marker
subsets. For each of the 50 replicates (i=1,…,50) for each subset of n markers, a GRM (Gni) was
estimated using the regression approach proposed by VanRaden (2008). Correlations were
estimated between the upper triangular elements of Gni and G (the full GRM estimated from all
available SNPs) for all 2,405 animals and between Gni and A for all 1,707 AI sires and averages
were produced across replicates. Mean correlation of the NRM and the full GRM was
approximately 0.86 when considering the 1,707 Angus AI sires. The mean correlation of the full
GRM and the Gni exceeded 0.86 when between 1,000 and 2,500 markers were utilized for the
calculation of the GRM. Minimal increases in the correlation coefficients were seen when
greater than 10,000 SNPS were included in the calculation of the GRM, which is illustrated in
Figure 1. Tables containing the complete correlation results for this analysis can be found in
Rolf et al. (2010).

It is likely that smaller panels of 384 or 1,536 markers will be utilized in the beef industry
until genotyping costs decrease to more affordable levels for most producers. Consequently, we
performed 200 bootstrap replicates of 384 or 1,536 randomly sampled SNPs from the full set of
41,028 markers. Minimum, mean and maximum correlations between the bootstrap samples and
the full GRM were 0.60, 0.65 and 0.68 and 0.85, 0.87 and 0.88 for 384 SNP and 1,536 SNP
panels, respectively. The mean correlation using 1,536 randomly sampled markers met the mean
correlation between the NRM and full GRM, indicating that in the absence of pedigree data in
commercial herds, a GRM constructed from a panel of 1,536 SNPs may be a viable alternative to
calculate EBVs for genetic selection. One potential caveat of this approach is that the panels
used in the beef industry will not be randomly sampled SNPs, but rather panels of SNPs that are
associated with various economically relevant traits. The efficacy of this approach will depend
on the distribution of linkage disequilibrium among the markers and the minor allele frequencies.

Genome-Wide Association Analysis

Estimated breeding values (EBVs) and residuals obtained previously from mixed model
estimation with a GRM were utilized for genome-wide association analysis (GWAS). Traits
(RFI, AFI and ADG) were analyzed on 698 animals as either EBVs or phenotypes (EBV +
residual). The same SNP set was utilized for the GWAS analysis and included 41,028 SNP with
an average MAF of 0.28 and an average spacing of 65.73±68.45 kb for the 39,484 autosomal and
487 X chromosome loci. SNP that mapped to unassigned contigs (ChrUn; n=1,057) were also
included in the analysis.

Multiple hypothesis testing is always an issue when performing GWAS studies, so a

permutation analysis (Churchill and Doerge, 1994) was performed to obtain a genome-wide
significance threshold of 0.05 to control the rate of type I error in this study. The permutation
analysis consisted of 10,000 dependent variable permutations per trait accompanied by a GWAS
on the permuted dependent variable to determine the largest F-statistics obtained by chance with
the data provided.

107
 The GWAS was performed using custom code developed and implemented in MATLAB
(MathWorks, Natik, MA) and was comprised of three steps. The first step consisted of
individual one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for each SNP, trait and dataset.
Analyses using EBVs were weighted by their corresponding accuracies and fitted additive effects
only and analyses utilizing phenotypes fit either additive effects alone or additive and dominance
effects simultaneously. Genotypes were coded 1, 0 or -1 for additive effects and 0, 1 or 0 for
dominance values, corresponding to AA, AB and BB genotypes, respectively. The second step
included all SNPs that met or exceeded the pre-determined genome-wide significance threshold
previously described. These SNPs were included in a forward-selection analysis which was
performed on a chromosome-by chromosome basis. The SNP with the highest F-statistic was
sequentially added to the ANOVA model for each chromosome until no more SNPs could be
added that met or exceeded the significance threshold. All of the SNPs selected in the
chromosome-by-chromosome analysis were then combined into a final model to estimate the
amount of variance explained by the selected SNPs in the third step.

GWAS utilizing phenotypes and modeling only additive effects yielded either few or zero
SNPs in the final analysis models for all traits. Because of this, modeling both additive and
nonadditive effects explained a larger portion of the phenotypic variance (AFI, 49.802%; RFI,
25.494%; ADG, 27.093%). As a result, any further discussion of results will pertain only to
EBV analyses or analyses of phenotypes including both additive and dominance effects.
Analysis of steer EBVs yielded a larger number of SNPs in the final model for RFI and ADG.
The markers included into the final analysis for all three traits explained a fairly large portion of
the additive genetic variance; however, because of the reduced power of this dataset, the amount
of phenotypic variance explained was less than optimal. To facilitate comparison of results
between phenotype and EBV analyses, Figure 2 shows a side-by-side comparison of the regions
of the genome detected for AFI from the analysis of both steer EBVs (presented in panel A) and
phenotypes (presented in panel B).

The number of SNPs included in the final analyses and the concordance between
different traits in the analysis can be found in Tables 2 (EBV) and 3 (phenotypes).
SNPs were considered concordant if they fell within the range of ±0.5 Mb of the position of the
selected SNP to better account for the linkage disequilibrium in cattle populations (McKay et al.,
2007) as well as selection of SNPs that are pleiotropic or closely linked and could show
correlated responses with one another when used in selection. Of particular interest is the
percentage of SNPs that were included in the final model for one trait, but also above the
significance threshold (forward selected) for another trait. The concordance of SNPs between
traits was fairly consistent with the magnitude of expected genetic correlations between traits.
Interestingly, there was a slight concordance between AFI and RFI, evidenced by the fact that in
the EBV analysis approximately 13% of SNPs included in the RFI model were forward selected
for ADG and 16% of SNPs in the ADG final model were forward selected in the RFI analysis.
Similar results were also observed in the phenotypic analysis, but of a smaller magnitude. This
suggests that despite the phenotypic independence between RFI and ADG, genetic independence
is not guaranteed between these two traits, as suggested by Kennedy et al. (1993). A high
concordance was observed between AFI and ADG in the EBV analysis (30% of SNPs in the AFI
model and 20% of SNPs in the ADG model), which was expected based on the moderate genetic
correlation between these two traits. It appears to be possible to identify QTL for feed intake
which are independent of ADG in this dataset. Selection on only these QTL would theoretically

108
allow genetic improvement for feed efficiency without a problematic correlated response in the
growth rate of the growing animal or in mature size in the cowherd.

Pathway Analysis

Even with appropriate consideration for multiple hypothesis testing, it is possible to

select spurious SNPs in GWAS analyses. Many previous studies of feed efficiency in beef cattle
have used linkage analysis resulting in large confidence intervals, or the SNP positions were not
reported. Due to the lack of ability to accurately compare results from previous studies with
those achieved in this study, a pathway analysis was conducted. The purpose of the pathway
analysis is to have a form of independent validation of the GWAS results. If regions of the
genome are identified that perform functions related to growth and metabolism, then it is likely
that a real association has been discovered. Due to the larger number of annotations of human
genes, we mapped human annotations to the bovine genome using the UCSC genome browser.
Because of the limited range of LD in beef cattle (McKay et al., 2007), we identified regions of
interest surrounding the SNPs using a 1 Mb window (SNP position±0.5 Mb). Genes within these
regions were identified in the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery
(DAVID; Huang et al., 2009, Dennis et al., 2003) and queried against the KEGG Pathway
Database (Kanehisa et al., 2010, 2006; Kanehisa and Goto, 2000). Results from the KEGG
database were summarized into global pathways and their corresponding sub-categories using
the KEGG Atlas. A summary of the KEGG pathway analysis findings is provided in Table 4.
The analysis was most successful utilizing those traits with the highest heritabilities (AFI and
RFI), suggesting that in well-powered studies with large numbers of animals and large SNP lists,
pathway analysis is very useful. Many of the regions detected in the GWAS appear to harbor
genes which are involved in growth or metabolic functions (69% AFI and 85% RFI as a
percentage of the total number of identified pathways).

Model-Predicted Feed Intakes

The Cornell Value Discovery System (CVDS) was used to predict the dry matter required
(pDMR) for the 862 (698 with DNA) Angus steers used in this study using a growth and
maintenance model. No ration information was available, so animals were all assumed to have
eaten a diet with an equivalent composition and nutrient density. Pen feed intakes were obtained
by pooling the average individual feed intakes of each animal within the pen. Sex, growth
promotant implant status, date on test, carcass data (ribeye muscle area, yield grade, hot carcass
weight, fat thickness and marbling score) and weight data were input into CVDS and were used
to specify growth and maintenance model parameters and account for composition of gain in the
calculation of pDMR. The phenotypic correlation between pDMR and AFI was 0.78 (p<0.0001)
in this dataset, which is consistent with that reported by Williams et al. (0.784; 2006).

Breeding values and residuals were estimated for pDMR on all animals using the
previously outlined procedure. Variance components for pDMR were 0.1648 and 4.0933 for
additive and phenotypic variance, respectively. Heritability was 0.04, which was lower than
literature estimates, but consistent with the rest of the traits.

The largest concordance between SNPs in the final model for pDMR and SNPs forward
selected in the other analyzed traits was found between pDMR and ADG (EBV 73%, phenotypes

109
77%). This result was expected given the dependence of pDMR on growth data. SNPs in the
final model for pDMR also showed concordance with SNPs forward selected for AFI (EBV
21%, phenotypes 22%) and RFI (EBV 15%, phenotypes 7%). These results indicate that while
there may be significant overlap between pDMR and ADG, the moderate concordance of these
predicted measurements with AFI and RFI merit further exploration of this trait as an indicator
trait in genetic selection procedures.

Conclusions

These data on commercial Angus steers were useful for implementing a method of
genomic selection for feed efficiency, not only in the 698 steers with observations, but also for
generation of EBVs with moderate accuracies on 1,707 of the most widely used Angus AI sires
in the United States. We suggest that studies utilizing GRM for producing breeding value
estimates utilize at least 1,500 SNPs and preferably, 10,000 SNPs per animal. Inclusion of
additional SNPs into the calculation of the GRM yielded only marginal improvement over a
GRM calculated with 10K SNPs.

A large number of SNPs have been identified in these analyses which could be included
in commercial marker panels for use in Angus cattle for selection on feed efficiency traits.
These models account for large amounts of genetic (AFI 54%, RFI 62%, ADG 54% and pDMR
56%) or phenotypic (AFI 49%, RFI 25%, ADG 27% and pDMR 30%) variation in these
populations. The estimates of the variance explained and the SNP effects are biased due to
population sampling, as the SNPs most strongly associated in this population may not be
representative of the Angus breed as a whole. A pathway analysis was the first step towards
validation of these SNP associations; however these studies should be repeated and compared
using an independent population of animals to produce an unbiased estimate of the amount of
genetic variation explained by these SNPs in feed efficiency traits.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first work to examine the use of a predicted feed
efficiency phenotype in a genome wide association analysis to compare model predictions to
observed phenotypic records in beef cattle. Additional comparisons of pDMR with results using
actual feed intake data, gain and RFI in studies with larger numbers of animals and larger
heritabilities will be essential to further explore the use of these data for genetic evaluation and
selection decisions in commercial beef cattle populations.

110
Table 1:  Descriptive statistics and estimated variance components for NRM and GRM analyses of three 
feed efficiency traits (adapted from Rolf et al., 2010). 
 
Traita N Mean Min Max Var σ σ h2

AFI 862 11.0326 6.0599 15.2116 3.0323 0.1436 0.7786 0.16

RFI 862 0.0026 -3.3386 4.9952 0.7626 0.1147 0.4364 0.21

ADG 862 1.5363 0.0231 2.3443 0.1077 0.000002 0.552 0.00

AFI 698b 10.8943 6.0599 15.2116 3.1608 0.1404 0.8680 0.14

RFI 698b -0.0201 -3.3412 4.9952 0.8255 0.0849 0.5286 0.14

ADG 698b 1.5175 0.0231 2.2941 0.1105 0.0053 0.0528 0.09

a
Average daily feed intake, AFI; residual feed intake, RFI; and average daily gain, ADG; all
measured in units of kg/d.
b
DNA samples were available on only 698 of the 862 phenotyped steers. Variance
components for these three analyses were estimated using the GRM.
 
 
 
 
Table 2:  Number of SNPs included in the final models or above the significance threshold (Forward 
Selected) for GWAS analysis of feed efficiency EBVs.  Numbers to the right are the number and 
percentage of SNPs in the final model for the trait in the row that were above the significance threshold 
for the trait in the column. 
 
Forward Selected
No. in No. Fwd
AFI RFI ADG
Model Selected
37 a 16 a
AFI 53 178 -
69.81% 30.19%
35 a 9a
RFI 66 281 -
53.03% 13.64%
14a 11a
ADG 68 274 -
20.59% 16.18%
 

111
 
Table 3:  Number of SNPs included in the final models or above the significance threshold (Forward 
Selected) for GWAS analysis of feed efficiency phenotypes.  Numbers to the right are the number and 
percentage of SNPs in the final model for the trait in the row that were above the significance threshold 
for the trait in the column. 
 
Forward Selected
No.
No. in
Fwd AFI RFI ADG
Model
Selected
11a 3a
AFI 65 83 -
16.92% 4.62%
10a 1a
RFI 18 21 -
55.56% 5.56%
3a 3a
ADG 24 33 -
12.50% 12.50%
 

112
 
Table 4:  Results from DAVID and KEGG Atlas for pathway analyses. 
a
Number of Pathways/No Genes  
Global 
Sub Category  AFI  AFI  RFI  RFI  ADG  ADG  pDMR  pDMR 
Pathway  b b b b b b b b
EBV   Phen   EBV   Phen   EBV   Phen   EBV   Phen  
*
Carbohydrate Metabolism           1/1    2/2   
*
Energy Metabolism               1/1   
*
Lipid Metabolism     3/9  4/4  2/8         
*
Nucleotide Metabolism   2/2               
*
Amino Acid Metabolism   1/1    4/5           
Metabolism of Other 
*     2/2           
Metabolism  Amino Acids  
Glycan Biosynthesis and 
*     3/3    2/4    4/4   
Metabolism  
Metabolism of Cofactors 
*   1/1             
and Vitamins  
Biosynthesis of Secondary 
*   2/4  2/2  2/4         
Metabolites  
Xenobiotics Biodegradation 
*   1/4  3/3  1/4         
and Metabolism  
Genetic  Translation  1/1               
Information  Folding, Sorting and 
Processing  * 2/3               
Degradation  
*
Environmenta Signal Transduction   1/2  6/12  2/4  4/5  3/3    4/4   
l Information  Signaling Molecules and 
Processing  *   1/5      1/3    1/3   
Interaction  
*
Transport and Catabolism       1/1           
Cell Motility      1/2    1/1       
*
Cell Growth and Death   1/1  1/4  1/1  1/1         
Cellular  Cell Communication    3/5  4/7  1/1      1/8   
Processes  Endocrine System  
*
  4/6  4/5  2/2      2/2   
Immune System  1/1  5/9  3/3  1/1    1/1    1/1 
Nervous System    1/2  2/3    1/1    1/1   
*
Development     1/1    1/1         
*
Cancers   1/1  5/8  5/5  4/4         
Neurodegenerative 
Human    3/5    1/1  2/3       
Diseases 
Diseases  *
Metabolic Disorders     2/6  1/1           
Infectious Diseases      1/1        2/2   

113
Figure  1:    Correlation  between  the  Gni  estimated  from  bootstrap  samples  of  reduced  marker  panels 
versus  the  full  GRM  calculated  with  all  markers  available  (n=41,028).    The  red  line  indicates  the 
correlation  between  relationship  coefficients  between  full  and  reduced  marker  sets  for  all  2,405 
animals.    The  blue  line  indicates  the  correlation  between  relationship  coefficients  between  reduced 
marker sets and the NRM for all 1,707 AI sires (adapted from Rolf et al., 2010).   
 

Figure 2:  Concordance between EBV and phenotype analyses for AFI. 

114
Literature Cited

Archer, J. A., P. F. Arthur, R. M. Herd, P. F. Parnell and W.S. Pitchford. 1997. Optimum
postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in
British breed cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2024-32.

Archer, J.A., E. C. Richardson, R. M. Herd and P. F. Arthur. 1999. Potential for selection to
improve efficiency of feed use in beef cattle: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 50:147-61.

Arthur, P.F., J. A. Archer, D. J. Johnston, R. M. Herd, E. C. Richardson and P. F. Parnell. 2001.

Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake, feed
efficiency and other postweaning traits in Angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2805-11.

Boldman, K. G., L. A. Kriese, L. D. Van Vleck, C. P. Van Tassell and S. D. Kachman. 1995. A
manual for use of MTDFREML. A set of programs to obtain estimates of variance and
covariance. USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Clay Center, NE.

Churchill, G.A. and R. W. Doerge. 1994. Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait
mapping. Genetics 138:963-71.

Crews, D.H., Jr. 2005. Genetics of efficient feed utilization and national cattle evaluation: A
review. Genet. Mol. Res. 4:152-65.

Dennis, G., Jr., B. T. Sherman, D. A. Hosack, J. Yang, W. Gao, H. C. Lane and R. A. Lempicki.
2003. DAVID: Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery.
Genome Biol. 4(5):P3.

Guiroy, P.J., D. G. Fox, L. O. Tedeschi, M. J. Baker and M. D. Cravey. 2001. Predicting

individual feed requirements of cattle fed in groups. J. Anim. Sci. 79:1983-95.

Hayes, B.J., P. J. Bowman, A. J. Chamberlain and M. E. Goddard. 2009. Invited Review:

Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J. Dairy Sci. 92:433-43.

Henderson, C. R. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.
Biometrics 31:423-47.

Kanehisa, M., S. Goto, M. Furumichi, M. Tanabe and M. Hirakawa. 2010. KEGG for
representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs. Nucl.
Acids Res. 38:D355-D360.

Kanehisa, M., S. Goto, M. Hattori, K. F. Aoki-Kinoshita, M. Itoh, S. Kawashima, T. Katayama,

M. Araki and M. Hirakawa. 2006. From genomics to chemical genomics: New
developments in KEGG. Nucl. Acids Res. 34:D354-D357.

115
Kanehisa, M., and S. Goto. 2000. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucl.
Acids Res. 28:27-30.

Huang, D. W., B. T. Sherman and R. A. Lempicki. 2009. Systematic and integrative analysis of
large gene lists using DAVID Bioinformatics Resources. Nat. Protoc. 4(1):44-57.

Kennedy, B. W., J. H. van der Werf and T. H. Meuwissen. 1993. Genetic and statistical
properties of residual feed intake. J. Anim. Sci. 71:3239-50.

Koch, R. M., L. A. Swiger, D. Chambers and K. E. Gregory. 1963. Efficiency of feed use in
beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 22:486-94.

MacNeil, M. D., D. R. Bailey, J. J. Urick, R. P. Gilbert and W. L. Reynolds. 1991. Heritabilities

and genetic correlations for postweaning growth and feed intake of beef bulls and steers.
J. Anim. Sci. 69:3183-9.

McKay, S. D., R. D. Schnabel, B. Murdoch, L. K. Matukumalli, J. Aerts, W. Coppieters, D. H.

Crews, Jr., E. D. Neto, C. A. Gill, C. Gao, H. Mannen, P. Stothard, Z. Wang, C. P. Van
Tassell, J. L. Williams, J. F. Taylor and S. S. Moore. 2007. Whole genome linkage
disequilibrium maps in cattle. BMC Genet. 8:74-85.

Meuwissen, T. H., B. J. Hayes and M. E. Goddard. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using
genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819-29.

Okine, E. K., J. Basarab, L. A. Goonewardene and P. Mir. 2004. Residual feed intake and feed
efficiency: Difference and implications. In: Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, pp.
27-38.

Rolf, M. M., J. F. Taylor, R. D. Schnabel, S. D. McKay, M. C. McClure, S. L. Northcutt, M. S.

Kerley and R. L. Weaber. 2010. Impact of reduced marker set estimation of genomic
relationship matrices on genomic selection for feed efficiency in Angus cattle. BMC
Genet. 11:24.

Schaeffer, L.R. 2006. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J. Anim.
Brdg. Genet. 123:218-23.

Scheet P and M. Stephens. 2006. A Fast and Flexible Statistical Model for Large-Scale
Population Genotype Data: Applications to Inferring Missing Genotypes and Haplotypic
Phase. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 78:629-644.

Spangler, M.L., J. K. Bertrand and R. Rekaya. 2007. Combining genetic test information and
correlated phenotypic records for breeding value estimation. J. Anim. Sci. 85:641-649.

VanRaden, P. M. 2008. Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions. J. Dairy Sci.

91:4414-23.

116
VanRaden, P. M., C. P. Van Tassell, G. R. Wiggans, T. S. Sonstegard, R. D. Schnabel, J. F.
Taylor and F. S. Schenkel. 2009. Invited Review: Reliability of genomic predictions for
North American Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 92:16-24.

Williams, C.B., G. L. Bennett, T. G. Jenkins, L. V. Cundiff and C. L. Ferrell. 2006. Using

simulation models to predict feed intake: Phenotypic and genetic relationships between
observed and predicted values in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 84:1310-6.

Williams, C.B. and T. G. Jenkins. 2003a. A dynamic model of metabolizable energy utilization
in growing and mature cattle. I. metabolizable energy utilization for maintenance and
support metabolism. J. Anim. Sci. 81:1371-81. 103

Williams, C.B. and T. G. Jenkins. 2003b. A dynamic model of metabolizable energy utilization
in growing and mature cattle. II. metabolizable energy utilization for gain. J. Anim. Sci.
81:1382-9.

Willham, R. L. 1993. Ideas into action: A celebration of the first 25 years of the beef
improvement federation. University Printing Services, Oklahoma State University,
Stillwater, OK.

117
 FRANK H. BAKER
Born: May 2, 1923, Stroud, Oklahoma
Died: February 15, 1993, Little Rock, Arkansas

Dr. Frank Baker is widely recognized as the

“Founding Father” of the Beef Improvement
Federation (BIF). Frank played a key leadership
role in helping establish BIF in 1968, while he
was Animal Science Department Chairman at the
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 1966-74. The
Frank Baker Memorial Scholarship Award Essay
competition for graduate students provides an
opportunity to recognize outstanding student
research and competitive writing in honor of Dr.
Baker.

Frank H. Baker was born May 2, 1923, at

Frank H. Baker
photograph of portrait in Saddle and Sirloin Club
Gallery – Everett Raymond Kinstler, Artist
veterans agriculture instructor in Oklahoma, Frank returned to OSU to complete his M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in Animal Nutrition.
Stroud, Oklahoma, and was reared on a farm in
northeastern Oklahoma. He received his B.S.
degree, with distinction, in Animal Husbandry
from Oklahoma State University (OSU) in 1947,
after 2½ years of military service with the US
Army as a paratrooper in Europe, for which he
was awarded the Purple Heart. After serving
three years as county extension agent and

Frank’s professional positions included teaching and research positions at Kansas

State University, 1953-55; the University of Kentucky, 1955-58; Extension Livestock
Specialist at OSU, 1958-62; and Extension Animal Science Programs Coordinator,
USDA, Washington, D.C., 1962-66. Frank left Nebraska in 1974 to become Dean of
Agriculture at Oklahoma State University, a position he held until 1979, when he began
service as International Agricultural Programs Officer and Professor of Animal Science
at OSU. Frank joined Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, in 1981, as Senior
Program Officer and Director of the International Stockmen’s School, where he remained
until his retirement.

Frank served on advisory committees for Angus, Hereford, and Polled Hereford
beef breed associations, the National Cattlemen’s Association, Performance Registry
International, and the Livestock Conservation, Inc. His service and leadership to the
American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) included many committees, election as
vice-president and as president, 1973-74. Frank was elected an ASAS Honorary Fellow

118
in 1977, he was a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
and served the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) as president
in 1979.

Frank Baker received many awards in his career, crowned by having his portrait
hung in the Saddle and Sirloin Club Gallery at the International Livestock Exposition,
Louisville, Kentucky, on November 16, 1986. His ability as a statesman and diplomat for
the livestock industry was to use his vision to call forth the collective best from all those
around him. Frank was a “mover and shaker” who was skillful in turning “Ideas into
Action” in the beef cattle performance movement. His unique leadership abilities earned
him great respect among breeders and scientists alike. Frank died February 15, 1993, in
Little Rock, Arkansas.

119
 BIF Past Recipients of the Frank Baker Memorial Scholarship Award

Kelly W. Bruns Michigan State University .............................................1994

William Herring University of Georgia ....................................................1994
D. H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Louisiana State University ............................................1995
Dan Moser University of Georgia ....................................................1995
D. H. “Denny” Crews, Jr. Louisiana State University ............................................1996
Lowell S. Gould University of Nebraska..................................................1996
Rebecca K. Splan University of Nebraska..................................................1997
Robert Williams University of Georgia ....................................................1997
Patrick Doyle Colorado State University .............................................1998
Shannon M. Schafer Cornell University .........................................................1998
Janice M. Rumph University of Nebraska..................................................1999
Bruce C. Shanks Montana State University ..............................................1999
Paul L. Charteris Colorado State University .............................................2000
Katherine A. Donoghue University of Georgia ....................................................2000
Khathutshelo A. Nephawe University of Nebraska..................................................2001
Janice M. Rumph University of Nebraska..................................................2001
Katherina A. Donoghue University of Georgia ....................................................2002
Khathutshelo A. Nephawe University of Nebraska..................................................2002
Fernando F. Cardoso Michigan State University .............................................2003
Charles Andrew McPeake Michigan State University .............................................2003
Reynold Bergen University of Guelph .....................................................2004
Angel Rios-Utrera University of Nebraska..................................................2004
Matthew A. Cleveland Colorado State University .............................................2005
David P. Kirschten Cornell University .........................................................2005
Amy Kelley Montana State University ..............................................2006
Jamie L. Williams Colorado State University .............................................2006
Gabriela C. Márquez Betz Colorado State University .............................................2007
Yuri Regis Montanholi University of Guelph .....................................................2007
Devori W. Beckman Iowa State University ....................................................2008
Kasey L. DeAtley New Mexico State University .......................................2008
Scott Speidel Colorado State University .............................................2009
Lance Leachman Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ......2009

120
 INCREASING BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY
THROUGH SELECTION IN FEED UTILIZATION

Kent Gray

North Carolina State University

Introduction

Beef production is a business and like all businesses it is the relationship between the
cost of inputs and value of outputs which determine profitability. Decreasing the cost of
inputs while maintaining the value of outputs can increase profitability. Approximately 60 –
65% of overall production costs can be attributed to maintaining the cow herd, and about
80% of genetic change within a beef herd can be attributed to bull selection. Therefore, if one
could identify bulls which will produce daughters that optimize efficiency of feed utilization
then profitability would be expected to increase. Recent studies performed by Arthur et al.
(2001) showed that genetic variation exists in feed efficiency of beef cattle signifying that
selection for feed efficiency can be successful.

Different methods have been proposed to measure feed efficiency among livestock
species. The two most common methods to measure feed utilization include gross efficiency
or its inverse FCR and residual feed intake (RFI). Residual feed intake (RFI) was first
proposed by Koch et al (1963) which is defined as the difference between predicted DMI and
observed DMI. Predicting DMI can be accomplished by using NRC prediction equations
based on predicted energy requirements given body weight, gain and energy available in the
diet (Fan et al., 1995). Another method of predicting DMI uses a multivariable regression
approach adjusting for factors associated with energy for maintenance and energy for growth.
The most common adjustment factors are ADG, weight and body composition in growing
cattle.

All measures of efficiency currently require collection of individual DMI. This is

labor intensive and expensive. Our objective is to identify both genetic and phenotypic
relationships that may exist among the three main measures of feed utilization and
phenotypic correlations of feed utilization that may exist among other economic traits. This
can provide evidence for an indirect method for selection of feed efficiency or identify how
selection may affect other traits.

Literature Review

Measures of Energy

All feeds have some amount of energy that contributes to the maintenance
requirement for energy. In order to determine actual value of a ration, energy lost due to
excretion of feces, urine, heat, and gases should be subtracted from the total energy available.
(Maynard and Loosli, 1969). Digestible energy (DE) is a measure of energy in which fecal

121
energy is subtracted from the net energy. Ruminants that are fed a high forage diet will lose
most of their energy through defecation (Maynard and Loosli, 1969). This makes DE highly
useful when comparing feeds due to its ease to measure. Digestibility is available for most
feed commonly fed to cattle and sheep. Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) is calculated by
multiplying a constant to DE and is used in a similar manner as DE (Maynard and Loosli,
1969). The drawback in using this measure of energy is that it ignores some other important
energy losses that occur during digestion and metabolism of food (Maynard and Loosli,
1969).

Metabolizable energy (ME) is defined as energy provided by a feedstuff after fecal

energy (FE), urinary energy (UE), and gaseous energy (GE) is subtracted from gross energy
available (Maynard and Loosli, 1969). This measurement of energy provides more accurate
information on the amount of energy that is available for the animal use but is hard to
measure (NRC, 1996). It is difficult and expensive to collect gaseous energy that is lost
(Maynard and Loosli, 1969).

Net energy (NE) represents the fraction of gross energy that is actually utilized. This
energy is defined as the sum of FE, UE, GE, and heat loss subtracted from gross energy. Net
energy can be broken up into two portions, NE for gain (NEg) and NE for maintenance
(NEm) (NRC, 1996). Some processes comprised in NEm include body temperature
regulation, essential metabolic processes and physical activity (Maynard and Loosli, 1969).
Mathematical models have been developed to estimate these energy components so
experiments can be accomplished in a more industry-like environment (NRC, 1996).

Variations in energy requirements for maintenance exist among sex, age, season,
temperature, physiological state, previous nutrition and genotype (NRC, 1996). Recognizing
which sires produce progeny with a superior genotype, requiring less NEm, per unit of
mature body weight will decrease production costs through increased efficiency.

The methods of measuring feed that have been discussed all assume that animals are
in some type of penned off area. This is highly unrealistic when determining feed intake on
cows within the breeding herd. These cows are most likely on a high forage grazing diet.
Other methods have been developed for this type of feeding regimen. Some common
methods for measuring feed intake in grazing animals include the pulse-dose marker method,
the animal performance method, and the herbage disappearance method (Macoon et al.,
2003).

Feed intake can be estimated by calculating total organic matter intake based on fecal
output and diet digestibility. Fecal output is estimated by using a pulse-dose marker such as
chromium-mordanted fiber. By collecting fecal grabs at different times after the initial dose,
marker concentrations can be analyzed and fit onto a recommended model (Macoon et al.,
2003). An issue with using this technique for measuring feed intake is that it is a
measurement that explains intake for a short period of time that must be extrapolated over a
longer grazing period. It is unlikely that an animal will consistently eat in the same manner
over the whole grazing period. Thus, this method of calculating feed intake may have
substantial error (Macoon et al., 2003).

122
 Herbage disappearance method of calculating feed intake is found by determining the
difference in pre-grazing and post-grazing herbage mass (Macoon et al., 2003). This method
seems to be the most logical but can be very labor intensive. One must measure the height of
the grass and estimate how much grass was consumed. By determining nutritional content of
the forage consumed net energy of the forage the animal has access to can be established.
One advantage this method has is that it can, account for different pastures and pasture
conditions. It is labor intensive, however and chance for measurement error increases
significantly. Cattle are also herd animals and this method requires that animals be singled
off, which may cause undo stress affecting feeding behavior. It is difficult to be confident
that the animal would consume the same amount as normal.

The final method for determining feed intake is by estimating the energy
requirements of the animal, called the animal performance method. By using prediction
equations found in the NRC (2000) requirements, maintenance can be calculated for
lactation, body weight changes, walking and grazing activity (Macoon et al., 2003). Parity is
also taken into account (Macoon et al., 2003). The main drawback of using this method is the
assumption that all animals are similar in physiology and use the same amount of energy for
the same activities. This is highly unlikely, it is probable that there are significant
physiological differences among animals and this is the very issue that is in question.

When comparing the three methods used to predict feed intake in grazing animals we
find that animal performance and herbage disappearance methods are correlated insinuating
that they are measuring the same trait (Macoon et al., 2003). The pulse-marker method is not
correlated with the other two methods, and thus, that method may be measuring something
else (Macoon et al., 2003).

Each method of measuring feed intake, whether it is on growing animals or mature

grazing animals, has its advantages and disadvantages which should be considered when
using each system. The method used in a project is mostly influenced by resources available.
By knowing the method used, results collected can more accurately be interpreted.
Test duration for post weaning animals

Methods to measure and calculate feed efficiency take time. The amount of time
needed when measuring feed efficiency in post weaning animals using the Growsafe®
system for ADG, DMI, FCR, and RFI are 63, 35, 42 and 63 days respectfully (Wang et al.,
2006) when weight is measured weekly. Recommended test durations given in other sources
for ADG are 112d (Brown et al., 1991), 84d (Liu and Makarechian, 1993a, b; Swiger and
Hazel, 1961), and 70d (Archer et al., 1997). These recommended test durations are probably
longer because weight was not measured weekly and the mode of collecting feed intake data
was different. One must also remember that this time period does not take into account the
time it takes for the animals to acclimate to the equipment used. A period of 84d should be
sufficient for the acclimation and test period combined.

123
 Feed Efficiency as a Trait

Feed Conversion Ratio or Gross Efficiency

The most common method described in the literature when calculating feed efficiency
is gross efficiency or its inverse feed conversion ratio (FCR). This efficiency measurement
can be measured either in a certain time interval, weight interval, maturity interval, or
subcutaneous fat interval. It is then calculated by either dividing the interval of interest by
amount of feed consumed (gross efficiency) or by inverting the ratio (FCR).

Feed conversion ratio is found to be highly correlated with growth rate estimated
values range from -.61 to -.95 (Arthur et al., 2001; Klosterman, 1972; Nkrumah et al., 2004).
Improving herd efficiency through decreasing FCR of growing cattle can actually be
detrimental to whole herd productivity. It has been shown that FCR is a function of rate of
maturation (Salmon et al., 1990). This type of selection will increase mature size of the
breeding animals which in turn increases maintenance feed costs. This does not mean that
realized economic efficiencies of the slaughter generation cannot supersede those costs
therefore making the herd as a whole more economically efficient; however, it is unlikely
that this would be the case. It has been shown that when mature size is increased that
reproductive rates decrease and age of puberty occurs at a later date. This all makes an
increase in mature body size which contributes little to the feed efficiency of a herd. One
must keep in mind that feed efficiency of the herd encompasses all aspects of a beef
production system (Dickerson, 1978; Fitzhugh, 1978).
Feed Conversion Ratio or Gross Efficiency

The most common method described in the literature when calculating feed efficiency
is gross efficiency or its inverse feed conversion ratio (FCR). This efficiency measurement
can be measured either in a certain time interval, weight interval, maturity interval, or
subcutaneous fat interval. It is then calculated by either dividing the interval of interest by
amount of feed consumed (gross efficiency) or by inverting the ratio (FCR).

Feed conversion ratio is found to be highly correlated with growth rate estimated
values range from -.61 to -.95 (Arthur et al., 2001; Klosterman, 1972; Nkrumah et al., 2004).
Improving herd efficiency through decreasing FCR of growing cattle can actually be
detrimental to whole herd productivity. It has been shown that FCR is a function of rate of
maturation (Salmon et al., 1990). This type of selection will increase mature size of the
breeding animals which in turn increases maintenance feed costs. This does not mean that
realized economic efficiencies of the slaughter generation cannot supersede those costs
therefore making the herd as a whole more economically efficient; however, it is unlikely
that this would be the case. It has been shown that when mature size is increased that
reproductive rates decrease and age of puberty occurs at a later date. This all makes an
increase in mature body size which contributes little to the feed efficiency of a herd. One
must keep in mind that feed efficiency of the herd encompasses all aspects of a beef
production system (Dickerson, 1978; Fitzhugh, 1978).

124
 Feed conversion ratio (FCR) as a measurement of efficiency is beneficial for
operations that are centered on growing cattle such as feedlot production systems, or breeds
that are used primarily for producing terminal sires. These types of cattle operations mainly
acquire revenue through increased weight at slaughter. Improvement of FCR when used as an
efficiency measurement increases size while intake remains constant (Nkrumah et al., 2004)
which will increase profits.

Maintenance Efficiency

Maintenance efficiency is another method in which feed efficiency can be calculated.

This method is defined as the feed required for an animal to gain no weight yet have enough
energy to allow for all body components to receive the nourishment it needs to function
properly (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1985). An alternative definition that is sometimes used is ratio
of body weight to feed intake when there is no change in body weight (Ferrell and Jenkins,
1985).

It is estimated that 70 - 75% of the total energy that is required in beef production is
allocated to maintaining the herd (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1984). Of that maintenance energy the
cow herd uses approximately 65 – 75% of it (Ferrell and Jenkins, 1985; Gregory, 1972;
Klosterman, 1972; Montano-Bermudez et al., 1990). That translates into about 50% of the
total energy used in an average beef operation as being used by the cow for maintenance
alone.

Although this measurement may seem like the obvious method to determine
maintenance costs it cannot be measured on growing cattle very easily. Proxy measurements
for maintenance can be calculated in growing animals by measuring fasting heat production.
The problem with this measurement is that it can be affected by growth that occurred before
the measurement is collected therefore measuring more than just maintenance (Koong and
Ferrell, 1990).

To accurately measure maintenance requirements for a particular animal can be very

expensive and lengthy. In cattle it can take up to two years of maintaining a cow at a constant
weight to reach any substantial conclusions on her maintenance energy requirements (Taylor
et al., 1981).

Partial Efficiency of growth

Partial efficiency of growth is the ratio of weight gain to feed after expected
maintenance requirements have been subtracted. Predicted maintenance requirements are
calculated, in this method of determining feed efficiency, by using feeding tables based on
average body weight or metabolic studies of the energy balance of the animal. The
assumption is made that there is no variation in maintenance requirements for individual
animals. This is highly unlikely (Veerkamp and Emmans, 1995).
Residual Feed Intake – Regression method (RFI(reg))

125
 Using residual feed intake (RFI) as a method of calculating feed efficiency was first
proposed by Koch et al. (1963). It is calculated by finding the difference between actual and
predicted feed consumption. The prediction for feed intake should include some body weight
measurement and a production trait of choice. Body weight should be adjusted to account for
maintenance energy costs and the production trait should be adjusted so production energy
costs are accounted for as well (Koch et al., 1963). This partitions feed intake into two
portions. The first portion consisting of both maintenance and production energy costs and
the remaining portion commonly referred to as residual. By estimating how much the animal
deviates from its predicted intake one can estimate its efficiency (RFI).

Koch et al. (1963) calculated efficiency using three different regression methods. He
first calculated a FCR where gain was adjusted for weight. This method was the most
common method used among producers at the time. A second method calculated feed intake
(F) adjusting for gain (G) and weight (BW). The third method calculated gain adjusting for
feed intake (F) and weight (BW). It was concluded that the best method to calculate
efficiency was to calculate feed intake adjusting for weight and gain and was later given the
name of “RFI”.

(Koch et al., 1963)

It was correlated with the adjusted FCR by over .9 and was considered to be more
representative of the efficiency of the animal (Koch et al., 1963).

Residual feed intake is calculated such that it is phenotypically independent of the

trait used as the response variable and the animal body weight. It is believed by some
(Korver, 1988) that it can quantify and represent the variation that can be found in basic
metabolic processes which determine an animal’s efficiency.

Kennedy et al. (1993) showed that although RFI may be phenotypically independent
of the traits that are adjusted it isn’t necessarily genetically independent. He proposes that
one must adjust on a genotypic level for RFI to truly be independent.
Residual Feed Intake – Nutrition prediction of energy requirements method (RFI(NRC))

Fan et al. (1995) developed another method to calculate RFI. It was proposed that by
using a three step procedure that partitioned energy intake into energy for maintenance and
various production functions based on requirements that residual feed consumption and feed
efficiency can be calculated.

The first step in this procedure used prediction equations from the NRC (1984). Fan
et al. (1995) was able to calculate net energy required for maintenance (NERm) in Mcal of
NE/day by using the live weight (W, kg) of the animal.

126
Net energy required for medium sized bulls for live weight gain (NERg) in Mcal of NE/day
was calculated using both live weight (W, kg) and live weight gain (LWG, kg/day).

(Fan et al., 1995)

The second step simply calculated net energy values for maintenance (NEm) and
growth (NEg) using average metabolizable energy values (AME) for each diet. Daily ME
requirements for maintenance (MERm) and growth (MERg) in Mcal of ME/day were then
calculated.

By summing daily ME requirements for both maintenance and growth the total ME
requirements (MER) were calculated.

In the third step feed efficiency measurements were calculated. Gross feed efficiency
(FE) was measured as a ratio of ADG to metabolizable energy intake (MEI, Mcal of
ME/day).

Net feed efficiency (NFE) was measured as a ratio of ADG:MEIg where MEIg was
metabolizable energy intake for growth per day, and calculated as the proportion of ME
requirements for growth in MER.

Residual feed consumption (RFC) for bulls per day in Mcal of ME/day was calculated as
MER subtracted from MEI.

This three-step approach takes into account breed, sex, weight gain, milk yield, and
days pregnant. This method of calculating feed efficiency has two advantages. Net energy
can be calculated independent of the diet fed and feed requirements can be estimated
separately for maintenance and the production trait of interest (Fan et al., 1995). One main
disadvantage is that it is not necessarily independent of production traits.

127
Cow/calf Efficiency

Cow/calf efficiency measures the total feed intake of the cow and her progeny over an
entire production cycle. The cycle generally starts after the weaning of one calf to weaning of
the next. Total amount of feed consumed is then compared to calf weight weaned and is
given as a ratio of total weight of weaned calf over total weight of feed consumed (Jenkins
and Ferrell, 1994; Shuey et al., 1993).

This is a reasonable method of calculating whole herd efficiency when accounting for
both biological and economic efficiency of the cow herd. Some of its drawbacks include its
exclusion of the terminal generation, herd replacements, and cull sales. Gregory (1972) on
the other hand argues that these groups of animals only account for a very small portion of
the total amount of feed used in production therefore making this method of calculating feed
efficiency a viable option.

Genetic Variation in feed efficiency

There is plenty of evidence showing that when feed efficiency is provided as gross
efficiency or residual feed intake that variation exists.

Heritabilities have been calculated for feed efficiency measurements in growing cattle
(Table 1). Heritabilities for gross efficiency range from 0.16 - 0.46 (Bishop et al., 1991;
Bishop et al., 1992; Fan et al., 1995; Gengler et al., 1995; Jensen et al., 1991; Mrode et al.,
1990) while heritabilities for RFI range from .14 - .44 (Fan et al., 1995; Jensen et al., 1991;
Koch et al., 1963; Korver et al., 1991).

As mentioned above feed conversion ratio (FCR) is highly correlated with growth
rate and maturity patterns. Therefore, it is possible that the variation that can be estimated in
FCR could be largely attributed to growth and maturity.

Residual feed intake heritabilities mentioned above have all been calculated using
phenotypic regression and not genetic regression which Kennedy et al. (1993) suggests is
more accurate. On the other hand genetic correlations between phenotypic RFI and
production traits are reported to be quite low (Korver et al., 1991). If this truly is the case
then phenotypic and genetic RFI is practically the same providing sufficient evidence that
heritability estimates using RFI calculated from phenotypic regression is accurate.

There is evidence, however, that RFI and gain have a genetic correlation (Jensen et
al., 1991). This allows for some doubt on whether there is true variation in RFI or if that
variation can be attributed to gain instead. Fan et al. (1995) has displayed that both
phenotypic and genetic correlations of RFI with production traits are influenced by the way
RFI is calculated which depends on how the predicted feed intake is calculated.

Overall, the majority of researchers concluded that there is some type of phenotypic
and genetic variation for feed efficiency in growing cattle. Variation within beef populations

128
related to feed efficiency allows for the opportunity for selection for feed efficiency within
growing cattle.

Physiological basis for variation in feed efficiency

When variation in feed efficiency is understood on a physiological basis, correlated

response to selection can be predicted much more accurately. Traits that are highly correlated
with feed efficiency may be identified allowing for an easier method in identifying efficient
animals within a herd. This could lead to physiological markers to be utilized in a strategic
manner for the benefit of increasing the profitability of the herd.

One potential source of variation is hormone concentrations that are important to

growth, like testosterone and thyroid hormones thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3).
Testosterone stimulates muscle and skeletal growth by binding to receptors on muscles cells
stimulating them to grow (Lawrence and Fowler, 1998). Thyroid hormone receptors found in
the nuclei of cells stimulate oxidative metabolism and anabolic function of cells in all tissues
by regulating oxygen consumption, mineral balance and synthesis and metabolism of
proteins, carbohydrates and lipids (Lawrence and Fowler, 1998). If these hormones are
deficient severe retardation of growth will occur (Lawrence and Fowler, 1998).
Concentrations of these hormones are variable and may affect feed efficiency (Archer et al.,
1999).

Gray et al. (2008) did a study using 325 registered Angus bulls over a period of 5
years representing 40 different sires had individual feed intake collected using the Calan gate
system. Bulls were fed a corn silage based diet that was formulated for bulls to gain three lbs
daily. Bulls were on test for 84 days excluding the two week acclimation period. Blood
samples were collected at the end of the test which was approximately when bulls were one
year of age (Gray et al., 2008). Genetic Variance components were estimated using
GIBBS2F90 software (Misztal et al., 2002). For each analysis a single chain consisting of
150,000 iterations was employed, with a burn in period of 30,000 iterations. Convergence
was assessed visually from the trace plot. Inferences on the variables were obtained as mean
of the respective posterior distributions. It was found that T4 hormone concentrations were
highly heritable (0.68) with a genetic correlation with DMI of 0.82.

Conclusions

The best way to determine efficiency of the herd is to measure daily feed intake of
each individual animal over the full course of its existence within the herd. This would
obviously be an economic challenge therefore requiring some alternative method..

Measuring feed intake at strategic periods within the animals’ life seems to be the
best option for now. Once individual feed intake has been collected the next step is to
determine which method should be used in calculating feed efficiency.

Feed conversion ratio or its inverse gross efficiency is the most common method in
describing feed efficiency. Using a ratio will cause major problems when used in a linear

129
selection index, especially when gain or feed intake are in the index as well (van der Werf,
2004).

Residual feed intake is the most common measurement for feed efficiency used for
selection and breeding programs in the recent literature. Some of its attractive components
include its phenotypic independence of production traits and weight. Most selection
experiments are based on RFI measurements taken during the post-weaning period. Using
mice as a model, selecting animals after determining RFI during a post-weaning period is
sufficient evidence that they will remain efficient as mature animals (Archer et al., 1998).
This selection method has increased efficiency in the feedlot by almost 4% (Richardson et
al., 2001).

Kennedy et al. (1993) on the other hand disagrees with the use of residual feed intake
as selection criterion. A selection index which includes feed intake, production traits of
interest and weight was suggested to provide the same amount of information that RFI can
provide. Furthermore, Kennedy et al. (1993) provides evidence that RFI in fact is a selection
index manipulated into a different form. The most correct procedure for optimal selection
may be to consider production traits and feed intake alone rather than RFI values (van der
Werf, 2004). To increase accuracy of genetic improvement other efficiency traits can be
included in the index such as body composition (van der Werf, 2004).

Although RFI provides no additional information for selection that a selection index
can’t provide it can shed some light on genetic variation of feed efficiency (van der Werf,
2004). Residual feed intake clearly has a heritability, variance, and covariance with
production traits. By understanding the covariance of RFI with other efficiency traits, such as
heat production, activity, and body composition, production efficiency can be defined better
(van der Werf, 2004). Essentially selecting on RFI is another method of multivariate
selection.

One method of selection that does not include collecting individual feed intake is
using physiological markers. Using physiological markers alongside direct measurements is
considered the best method because of its potential of increased accuracy (Woolliams and
Smith, 1988).

One area of research that would benefit the increasing of feed efficiency in beef cattle
within the herd is the thyroid hormones and their relationship with DMI in growing and
mature cattle. It has been shown in a small study that there is a strong genetic relationship
between T4 and DMI (Gray et al., 2008). This physiological measurement could be taken
advantage of and used as another predictive measurement of DMI without the necessity to
collect individual feed intake in a bull test setting. Including this in a selection index would
inevitably increase the accuracy of selection which would in turn increase the response to
selection.

130
Implications

As feed costs continue to increase feed efficiency will continue to be a trait of interest
for cattle producers. It has been shown that there definitely is variation in feed efficiency
among beef cattle within a production system. The source of this variation in feed efficiency
has become somewhat clearer but is not totally understood. Although the source of this
variation is still incomplete selection programs have been successful at increasing the
efficiency of the growing animal within the slaughter generation.

An understanding of biological relationships between growing and mature animals

pertaining to feed efficiency has yet to be established. Understanding biological markers
such as T4 needs to continue to be studied in other populations. This could be the key to
decrease testing costs and still identify superior animals for selection in order to continue
producing the best beef product possible.

Literature Cited

Archer, J. A., P. F. Arthur, R. M. Herd, P. F. Parnell, and W. S. Pitchford. 1997. Optimum

postweaning test for measurement of growth rate, feed intake, and feed efficiency in
british breed cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 2024-2032.

Archer, J. A., W. S. Pitchford, T. E. Hughes, and P. F. Parnell. 1998. Genetic and phenotypic
relationships between food intake, growth, efficiency and body composition of mice
post weaning and at maturity. Anim. Sci. 67: 171-182.

Archer, J. A., E. C. Richardson, R. M. Herd, and P. F. Arthur. 1999. Potential for selection to
improve efficiency of feed use in beef cattle: A review. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 50: 147-
161.

Arthur, P. F., J. A. Archer, D. J. Johnston, R. M. Herd, E. C. Richardson, and P. F. Parnell.

2001. Genetic and phenotypic variance and covariance components for feed intake,
feed efficiency, and other postweaning traits in angus cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 2805-
2811.

Bishop, M. D., M. E. Davis, W. R. Harvey, G. R. Wilson, and B. D. Vanstavern. 1991.

Divergent selection for postweaning feed conversion in angus beef-cattle .2. Genetic
and phenotypic correlations and realized heritability estimate. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 4360-
4367.

Bishop, S. C., J. S. Broadbent, R. M. Kay, I. Rigby, and A. V. Fisher. 1992. The performance
of hereford x friesian offspring of bulls selected for lean growth-rate and lean food
conversion efficiency. Anim. Prod. 54: 23-30.

131
Brown, A. H., Jr., J. J. Chewning, Z. B. Johnson, W. C. Loe, and C. J. Brown. 1991. Effects
of 84-, 112- and 140-day postweaning feedlot performance tests for beef bulls. J.
Anim. Sci. 69: 451-461.

Dickerson, G. E. 1978. Animal size and efficiency - basic concepts. Anim. Prod. 27: 367-
379.

Fan, L. Q., D. R. C. Bailey, and N. H. Shannon. 1995. Genetic parameter-estimation of

postweaning gain, feed-intake, and feed-efficiency for hereford and angus bulls fed 2
different diets. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 365-372.

Ferrell, C. L., and T. G. Jenkins. 1984. Energy-utilization by mature, nonpregnant,

nonlactating cows of different types. J. Anim. Sci. 58: 234-243.

Ferrell, C. L., and T. G. Jenkins. 1985. Cow type and the nutritional environment - nutritional
aspects. J. Anim. Sci. 61: 725-741.

Fitzhugh, H. A. 1978. Animal size and efficiency, with special reference to the breeding
female. Anim. Prod. 27: 393-401.

Gengler, N., C. Seutin, F. Boonen, and L. D. Vanvleck. 1995. Estimation of genetic-

parameters for growth, feed consumption, and conformation traits for double-muscled
belgian blue bulls performance-tested in belgium. J. Anim. Sci. 73: 3269-3273.

Gray, K. A., G. B. Huntington, M. H. Poore, C. S. Whisnant, and J. P. Cassady. 2008.

Relationships among measures of feed utilization, adg, and ultrasonic measures. J
Anim Sci 86 E-Suppl. 3: 53.

Gregory, K. E. 1972. Beef-cattle type for maximum efficiency putting it all together. J.
Anim. Sci. 34: 881-&.

Jenkins, T. G., and C. L. Ferrell. 1994. Productivity through weaning of 9 breeds of cattle
under varying feed availabilities .1. Initial evaluation. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 2787-2797.

Jensen, J., I. L. Mao, B. B. Andersen, and P. Madsen. 1991. Genetic-parameters of growth,

feed-intake, feed conversion and carcass composition of dual-purpose bulls in
performance testing. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 931-939.

Kennedy, B. W., J. H. J. Vanderwerf, and T. H. E. Meuwissen. 1993. Genetic and statistical

properties of residual feed-intake. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 3239-3250.

Klosterman, E. W. 1972. Beef-cattle size for maximum efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 34: 875-880.

Koch, R. M., K. E. Gregory, D. Chambers, and L. A. Swiger. 1963. Efficiency of feed use in
beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 22: 486-494.

132
Koong, L. J., and C. L. Ferrell. 1990. Effects of short-term nutritional manipulation on organ
size and fasting heat-production. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 44: 73-77.

Korver, S. 1988. Genetic-aspects of feed-intake and feed-efficiency in dairy-cattle - a review.

Livest. Prod. Sci. 20: 1-13.

Korver, S., E. A. M. Vaneekelen, H. Vos, G. J. Nieuwhof, and J. A. M. Vanarendonk. 1991.

Genetic-parameters for feed-intake and feed-efficiency in growing dairy heifers.
Livest. Prod. Sci. 29: 49-59.

Lawrence, T. L. J., and V. R. Fowler. 1998. Growth of farm animals. CAB International,
New York.

Liu, M. F., and M. Makarechian. 1993a. Factors influencing growth performance of beef
bulls in a test station. J. Anim Sci. 71: 1123-1127.

Liu, M. F., and M. Makarechian. 1993b. Optimum test period and associations between
standard 140-day test period and shorter test periods for growth-rate in station tested
beef bulls. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics-Zeitschrift Fur Tierzuchtung
Und Zuchtungsbiologie 110: 312-317.

Macoon, B., L. E. Sollenberger, J. E. Moore, C. R. Staples, J. H. Fike, and K. M. Portier.

2003. Comparison of three techniques for estimating the forage intake of lactating
dairy cows on pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 81: 2357-2366.

Maynard, L. A., and J. K. Loosli. 1969. Animal nutriton. 6 ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New
York.

Misztal, I., S. Tsuruta, T. Strabel, B. Auvray, T. Druet, and D. H. Lee. 2002. Blupf90 and
related programs (bgf90). In: Proc. 7th World Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod.,
Montpellier, France.CD-ROM communication p 28:07.

Montano-Bermudez, M., M. K. Nielsen, and G. H. Deutscher. 1990. Energy-requirements for

maintenance of crossbred beef-cattle with different genetic potential for milk. J.
Anim. Sci. 68: 2279-2288.

Mrode, R. A., C. Smith, and R. Thompson. 1990. Selection for rate and efficiency of lean
gain in hereford cattle .2. Evaluation of correlated responses. Anim. Prod. 51: 35-46.

Nkrumah, J. D., J. A. Basarab, M. A. Price, E. K. Okine, A. Ammoura, S. Guercio, C.

Hansen, C. Li, B. Benkel, B. Murdoch, and S. S. Moore. 2004. Different measures of
energetic efficiency and their phenotypic relationships with growth, feed intake, and
ultrasound and carcass merit in hybrid cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 82: 2451-2459.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington
D.C.

133
Richardson, E. C., R. M. Herd, V. H. Oddy, J. M. Thomspon, J. A. Archer, and P. F. Arthur.
2001. Body composition and implications for heat production of angus steer progeny
of parents selected for and against residual feed intake. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 41: 1065-
1072.

Salmon, R. K., D. R. C. Bailey, R. Weingardt, and R. T. Berg. 1990. Growth efficiency in

mice selected for increased body-weight. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 70: 371-381.

Shuey, S. A., C. P. Birkelo, and D. M. Marshall. 1993. The relationship of the maintenance
energy requirement to heifer production efficiency. J. Anim. Sci. 71: 2253-2259.

Swiger, L. A., and L. N. Hazel. 1961. Optimum length of feeding period in selecting for gain
of beef cattle. J. Anim Sci. 20: 189-194.

Taylor, S. C. S., H. G. Turner, and G. B. Young. 1981. Genetic-control of equilibrium

maintenance efficiency in cattle. Anim. Prod. 33: 179-194.

van der Werf, J. H. J. 2004. Is it useful to define residual feed intake as a trait in animal
breeding programs? Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 44: 405-409.

Veerkamp, R. F., and G. C. Emmans. 1995. Sources of genetic-variation in energetic

efficiency of dairy-cows. Livest. Prod. Sci. 44: 87-97.

Wang, Z., J. D. Nkrumah, C. Li, J. A. Basarab, L. A. Goonewardene, E. K. Okine, D. H.

Crews, and S. S. Moore. 2006. Test duration for growth, feed intake, and feed
efficiency in beef cattle using the growsafe system. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 2289-2298.

Woolliams, J. A., and C. Smith. 1988. The value of indicator traits in the genetic-
improvement of dairy-cattle. Anim. Prod. 46: 333-345.

134
 Roy A. Wallace
1944-2008

The Roy A. Wallace BIF Memorial Fund was established to honor the
life and career of Roy Wallace. Roy devoted his life to beef cattle improvement
and he loved what BIF stands for – an organization that brings together purebred
and commercial cattle breeders, academia and breed associations, all committed
to improving beef cattle. This scholarship was established to encourage young
men and women interested in beef cattle improvement to pursue those interests
as Roy did--with dedication and passion.

‘Always a Buckeye’, Wallace was born in Ohio and called Ohio home his
entire life. He graduated from The Ohio State University in June 1967 and went
to work for Central Ohio Breeding Association as beef field representative, and
in 1969, he joined Select Sires, Inc. as beef sire analyst. He was later promoted to
vice-president, beef programs. During his tenure at Select Sires, Wallace acquired
more than 600 beef bulls from 19 breeds to be marketed throughout the world.

Wallace became involved with BIF in the early days. He served as a

member and board member of BIF and was the only person to have attended
every BIF convention over a 40 year span, from 1967 through 2007. He served
as a member and chairman of the reproduction committee and a member of the
sire evaluation committee. He was awarded with the BIF Continuing Service Award and the BIF Pioneer Award, and
co-authored the BIF 25-year history, Ideas into Action.

Wallace was a past president and board member of the Buckeye Beef Improvement Association, the National
Cattlemen’s Association and the Ohio Cattlemen’s Association. In addition, he served on the technical committee for
the American Angus Association and on the performance committee for the American Simmental Association. He
was also a chairman and member of the beef development committee of the National Association of Animal Breeders
(NAAB) and a member of the Beef Reproduction Leadership Team.

Always a strong proponent of performance testing, Wallace served in an advisory capacity to several breed
associations in the area of sire evaluation. A strong supporter of national sire summaries, he was an early adopter of
structured sire evaluations. He established the longest-running young sire progeny-testing program in the A.I. industry
today – a program that has identified superior genetics in several breeds. His early acceptance and promotion of EPDs
as a tool to make genetic progress helped make EPDs what they are today in the beef cow-calf industry.

Wallace was involved in the early selection and importation of several European breeds in the 1970s; these breeds
have made a significant contribution to U.S. beef cattle improvement. His selection of bulls with genetics for lighter birth
weights allowed breeders to use proven calving-ease bulls on virgin heifers, reducing calving problems without sacrific-
ing performance. He recognized the value of both carcass and ultrasound evaluations early on, and identified several
industry-leading bulls which have been very influential in improving the carcass composition of beef cattle.

Throughout his career, Wallace was dedicated to finding better ways to get beef cows bred artificially to geneti-
cally superior bulls. Some of his early work involved feeding progesterone to beef cattle, a technique which evolved
into the very successful MGA programs that are widely used today. Through collaborative research with reproductive
researchers at several major universities, Wallace helped to develop several effective A.I. synchronization programs,
including Select Synch and CIDR-Select.

Roy Wallace was a visionary, a thinker, a teacher, a mentor, a cattleman and a friend. He loved good cattle,
but more importantly, he loved the people that he had the opportunity to work with. He left a big footprint on the beef
industry.

135
 2010 Beef Improvement Federation Conference
Student Travel Fellowship Recipients

Jared Decker
Paige Johnson Alexander Ph.D. Candidate Jordan Paulsrud
Ph.D. Candidate University of Missouri B.S. Candidate
Tera Loyd Black
Texas Tech University Iowa State University
M.S. Candidate
University of Florida

Rich Chapple
M.S. Candidate
Allison Echols Landon Marks Megan Rolf
University of Missouri
M.S. Candidate M.S. Candidate Ph.D. Candidate
Virginia Polytechnic Mississippi State University University of Missouri
Institute & State University

David Daniel, Jr.

Jose Alberto Barron Allen (AJ) Munger
M.S. Candidate Lopez
Auburn University M. Agribusiness Candidate
Ph.D. Candidate Tasia Taxis
Kansas State University
University of Nebraska- M.S. Candidate
Lincoln University of Missouri

The 2010 BIF student travel fellowships are supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative award
number 2010-65205-20467 from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture Animal Genome,
Genetics, and Breeding Program. The $10,000.00 conference grant was awarded to Dr. Bob Weaber at the
University of Missouri to support the BIF conference and travel fellowships.
136
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Billy L. Easley . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1972 Wilfred Dugan . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1974

Dale H. Davis . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1972 Dale Engler . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1975

Elliot Humphrey . . . . . . Arizona. . . . . . . 1972 Frank Kubik, Jr.. . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1975

Harold A. Demorest . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 1972 George Chiga . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1975

James D. Bennett . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1972 Glenn Burrows . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1975

Jerry Moore . . . . . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 1972 Howard Collins . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1975

John Crowe . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1972 Jack Cooper . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1975

Marshall A. Mohler . . . . . Indiana . . . . . . . 1972 Joseph P. Dittmer . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1975

Albert West III . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1973 Leslie J. Holden . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1975

C. Scott Holden. . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1973 Licking Angus Ranch . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1975

Carlton Corbin . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1973 Louis Chestnut . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1975

Clyde Barks . . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1973 Robert Arbuthnot . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1975

Heathman Herefords . . . . Washington. . . . . 1973 Robert D. Keefer . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1975

James D. Hemmingsen . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1973 Walter S. Markham . . . . . California . . . . . 1975

Messersmith Herefords . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1973 Ancel Armstrong . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1976

Mrs. R. W. Jones, Jr.. . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1973 Gerhard Mittnes . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1976

Raymond Meyer . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1973 Healey Brothers . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1976

Robert Miller . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1973 Jackie Davis . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1976

William F. Borrow . . . . . California . . . . . 1973 Jay Pearson . . . . . . . . . Idaho. . . . . . . . 1976

Bert Crame . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1974 L. Dale Porter. . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1976

Bert Sackman . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1974 Lowellyn Tewksbury . . . . North Dakota . . . 1976

Dover Sindelar . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1974 M.D. Shepherd . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1976

Burwell M. Bates . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1974 Robert Sallstrom . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1976

Charles Descheemacher . . Montana . . . . . . 1974 Sam Friend . . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1976

J. David Nichols . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1974 Stan Lund . . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1976

Jorgensen Brothers . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1974 Bill Wolfe . . . . . . . . . . Oregon . . . . . . . 1977

Marvin Bohmont. . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1974 Bob Sitz . . . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1977

Maurice Mitchell . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1974 Clair Percel . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1977

137
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Floyd Hawkins . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1977 Floyd Metter . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1979

Frank Ramackers, Jr.. . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1977 Frank & Jim Wilson . . . . South Dakota . . . 1979

Glen Burrows . . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1977 Glenn & David Gibb . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1979

Henry and Jeanette Chitty . New Mexico . . . . 1977 Jack Ragsdale . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1979

Hubert R. Freise . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1977 Jim Wolf . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1979

James Volz . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1977 Leo Schuster Family . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1979

Lloyd DeBruycker . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1977 Peg Allen . . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1979

Loren Schlipf . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1977 Rex & Joann James . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1979

Marshall A. Mohler . . . . . Indiana . . . . . . . 1977 Bill Wolfe . . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1980

Robert Brown . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1977 Blythe Gardner . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . . . . 1980

Tom and Mary Shaw . . . . Idaho. . . . . . . . 1977 Bob Laflin. . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1980

Tom Dashiell . . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1977 Charlie Richards . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1980

Wayne Eshelman . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1977 Donald Barton . . . . . . . Utah . . . . . . . . 1980

Harold Anderson . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1977 Floyd Dominy . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1980

WillIiam Borror . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1977 Frank Felton . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1980

A.L. Frau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1978 Frank Hay . . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1980

Bill Wolfe. . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1978 James Bryany . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1980

Bill Womack, Jr.. . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1978 John Masters . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1980

Buddy Cobb . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1978 Mark Keffeler . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1980

Frank Harpster . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1978 Paul Mydland . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1980

George Becker . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1978 Richard McLaughlin . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1980

Healey Brothers . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1978 Richard Tokach . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1980

Jack Delaney . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1978 Roy and Don Udelhoven. . Wisconsin . . . . . 1980

James D. Bennett . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1978 Bob & Gloria Thomas . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1981

Larry Berg . . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1978 Bob Dickinson . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1981

Roy Hunst. . . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania. . . . 1978 Clarence Burch . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1981

Bill Wolfe . . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1979 Clayton Canning . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1981

Del Krumweid . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1979 Dwight Houff . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1981

138
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

G.W. Cronwell . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1981 E.A. Keithley . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1983

Harold Thompson . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1981 Frank Myatt . . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1983

Herman Schaefer . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1981 Harvey Lemmon . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1983

J. Morgan Donelson . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1981 J. Earl Kindig . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1983

Jack Ragsdale . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1981 Jake Larson . . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1983

James Leachman . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1981 John Bruner . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1983

Lynn Frey . . . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1981 Leness Hall . . . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1983

Myron Autfathr . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1981 Ric Hoyt . . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1983

Roy Beeby . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1981 Robert H. Schafer . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1983

Russ Denowh . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1981 Russ Pepper . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1983

Bob Thomas . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1982 Stanley Nesemeier . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1983

Clare Geddes . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1982 A. Harvey Lemmon . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1984

David A. Breiner . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1982 Charles W. Druin . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1984

Frankie Flint . . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1982 Clair K. Parcel . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1984

Garold Parks . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1982 Donn & Sylvia Mitchell . . Canada. . . . . . . 1984

Gary & Gerald Carlson . . . North Dakota. . . . 1982 Earl Kindig . . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1984

Harlin Hecht . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1982 Floyd Richard . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1984

Howard Krog . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1982 Fred H. Johnson . . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 1984

Joseph S. Bray . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1982 Glen Klippenstein . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1984

Larry Leonhardt . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1982 Jack Farmer . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1984

Orville Stangl . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1982 Jerry Chappel . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1984

W.B. Williams . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1982 Joe C. Powell . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1984

William Kottwitz . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1982 John B. Green . . . . . . . . Louisiana . . . . . 1984

Alex Stauffer . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1983 Lawrence Meyer . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1984

Bill Borror. . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1983 Lee Nichols . . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1984

C. Ancel Armstrong . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1983 Phillip A. Abrahamson . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1984

Charles E. Boyd . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1983 Ric Hoyt . . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1984

D. John & Lebert Schultz . . Missouri. . . . . . 1983 Robert L. Sitz . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1984
139
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Ron Beiber . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1984 Leonard Lodden . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1986
Arnold Wienk . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1985 Leonard Wulf . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1986

Bernard F. Pedretti . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1985 Matthew Warren Hall . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1986

David McGehee . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1985 Ralph McDanolds . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1986

Don W. Schoene . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1985 Richard J. Putnam . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1986

Earl Schafer . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1985 Roy D. McPhee. . . . . . . California . . . . . 1986

Everett & Ron Batho . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1985 W.D. Morris/James Pipkin . Missouri. . . . . . 1986

Fred Killam . . . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1985 Charles & Wynder Smith . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1987

George B. Halternan . . . . West Virginia. . . . 1985 Clayton Canning . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1987

Glenn L. Brinkman . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1985 Eldon & Richard Wiese . . Minnesota . . . . . 1987

Gordon Booth . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1985 Forrest Byergo . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1987

J. Newill Miller . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1985 Gary Klein . . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1987

Marvin Knowles . . . . . . California . . . . . 1985 Harold E. Pate . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1987

R.C. Price . . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1985 Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1987

Tom Perrier . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1985 Ivan & Frank Rincker . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1987

A. Lloyd Grau . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1986 James Bush . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1987

Clarence Vandyke . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1986 Larry D. Leonhardt . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1987

Clifford & Bruce Betzold . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1986 Lyall Edgerton . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1987

Delton W. Hubert . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1986 R.J. Steward/P.C. Morrisey . Minnesota . . . . . 1987

Dick & Ellie Larson . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1986 Tommy Brandenberger . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1987

Evin & Verne Dunn . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1986 Bill Bennett . . . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1988

Gerald Hoffman . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1986 Darold Bauman . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1988

Glenn L. Brinkman . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1986 David and Carol Guilford . Canada. . . . . . . 1988

Henry & Jeanette Chitty . . Florida . . . . . . . 1986 David Luhman . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1988

J.H. Steward/P.C. Morrissey . Pennsylvania. . . . 1986 Don and Dian Guilford . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1988
Jack & Gina Chase . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1986 Donn & Sylvia Mitchell . . Canada. . . . . . . 1988

John H. Wood . . . . . . . . South Carolina . . . 1986 Douglas D. Bennett . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1988

Lawrence H. Graham . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1986 George Schlickau . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1988

140
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Gino Pedretti . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1988 Doug Fraser . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990

Glenn Debter. . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1988 Douglas & Molly Hoff . . . South Dakota . . . 1990

Hansell Pile . . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1988 Dr. Burleigh Anderson . . . Pennsylvania. . . . 1990

Jay P. Book . . . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1988 Gerhard Gueggenberger . . California . . . . . 1990

Kans Ulrich . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1988 John & Chris Oltman . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1990

Kenneth Gillig . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1988 John Ragsdale . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1990

Leonard Lorenzen . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1988 Larry Erahart. . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1990

Robert E. Walton . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1988 Otto & Otis Rincker . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1990

Scott Burtner . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1988 Paul E. Keffaber . . . . . . Indiana . . . . . . . 1990

WillIowam Glanz . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1988 Richard Janssen . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1990

Bob R. Whitmire . . . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1989 Steven Forrester . . . . . . Michigan. . . . . . 1990

Donald Fawcett . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1989 T.D. & Roger Steele . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1990

Ed Albaugh . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1989 Ann Upchurch . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1991

Glynn Debter . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1989 Dave & Carol Guilford . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1991

Harry Airey . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1989 Jack & Gina Chase . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1991

Jack & Nancy Baker . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 1989 Jack Cowley . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1991

Jerry Allen Burner . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1989 James Burnes & Sons . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1991

Kenneth D. Lowe . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1989 James R. O’Neill . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1991

Leonard A. Lorenzen . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1989 Jim Taylor . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1991

Lester H. Schafer . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1989 John Bruner . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1991

Lynn Pelton . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1989 Larry Wakefield . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1991

Orrin Hart . . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1989 N. Wehrmann/R. McClung . Virginia . . . . . . 1991

Ron Bowman . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1989 R.A. Brown . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1991

Sherm & Charlie Ewing . . Canada. . . . . . . 1989 R.M. Felts & Son Farm . . . Tennessee . . . . . 1991

Tom Mercer . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1989 Ralph Bridges. . . . . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1991

Bob Thomas Family . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1990 Richard & Sharon Beitelspacher

Boyd Broyles . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1991

Charles & Rudy Simpson . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990 Rob & Gloria Thomas . . . Oregon . . . . . . . 1991
141
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Steve & Bill Florschcuetz . Illinois . . . . . . . 1991 Miles P. “Buck” Pangburn . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1993
Summitcrest Farms . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 1991 Norman Bruce . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1993

Tom Sonderup . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1991 R.A. Brown . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1993

A.W. Compton, Jr.. . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1992 R.B. Jarrell . . . . . . . . . Tennessee . . . . . 1993

Bill Rea . . . . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania . . . . 1992 Rueben Leroy & Bob Littau. South Dakota. . . . 1993

Bob Buchanan Family . . . Oregon . . . . . . . 1992 Ted Seely . . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1993

Calvin & Gary Sandmeier . South Dakota . . . 1992 Wes & Fran Cook . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1993

Dennis, David & Danny Geffert Bobby F. Hayes . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1994

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1992 Bruce Orvis . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1994

Dick Montague . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1992 Buell Jackson . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1994

Eugene B. Hook . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1992 Calvin & Gary Sandmeier . South Dakota . . . 1994

Francis & Karol Bormann . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1992 Dave Taylor & Gary Parker . Wyoming. . . . . . 1994

Glenn Brinkman . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1992 Jere Caldwell . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . 1994

Harold Dickson . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1992 John Blankers . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1994

Leonard Wulf & Sons . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1992 John Pfeiffer Family . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1994

Robert Elliot & Sons . . . . Tennessee . . . . . 1992 Ken & Bonnie Bieber . . . . South Dakota . . . 1994

Tom & Ruth Clark . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1992 Mary Howe di’Zerega . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1994

Tom Drake . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1992 Richard Janssen . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1994

Bob Zarn . . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1993 Ron & Wayne Hanson. . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1994

Clarence, Elaine & Adam Dean Bobby Aldridge . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1995

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Carolina. . . 1993 Chris & John Christensen . South Dakota . . . 1995

Collin Sander . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1993 Donald J. Hargrave . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1995

D. Eldridge & Y. Aycock . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1993 Gene Bedwell . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1995

Harrell Watts . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1993 Gordon & Mary Ann Booth . Wyoming. . . . . . 1995

J. David Nichols. . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1993 Howard & JoAnne Hillman . South Dakota . . . 1995
J. Newbill Miller . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1993 John Robbins . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1995

Joseph Freund . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1993 Billy Mack & Tom Maples . Alabama . . . . . . 1995

Lynn Pelton . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1993 Mary Howe de’Zerega . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1995

142
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Maurice Grogan . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1995 Richard McClung . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1997

Thomas Simmons . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1995 Abilgail & Mark Nelson . . California . . . . . 1998

Tom Perrier . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1995 Adrian Weaver & Family . . Colorado . . . . . . 1998

Ward Burroughs. . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1995 Airey Family . . . . . . . . Canada . . . . . . . 1998

C. Knight & B. Jacobs . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1996 Dallis & Tammy Basel . . . South Dakota . . . 1998

C.W. Pratt . . . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1996 Dave & Cindy Judd . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1998

Cam Spike & Sally Forbes. Wyoming. . . . . . 1996 Dick & Bonnie Helms . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1998

Chris and John Christensen . South Dakota . . . 1996 Duane L. Kruse Family . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1998

D. Borgen and B. McCulloh . Wisconsin . . . . . 1996 Earl & Neadra McKarns . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 1998

Frank Felton . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1996 James D. Benett Family . . Virginia . . . . . . 1998

Frank Schiefelbein . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1996 Tom Shaw . . . . . . . . . Idaho . . . . . . . . 1998

Galen & Lori Fink . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1996 Wilbur & Melva Stewart . . Canada. . . . . . . 1998

Gerald & Lois Neher. . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1996 Duane Schieffer . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1999

Ingrid & Willy Volk . . . . North Carolina. . . 1996 John Kluge . . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1999

Mose & Dave Hebbert . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1996 Kelly & Lori Darr . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1999

Robert C. Miller . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1996 Kent Kline . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1999

WillIowam A. Womack, Jr. . Alabama . . . . . . 1996 Kramer Farms . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 1999

Alan Albers . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1997 Lynn & Gary Pelton . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1999

Blaine & Pauline Canning . California. . . . . . 1997 Noller & Frank Charolais . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1999

Bob & Gloria Thomas. . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1997 Rausch Herefords . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1999

Darel Spader . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1997 Steve Munger . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1999

E. David Pease . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1997 Terry O’Neill . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1999

Gregg & Diane Butman . . Minnesota . . . . . 1997 Tony Walden . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1999

Harold Pate . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1997 Alan & Deb Vedvei . . . . . South Dakota . . . 2000

James I. Smith . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1997 Banks & Margo Hernon . . Alabama . . . . . . 2000
Jim & JoAnn Enos . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1997 Blane & Cindy Nagel. . . . South Dakota . . . 2000

Juan Reyes . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1997 Galen. Lori and Megan Finkk.Kansas . . . . . . . 2000

Nicholas Wehrmann . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1997 Harlin & Susan Hecht . . . Minnesota . . . . . 2000
143
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Jim & Janet Listen . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2000 Noller and Frank Charolais . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2002
John & Betty Botert . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 2000 Rishel Angus . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2002

John C. Curtin . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2000 Running Creek Ranch . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2002

Kent Kline & Steve Munger .South Dakota . . . 2000 Shamrock Angus . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2002

Larry & Jean Croissant . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2000 Stewart Angus . . . . . . . Indiana . . . . . . . 2002

Mike & T.K. McDowell . . Virginia . . . . . . 2000 Triple “M” Farm . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2002

Ralph Blalock, Sr., Blalock, Jr. and David Blalock Bedwell Charolais . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2003

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 2000 Boyd Farm . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2003

Vaughn Meyer & Family . . South Dakota . . . 2000 Camp Cooley Ranch . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2003

Blane & Cindy Nagel . . . . South Dakota . . . 2001 Hilltop Ranch . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2003

Bob & Nedra Funk. . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 2001 Moser Ranch . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2003

Dale, Don & Mike Spencer. Nebraska. . . . . . 2001 Mystic Hill Farms . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2003

Don & Priscilla Nielsen . . Colorado . . . . . . 2001 Pingetzer’s Six Iron Ranch . Wyoming. . . . . . 2003

Eddie L. Sydenstricker . . . Missouri. . . . . . 2001 San Isabel Ranch . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2003

George W. Lemm . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2001 Shamrock Vale Farms . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 2003

Ken Stielow & Family . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2001 Adams Angus Farm . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2004

Kevin, Jessica and Dakota Emily Moore Byland Polled Shorthorns . Ohio . . . . . . . . 2004

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas. . . . . . . . 2001 Camp Cooley Ranch . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2004

Marvin & Katheryn Robertson Eaton Charolais . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2004

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2001 Flat Branch Cattle Company .Illinois . . . . . . . 2004

MCallen Ranch . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2001 Judd Ranch, Inc.. . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2004

Steve Hillman & Family . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2001 Rausch Herefords . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 2004

Tom Lovell . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2001 Reynolds Ranch . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2004

DeBruycker Charolais . . . Montana . . . . . . 2002 Silveira Brothers Angus and Diversified Farming

Ellis Farms . . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2004

Holly Hill Farm . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2002 Symens Brothers Limousin . South Dakota . . . 2004

Isa Cattle Co., Inc.. . . . . . Texas. . . . . . . . 2002 Touchstone Angus . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2004

Lyons Ranch . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2002 Triple U Ranch . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2004

144
 BIF Seedstock Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Altenburg Super Baldy . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2005 Echo Ridge Farm . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2007
Bar S Ranch . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2005 Heartland Cattle Company. Iowa. . . . . . . . 2007

Ellis Farms . . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2005 Lindskov-Thiel Ranch . . . South Dakota. . . . 2007

Ingram Cattle Company . . Mississippi . . . . . 2005 Star Lake Cattle Ranch . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 2007

Moore Farms . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2005 TC Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2007

Morrison Stock Farm . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 2005 Tinney Farms . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2007

Pangburn Stock Farm . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2005 Tomlinson Farms . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2007

Rishel Angus . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2005 Andras Stock Farm . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2008

Rogers Bar HR . . . . . . . Mississippi . . . . . 2005 Croissant Red Angus. . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2008

Soldiers’ Hill Angus Farm . Virginia . . . . . . 2005 Harms Plainview Ranch. . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2008

Sunnyhill Angus Farm . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2005 Little Mountain Farm. . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2008

Waukaru Farms, Inc. . . . . Indiana. . . . . . . 2005 C. H. Morris & Sons . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2008

Benoit Angus Ranch . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2006 Nolin Red Angus. . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 2008

Champion Hill . . . . . . . Ohio . . . . . . . . 2006 Schott Limousin Ranch. . . South Dakota. . . . 2008

EE Ranches, Inc. . . . . . . Mississippi. . . . . 2006 TC Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2008

Earhart Farms . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2006 Thomas Ranch . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 2008

Figure 4 Cattle Company / Volk Ranch LLLP Calyx Star Ranch . . . . . . Mississippi. . . . . 2009

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2006 Champion Hill. . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . 2009

Lawler Farm . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2006 Gibbs Farms. . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2009

Powder Creek Simmentals . Georgia . . . . . . 2006 Harrell Hereford Ranch. . . Oregon. . . . . . . 2009

Quaker Hill Farm LLC . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2006 Musgrave Angus . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2009

Sauk Valley Angus . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . 2006 Oak Meadow Farm Simmentals

Thomas Charolais, Inc. . . . Texas. . . . . . . . 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 2009

Vorthmann Limousin . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2006 Oak Ridge Angus . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2009

Waukaru Farms, Inc. . . . . Indiana. . . . . . . 2006 Quaker Hill Farm . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2009
Pelton Simmental . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2007 Skarda Farms . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 2009

5L Red Angus. . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . 2007 Stucky Ranch . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2009

Bridle Bit Simmentals. . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2007

145
 BIF Seedstock Producer of the Year

John Crowe California . . . . . 1972 J. David Nichols Iowa. . . . . . . . 1993

Mrs. R. W. Jones, Jr. Georgia. . . . . . . 1973 R.A. “Rob” Brown Texas . . . . . . . . 1993

Carlton Corbin Oklahoma . . . . . 1974 Richard Janssen Kansas . . . . . . . 1994

Jack Cooper Montana . . . . . . 1975 Tom & Carolyn Perrier Kansas . . . . . . . 1995

Leslie J. Holden Montana. . . . . . 1975 Frank Felton Missouri . . . . . . 1996

Jorgenson Brothers South Dakota . . . 1976 Bob & Gloria Thomas Oregon. . . . . . . 1997

Glenn Burrows New Mexico . . . . 1977 Wehrmann Angus Ranch Virginia . . . . . . 1997

James D. Bennett Virginia . . . . . . 1978 Flying H Genetics Nebraska . . . . . . 1998

Jim Wolf Nebraska . . . . . . 1979 Knoll Crest Farms Virginia . . . . . . 1998

Bill Wolfe Oregon. . . . . . . 1980 Morven Farms Virginia . . . . . . 1999

Bob Dickinson Kansas . . . . . . . 1981 Fink Beef Genetics . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2000

A.F. “Frankie” Flint New Mexico . . . . 1982 Sydenstricker Angus Farms . Missouri . . . . . . .2001

Bill Borror California. . . . . . 1983 Circle A Ranch . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . .2002

Lee Nichols Iowa. . . . . . . . 1984 Moser Ranch . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2003

Ric Hoyt Oregon. . . . . . . 1985 Camp Cooley Ranch . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2004

Leonard Lodoen North Dakota. . . . 1986 Rishel Angus . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2005

Henry Gardiner Kansas . . . . . . . 1987 Sauk Valley Angus . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2006

W.T. “Bill” Bennett Washington . . . . 1988 Pelton Simmental Red Angus

Glynn Debter Alabama . . . . . . 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2007

Douglas & Molly Hoff South Dakota . . . 1990 TC Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2008

Summitcrest Farms Ohio. . . . . . . . 1991 Champion Hill. . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . 2009

Leonard Wulf & Sons Minnesota . . . . . 1992 Harrell Hereford Ranch. . . Oregon. . . . . . . 2009

146
 2010 SEEDSTOCK PRODUCER AWARD NOMINEES

Circle Ranch
Owners: Tim and Jill Curran and Family
Ione, California

Circle Ranch is owned and operated by Tim and Jill Curran and family and is located in Jackson Valley
near Ione, California. The Currans are a fifth generation Amador county ranching family that dates back to 1856.
Circle Ranch has been in the commercial cattle business since 1975, but in 1992 purchased a group of Simmental
heifers from Nichols Farms in Iowa to produce bulls for their commercial cowherd. At this time, Circle Ranch
was in a partnership with Jim and Rebecca Kirk in Monterey County, California. The partnership had a set of
Angus based commercial cows that they felt needed some continental influence. They liked what the Simmental
breed had to offer but like many breeds at the time had tended to be larger framed. The Nichols heifers that they
selected accomplished what they were looking for to produce bulls for their commercial Angus based cow herd.
They retained their moderate frame, reaped the benefits of hybrid vigor, increased their red meat yield, and ended
up with a set of ½ blood females that were the perfect commercial female for their environment. Within a few
years they were producing more bulls than they could use and started to sell a few. They felt that the ideal beef
cow was a blend of 25% to 50% Simmental and the balance Angus. It soon became obvious that to help their cus-
tomers maintain this percentage female the logical solution was to produce composite bulls. Today Circle Ranch
markets 90 bulls annually with the majority of those a SimAngus composite of 50% Simmental and 50% Angus.

Today, Circle Ranch maintains a cowherd containing 350 mother cows of which 275 are registered Si-
mAngus or Angus. The cow herd is nearly all fall calvers with the heifers calving in mid July and the cows start-
ing August 1st. The cows are summered on irrigated pasture on both owned and leased land in Jackson Valley and
near Sloughhouse. The cows are wintered in the foothills also near Ione and Sloughhouse.

In 2007, Circle Ranch partnered with Bruin Ranch (Auburn, CA) to create the Beef Solutions Bull Sale.
The decision to enter into a partnership with Bruin Ranch was easy because they raise outstanding Angus cattle
and share many of the same breeding philosophies that Circle Ranch does. The bull sale is held in September at
their home ranch in Ione. In 2009, Beef Solutions marketed 144 bulls including 70 bulls from Circle Ranch.

The California Beef Cattle Improvement Association is proud to nominate Circle Ranch.

Edgewood Angus
Owners: Pete, Connie and Peter Henderson
West Point, Virginia

Edgewood Angus consists of a 200-cow registered Angus herd which has been developed since the early
1980s from a commercial herd. Pete and his wife Connie, along with their son, Peter, and in conjunction with
their daughters and Peter’s wife have managed to make Edgewood a family affair. In 2000, the operation ex-
panded from 75 to roughly 450 acres and moved the primary operation from Williamsburg to King William,
Virginia. Since that time, they have all worked very hard on improving pastures, fencing, and cattle management
infrastructure.

147
 Edgewood Angus has been consigning bulls to the BCIA test stations for over 14 years. During that time
they have developed a strong reputation for quality genetics and have had several bulls top the BCIA tests and
sales. Consistent, predictable genetics has been the focus which has been accomplished through the use of proven
sires. Customer service is a high priority for Edgewood Angus, and they work diligently to assess the needs of
their commercial bull buyers to design genetics that will do the job for them.

Edgewood has been awarded the Bartenslager Award and Premier Angus Breeder Award on two occasions
from BCIA in 2007 and 2009. In December, Edgewood hosted their second annual on-farm performance tested
Open House bull sale. Select females are offered through consignment sales.

Pete is the past president of BCIA and is currently the chair of the BCIA Culpeper Test and Sale Commit-
tee. He is also very active with Virginia Angus and other beef and Ag entities.

The Virginia Beef Cattle Improvement Association is proud to nominate Edgewood Angus.

McBee Cattle Company

Owners: Ron and Teri McBee
Fayette, Missouri

McBee Cattle Company, owned and operated by Ron and Teri McBee, has been located in north central
Missouri since 1979. The ranch presently consists of 1650 acres of rolling fescue based pasture in an 80 paddock
intensive grazing system that is home to 250 registered Braunvieh/Angus Hybrid females and 200 commercial
females of mostly Braunvieh influenced genetics. Utilizing both spring and fall calving seasons, an extensive AI
program, and several home raised sires are used to advance both the purebred and hybrid herds.

Beginning in 1999, the best Braunvieh cows have been mated to some of the top performance Angus bulls
to begin the development of their first generation F1’s, called McBeef Builder Hybrids. Mating their top F1 bulls
to their F1 females, they are now producing 2nd and 3rd generation F1 hybrids. Including bulls from customers who
have purchased McBee genetics in a cooperator program, 100 to 120 bulls are developed annually with a high fiber,
low starch commodity ration and performance measured for growth and carcass traits. After a rigid culling program,
only 60% are offered for breeding, in an annual SELECTION DAY sale at the ranch.

Customer service has always been part of the McBee program. Since 1993, bull customers’ calves have
been grouped and marketed through the McBee Calf Roundups held every spring and fall. Customers can see
additional premiums through the McBee Gate Cut Heifer Sale and the new McBee Genetic Advantage Program.

The Braunvieh Association of America is proud to nominate McBee Cattle Company.

Rincker Simmentals
Owners: Curt, Pam, Cari and Brent Rincker
Shelbyville, Illinois

Rincker Simmentals of Shelbyville, Illinois in Shelby County have been in the purebred beef seedstock
business since 1972. This is when Curt began raising Simmental cattle with his father, Leland. Prior to this, the
Leland Rincker family was in the Angus business. Leland was recently recognized as the 2008 Illinois Simmen-

148
tal Pioneer Breeder of the year. The Rincker Simmental herd comprises 80 Simmental brood cows that produce
seedstock for the purebred and commercial herds. Bulls and heifers are sold through the Illinois Performance
Tested Bull Sale, Mid-American Showcase Simmental Sale, and the farm’s Illini Elite Sale. Bulls are also con-
signed in an Eastern Missouri sale at Bowling Green. Another way to market their genetics is through the farm’s
web site at www.rincker.com.

An aggressive Embryo Transfer Program has been used for several years to multiply the progeny of out-
standing females in the herd. This breeding program has resulted in numerous successes at the Illinois State Fair
Open and Junior Shows. The herd is predominantly a winter and spring calving herd although recent interest has
led to limited fall calving to enhance the interest in both breeding bulls and females.

Performance Testing, EPDs and Dollar Value Indexing are stressed at Rincker Simmentals with these traits
combined into a phenotypic package that possesses structural soundness, desirable conformation and balance for
the beef cattle industry. Rincker Simmentals have continually consigned several of the top indexing and selling
bulls in the Illinois Performance Tested Bull Sale.

One of the major components that have allowed the Rincker Simmental operation to be successful is their
pasture and grazing program. The primarily cattle farm comprises 265 acres with 105 acres dedicated totally to
grazing, 50 acres for hay production and grazing, and the remainder for cash grain production and winter grazing.

Rincker Simmentals is proudly nominated by the University of Illinois Extension and the Illinois
Beef Association.

Sandhill Farms
Owners: Kevin and Vera Schultz
Haviland, Kansas

Sandhill Farms is a family operation located in south central Kansas near Haviland. Originally home-
steaded in 1869, each generation of the Schultz family, which currently is raising its sixth, has made its living on
the resources provided by the land, principally in Edwards County. Today, as in the past, the operation is com-
prised of both farming and ranching enterprises.

Roy Schultz originally purchased registered polled Hereford bulls for use on the commercial cowherd in
the mid 1940s. His son, Ron, continued this program. Since that time, all females retained for replacements in
the commercial herd have been raised on the ranch. In the 1970s, as part of a 4-H project, grandson Kevin bought
and started the registered Hereford herd. The herd today consists of 300 brood cows, with about two-thirds being
registered and one-third being purebred commercial.

The spring-only breeding program uses artificial insemination (AI), embryo transfer (ET) and cleanup
bulls. AI is utilized on all commercial and registered yearling heifers, and top performing registered cows. The
commercial and bottom-end registered cows are used as recipients in the ET program. Sandhill Farms has tested
more bulls in the American Hereford Association (AHA) sire tests than any other breeder in the last 10 years. Af-
ter being tested and proven, the top bulls are used in the breeding program. Outside bulls that are highly accurate
and proven from multiple herds are also used.

Ultrasound has been used in the program for the past 17 years. At first, little or no improvement was
made in this area, as they were addressing other more limiting factors in customer acceptance. However, as they
worked toward their goal of making the cattle better, they found outliers that could provide both the type of cattle
they knew worked and the backing of proven EPDs. Today, their sale bulls’ average EPDs rank in the top 1% of
149
the breed in two of the four indexes, and top 10% in the remaining indexes.

In the cowherd, turning generations is a goal. In their spring sale, they sold all the 5-year-old cows with
heifer calves. Prior to calving, the pregnancies are sexed. This allows them to continue keeping all the yearling
females, and maintain stability in the cowherd. Next to selling bulls, their favorite thing to do is cull the cowherd.
This enables them to improve the overall quality of their cattle. They believe when buying cattle from a seedstock
producer, you are buying the benefits and discipline of their culling program.

Sandhill Farms is proudly nominated by the Kansas Livestock Association.

Schuler Red Angus

Owners: Schuler-Olsen Ranches, Inc. and the Darrell Schuler Family
Bridgeport, Nebraska

Located in the panhandle of western Nebraska, Schuler-Olsen Ranches was started by Darrell and Mary Lou
Schuler in 1959 with commercial Hereford cattle. A crossbreeding program was implemented in the early 1970’s and
after witnessing the benefits of heterosis and breed complementarity first-hand, a registered Red Angus herd was started
in 1976 to develop seed stock for use on the ranch’s commercial cattle and to sell to neighboring operations.

The seed stock herd expanded in the 1980’s and was improved through artificial insemination, utilization
of EPDs and a complete performance testing program. Recognizing the need for identifiable carcass traits, in
1991 Schuler Red Angus began finishing its commercial progeny and collecting carcass data with the assistance
of UNL Beef Cattle Specialist, Dr. Ivan Rush. This program expanded to include structured carcass testing on
customer cattle sired by Schuler Red Angus bulls. Over 25% of the Red Angus breed’s high accuracy carcass trait
sires have been proven by Schuler Red Angus. A composite cowherd was started in 1992 which included Red
Angus, Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Simmental genetics.

The current ranching operation encompasses 17,000 acres including 2,000 acres of private pasture leases
and 1250 acres of irrigated farm ground. Butch and Susan Schuler and their children Stephanie and David man-
age the operation today with approximately 1000 head of spring calving females. The Schuler’s hosted their 28th
production sale this spring selling 150 Red Angus and Red Angus composite bulls and 40 head of registered Red
Angus heifers.

Schuler Red Angus is proudly nominated by the Nebraska Cattlemen.

Spring Creeks Cattle Company

Owners: Bob and Rhonda Mitchell and sons (Matt, Bart and Scott)
Wauzeka, Wisconsin

Near the Wisconsin River in southwestern Wisconsin, Spring Creeks Cattle Company manage more than
600 registered Limousin, Lim-Flex®, and Angus breeding stock. Over 35 years, their enterprise has grown to
include 3,000 acres of owned and leased pasture and cropland. While farming is the norm around there, they
take a ranching approach to their operation and farm to support the cattle, allowing them to optimize their natural
resources responsibly.

150
 They focus on producing sound, practical cattle that can be productive in any environment. They have
built their cow herd with proven herd bulls and elite AI sires. Their breeding program centers around “breedin’
the feedin’ kind” and producing seedstock that have a positive effect in today’s beef industry. They sell bulls,
mature cows, bred females and open heifers off the farm.

They raise calves without antibiotics or hormones and promote their naturally lean, meaty carcasses. A
portion of their calf crop goes to Laura’s Lean Beef and Strauss Free Raised® veal each year. They were happy to
help introduce Strauss Brands to the Limousin breed and forge its sourcing agreement with the North American
Limousin Foundation, providing a new marketing opportunity to all Limousin-influenced calves.

The Spring Creeks Cattle Company are proud spokespeople for the industry, including Bart and Amy’s
appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” in 2008 to explain how they raise and manage free-raised veal calves.
Their family is involved in a variety of industry organizations, including Bob’s recent service on the NALF Board
of Directors and his terms as its vice president and treasurer.

The North American Limousin Foundation is proud to nominate Spring Creeks Cattle Company.

Windy Hill Angus Farm

Owner: Jack Tate
Boaz, Alabama

Windy Hill Angus Farm has been raising registered Angus cattle for 32 years in Boaz near Sardis City,
Alabama. The cow herd has ranged from 30 to 90 cows, and at present consists of 65 cows and 10 open heif-
ers. The breeding herd consists of primarily a fall calving season from September to January to capitalize on
bull evaluations and production sale marketing with a small spring herd calving in March, as well. All breeding
females are bred using estrous synchronization and artificial insemination with a clean up bull for a 75-90% AI
sired calf crop with 10% of the calf crop produced from the embryo transfer program.

All production weights, carcass ultrasound, and average daily gains from an on-farm 84 day test are col-
lected. All performance information has been maintained by utilizing the Angus Herd Improvement Records
for the past 30 years. For years, bull calves and their bloodlines were evaluated by participating in the Alabama
BCIA North Alabama Bull Evaluation and more recently also in the University of Florida Bull Test. Bulls are
also marketed by private treaty, in the Northeast Alabama Performance Breeders Bull Sale, and in Alabama BCIA
sponsored sales. In 2009, Windy Hill Angus held their first production sale with guest consignors on the first
Saturday in May and held their second sale on May 1, 2010.

Jack Tate is an active leader in his state and national breed associations. He is a past-president and direc-
tor of the Alabama Angus Association and has served as a delegate to the American Angus Association national
meeting in Louisville, Kentucky for the past 20 years.

Windy Hill Angus Farm is proudly nominated by the Alabama Beef Cattle Improvement Association.

151
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence
Chan Cooper . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1972
Alfred B Cobb, Jr.. . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1972
Lyle Eivens . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1972
Broadbent Brothers . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1972
Jess Kilgote . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1972
Clifford Ouse . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1973
Pat Wilson . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1973
John Glaus . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1973
Sig Peterson . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1973
Max Kiner . . . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1973
Donald Schott . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1973
Stephen Garst . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1973
J.K. Sexton . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1973
Elmer Maddox . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . 1973
Marshall McGregor . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1974
Dave Matti . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1974
Lloyd DeBruycker . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1974
Gene Rambo . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1974
Jim Wolf . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1974
Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1974
Johnson Brothers . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1974
John Blankers . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1975
Paul Burdett . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1975
Oscar Burroughs . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1975
John R. Dahl . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1975
Eugene Duckworth . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1975
Gene Gates . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1975
V.A. Hills . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1975
Robert D. Keefer . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1975
152
Kenneth E. Leistritz . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1975
Ron Baker . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1976
Dick Boyle . . . . . . . . . Idaho. . . . . . . . 1976
James Hackworth . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1976
John Hilgendorf . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1976
Kahau Ranch . . . . . . . . Hawaii . . . . . . . 1976
Milton Mallery . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1976
Robert Rawson . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1976
William A. Stegner . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1976
U.S. Range Exp. Stat. . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1976
Maynard Crees . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1977
Ray Franz . . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1977
Forrest H. Ireland . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1977
John A. Jameson . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1977
Leo Knoblauch . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1977
Jack Pierce . . . . . . . . . Idaho. . . . . . . . 1977
Mary & Stephen Garst . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1977
Todd Osteross . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1978
Charles M. Jarecki . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1978
Jimmy G McDonnal . . . . North Carolina. . . 1978
Victor Arnaud . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1978
Ron & Malcom McGregor . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1978
Otto Uhrig . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1978
Arnold Wyffels . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1978
Bert Hawkins . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1978
Mose Tucker . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1978
Dean Haddock . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1978
Myron Hoeckle . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1979
Harold & Wesley Arnold . . South Dakota. . . . 1979
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Ralph Neill . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1979 Leonard Wulf . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1981

Morris Kuschel . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1979 Wm. H. Romersberter . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1982
Bert Hawkins . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1979 Milton Krueger . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1982
Dick Coon . . . . . . . . . Washington. . . . . 1979 Carl Odegard. . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1982
Jerry Northcutt . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1979 Marvin & Donald Stoker . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1982
Steve McDonnell . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1979 Sam Hands . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1982
Doug Vandermyde . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1979 Larry Campbel . . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1982
Norman, Denton & Calvin Thompson Earl Schmidt . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1982
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1979
Raymond Josephson . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1982
Jess Kilgore . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1980
Clarence Reutter . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1982
Robert & Lloyd Simon . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1980
Leonard Bergen . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1982
Lee Eaton . . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1980
Kent Brunner . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1983
Leo & Eddie Grubl . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1980
Tom Chrystal . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1983
Roger Winn, Jr. . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1980
John Freltag . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . . 1983
Gordon McLean . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1980
Eddie Hamilton . . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1983
Ed Disterhaupt . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1980
Bill Jones . . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1983
Thad Snow . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1980
Harry & Rick Kline . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1983
Oren & Jerry Raburn . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1980
Charlie Kopp. . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1983
Bill Lee . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1980
Duwayne Olson . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1983
Paul Moyer . . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1980
Ralph Pederson . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1983
G.W. Campbell . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1981
Ernest & Helen Schaller . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1983
J.J. Feldmann . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1981
Al Smith. . . . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1983
Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1981
John Spencer . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1983
Dan L. Weppler . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1981
Bud Wishard . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1983
Harvey P. Wehri . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1981
Bob & Sharon Beck . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1984
Dannie O’Connell . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1981
Leonard Fawcett . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1984
Wesley & Harold Arnold . . South Dakota. . . . 1981
Fred & Lee Kummerfeld . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1984
Jim Russell & Rick Turner. Missouri. . . . . . . 1981
Norman Coyner & Sons . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1984
Oren & Jerry Raburn . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1981
Franklyn Esser . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1984
Orin Lamport . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1981
153
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence
Edgar Lewis . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1984
Boyd Mahrt . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1984
Neil Moffat . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1984
William H. Moss, Jr. . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1984
Dennis P. Solvie. . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1984
Robert P. Stewart . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1984
Charlie Stokes . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1984
Milton Wendland . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1984
Bob & Sheri Schmidt . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1985
Delmer & Joyce Nelson . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1985
Harley Brockel . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1985
Kent Brunner . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1985
Glenn Havery . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1985
John Maino . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1985
Ernie Reeves . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1985
John R. Rouse . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1985
George & Thelma Boucher . Canada. . . . . . . 1985
Kenneth Bentz . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1986
Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1986
Ralph G. Lovelady . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1986
Ramon H. Oliver . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1986
Kay Richarson . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1986
Mr. & Mrs. Clyde Watts . . North Carolina. . . 1986
David & Bev Lischka . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1986
Dennis & Nancy Daly . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1986
Carl & Fran Dobitz . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1986
Charles Fariss . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1986
David Forster . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1986
Danny Geersen . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1986
154
Oscar Bradford . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1987
R.J. Mawer . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1987
Rodney G. Oliphant . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1987
David Reed . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1987
Jerry Adamson . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1987
Gene Adams . . . . . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1987
Hugh & Pauline Maize . . . South Dakota. . . . 1987
P.T. McIntire & Sons . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1987
Frank Disterhaupt . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1987
Mac, Don and Joe Griffith . Georgia. . . . . . . 1988
Jerry Adamson . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1988
Ken, Wayne & Bruce Gardiner
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1988
C.L. Cook . . . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1988
C.J. and D.A. McGee . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1988
William E. White . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1988
Frederick M. Mallory . . . . California. . . . . . 1988
Stevenson Family . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1988
Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1988
John McDaniel . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1988
William Stegner . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1988
Lee Eaton . . . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 1988
Larry D. Cundall . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1988
Dick & Phyllis Henze . . . Minnesota . . . . . . 1988
Jerry Adamson . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1989
J.W. Aylor. . . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1989
Jerry Bailey . . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1989
James G. Guyton . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1989
Kent Koostra . . . . . . . . Kentucky . . . . . . 1989
Ralph G. Lovelady . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1989
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence
Thomas McAvory, Jr. . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 1989
Bill Salton . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1989
Lauren & Mel Schuman . . California. . . . . . 1989
Jim Tesher . . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1989
Joe Thielen . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1989
Eugene & Ylene Williams . Missouri. . . . . . . 1989
Phillip, Patty & Greg Bartz. Missouri. . . . . . . 1990
John C. Chrisman . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1990
Les Herbst . . . . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1990
Jon C. Ferguson . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1990
Mike & Dianna Hooper . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1990
James & Joan McKinlay . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990
Gilbert Meyer . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . 1990
DuWayne Olson . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1990
Raymond R. Peugh . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1990
Lewis T. Pratt . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1990
Ken and Wendy Sweetland . Canada. . . . . . . 1990
Swen R. Swenson Cattle . . Texas. . . . . . . . 1990
Robert A Nixon & Sons . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1991
Murray A. Greaves . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1991
James Hauff . . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1991
J.R. Anderson . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . . 1991
Ed and Rich Blair . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1991
Reuben & Connee Quinn . . South Dakota. . . . 1991
Dave & Sandy Umbarger . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1991
James A. Theeck . . . . . . Texas. . . . . . . . 1991
Ken Stielow . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1991
John E. Hanson, Jr.. . . . . California. . . . . . 1991
Charles & Clyde Henderson .Missouri. . . . . . . 1991
155
Russ Green . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1991
Bollman Farms . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1991
Craig Utesch . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1991
Mark Barenthsen . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1991
Rary Boyd . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1992
Charles Daniel . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1992
Jed Dillard . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1992
John & Ingrid Fairhead . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1992
Dale J. Fischer . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1992
E. Allen Grimes Family . . North Dakota. . . . 1992
Kopp Family . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1992
Harold, Barbara & Jeff Marshall
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pennsylvania. . . . 1992
Clinton E. Martin & Sons . Virginia. . . . . . . 1992
Loyd and Pat Mitchell . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1992
William Van Tassel . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1992
James A. Theeck . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1992
Aquilla M. Ward . . . . . . West Virginia. . . . 1992
Albert Wiggins . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1992
Ron Wiltshire . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1992
Andy Bailey . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1993
Leroy Beiterspacher . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1993
Glenn Valbaugh . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1993
Oscho Deal . . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1993
Jed Dillard. . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1993
Art Farley . . . . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1993
Jon Ferguson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1993
Walter Hunsuker . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1993
Nola & Steve Kielboeker . . Missouri. . . . . . . 1993
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence
Jim Maier . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1993
Bill & Jim Martin . . . . . . West Virginia. . . . 1993
Ian & Adam McKillop . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1993
George & Robert Pingetzer. Wyoming. . . . . . 1993
Timothy D. Sufphin . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1993
James A. Theeck . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1993
Gene Thiry . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1993
Fran & Beth Dobitz . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1994
Bruce Hall . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . 1994
Lamar Ivey . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1994
Gordon Mau . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1994
Randy Mills . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1994
W.W. Oliver . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1994
Clint Reed . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1994
Stan Sears . . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1994
Walter Carlee . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1995
Nicholas Lee Carter . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 1995
Charles C. Clark, Jr.. . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1995
Greg & Mary Gunningham . Wyoming. . . . . . 1995
Robert & Cindy Hine . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1995
Walter Jr. & Evidean Major . Kentucky. . . . . . 1995
Delhert Ohnemus . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1995
Henry Stone . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1995
Joe Thielen . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1995
Jack Turnell . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1995
Tom Woodard . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1995
Jerry and Linda Bailey . . . North Dakota. . . . 1996
Kory M. Bierle . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . 1996
Mavis Dummermuth . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 1996
156
Terry Stuard Forst . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . 1996
Don W. Freeman . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1996
Lois & Frank Herbst . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1996
Mr. & Mrs. George A. Horkan, Jr.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1996
David Howard . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1996
Virgil & Mary Jo Huseman . Kansas . . . . . . . 1996
Q.S. Leonard . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1996
Ken & Rosemary Mitchell . Canada. . . . . . . 1996
James Sr., Jerry, & James Petlik
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1996
Ken Risler . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1996
Merlin Anderson . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1997
Joe C. Bailey . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1997
William R. “Bill” Brockett . Virginia. . . . . . . 1997
Howard McAdams, Sr. & Howard McAdams, Jr.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Carolina. . . 1997
Rob Orchard . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1997
David Petty. . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1997
Rosemary Rounds and Marc & Pam Scarborough
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 1997
Morey and Pat Van Hoecke . Minnesota . . . . . . 1997
Randy and Judy Mills . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1998
Mike and Priscille Kasten . Missouri. . . . . . . 1998
Amana Farms, Inc.. . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 1998
Terry and Dianne Crisp . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1998
Jim and Carol Faulstich . . South Dakota. . . . 1998
James Gordon Fitzhugh . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1998
John B. Mitchell . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1998
Holzapfel Family . . . . . . California. . . . . . 1998
Mike Kitley . . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 1998
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence

Wallace & Donald Schilke . North Dakota. . . . 1998 Agri-Services Division, Oklahoma Department
of Corrections . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . . 2002
Doug & Ann Deane and Patricia R. Spearman
Alpine Farms. . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2002
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1998
Amana Farms . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 2002
Glenn Baumann . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 1999
Griffin Seedstock . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2002
Bill Boston . . . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 1999
Indian Knoll Cattle Co. . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2002
C-J-R- Christensen Ranches.Wyoming. . . . . . 1999
Miles Land and Livestock . Wyoming. . . . . . 2002
Ken Fear, Jr.. . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1999
Shovel Dot Ranch . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2002
Giles Family . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1999
Torbert Farms. . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2002
Burt Guerrieri . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1999
White Farms . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2002
Karlen Family . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . 1999
Voyles Farms . . . . . . . . Indiana. . . . . . . 2002
Deseret Ranches of Alberta . Canada. . . . . . . 1999
Clear Creek Cattle Company.Wyoming. . . . . . 2003
Nick and Mary Klintworth . North Dakota. . . . 1999
Crider Salers . . . . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 2003
MW Hereford Ranch . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 1999
Mike Goldwasser . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2003
Mossy Creek Farm . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1999
Patterson Ranch . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2003
Iris, Bill, & Linda Lipscomb.Alabama . . . . . . 1999
W.S. Roberts and Sons . . . Indiana. . . . . . . 2003
Amana Farms, Inc.. . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 2999
Shriver Farms . . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . . 2003
Tony Boothe . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2000
Stroud Farms . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2003
Glenn Clabaugh . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2000
Tailgate Ranch Company . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2003
Connie, John & Terri Griffith.Kansas . . . . . . . 2000
Burkhalter Cattle . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2004
Frank B. Labato . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2000
Doler Farm . . . . . . . . . Mississippi. . . . . 2004
Roger & Sharon Lamont and Doug & Shawn Lamont
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota. . . . 2000 LU Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2004
Bill and Claudia Tucker . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2000 Namminga Angus . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . 2004
Wayne and Chip Unsicker . Illinois. . . . . . . . 2000 Nellwood Farms. . . . . . . Georgia. . . . . . . 2004
Billy H. Bolding. . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2001 Olsen Ranches, Inc.. . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2004
Mike and Tom Endress . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2001 Prather Ranch (Ralphs Ranches Inc.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2004
Henry and Hank Maxey . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2001
Blair Porteus and Sons . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . . 2004
Paul McKee. . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2001
Rx Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . . 2004
3-R Ranch . . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2002
Schuette Farms . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2004

157
 BIF Commercial Producer Honor Roll of Excellence
Valdez Ranches . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2004
Wickstrum Farms, Inc.. . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2004
CK Ranch . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2005
Diamond V Ranch . . . . . North Dakota. . . . 2005
Dover Ranch . . . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 2005
Gaines Farm . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2005
Hillwinds Farm . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2005
Krupps Farm . . . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2005
Jack and Ila Mae Larson . . Colorado . . . . . . 2005
Mule Creek Ranch . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2005
Paxton Ranch . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2005
Pontious Farms . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . . 2005
Prather Ranch . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2005
Shovel Dot Ranch . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2005
Wintergreen Farm . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . 2005
Duck Farm Inc. . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2006
Hunt Hill Cattle Co. . . . . Mississippi. . . . . 2006
McDorman Farms . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . . 2006
Pitchfork Ranch . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 2006
Rock Creek Ranch . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2006
Sutherland Ranches . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2006
Van Waarhuizen, Inc. . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 2006
Broseco Ranch . . . . . . . Texas. . . . . . . . 2007
4Z Farms . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2007
CK Ranch. . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2007
Barry and Larry Dowell Families
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 2007
Eagle Rock Ranch. . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2007
Eatinger Cattle Company, Inc.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2007
158
JHL Ranch. . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2007
Lacey Livestock. . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2007
Lerwick Brothers LLC. . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2007
MG Farms. . . . . . . . . . Mississippi. . . . . 2007
Stuart Land & Cattle Company
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2007
CL Ranches Ltd. . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008
Eatinger Cattle Company, Inc.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2008
Frank Farms. . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2008
Genereux Ranch. . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . . 2008
Jack Giltner . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . . 2008
Hollow Hill Farm. . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2008
JL Cattle Company. . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2008
Kniebel Farms & Cattle Company
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2008
Otley Brothers Inc.. . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 2008
Toland’s River Oak Ranch . Illinois. . . . . . . . 2008
Tom Bengard Ranches . . . California. . . . . . 2008
Win Parmer Ranch . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2008
Anderson Land and Cattle . Kansas . . . . . . . 2009
Tom Bengard Ranches . . . California. . . . . . 2009
Joe Davis Cattle Farm. . . . South Carolina. . . 2009
Freedom Hills Ranch . . . . Illinois. . . . . . . . 2009
JHL Ranch. . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2009
Gale Rippey Farms . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2009
Slusher Valley Farms . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 2009
Stephens Farm. . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2009
 BIF Commercial Producer of the Year

Chan Cooper . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1972 Kopp Family . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1992

Pat Wilson . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1973 Jon Ferguson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1993

Lloyd Nygard . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1974 Fran & Beth Dobitz . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1994

Gene Gates . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1975 Joe & Susan Thielen . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1995

Ron Baker . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1976 Virgil & Mary Jo Huseman. Kansas . . . . . . . 1996

Mary & Stephen Garst . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1977 Merlin & Bonnie Anderson . Kansas . . . . . . . 1997

Mose Tucker . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1978 Mike & Priscilla Kasten . . Missouri . . . . . . 1998

Bert Hawkins . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1979 Randy & Judy Mills . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1998

Jess Kilgore . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1980 Giles Family . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1999

Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1981 Mossy Creek Farm . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1999

Sam Hands . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1982 Bill & Claudia Tucker . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2000

Al Smith . . . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1983 Maxey Farms . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2001

Bob & Sharon Beck . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1984 Griffith Seedstock . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2002

Glenn Harvey . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1985 Tailgate Ranch . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2003

Charles Fariss . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1986 Olsen Ranches, Inc.. . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2004

Rodney G. Oliphant . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1987 Prather Ranch . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 2005

Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1988 Pitchfork Ranch . . . . . . Illinois . . . . . . . 2006

Jerry Adamson . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1989 Broseco Ranch . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2007

Mike & Diana Hopper . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1990 Kniebel Farms and Cattle Company
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2008
Dave & Sandy Umbarger . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1991
JHL Ranch. . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2009

159
 2010 COMMERCIAL PRODUCER AWARD NOMINEES

Stan and Lisa Buzzard

Beecher City, Illinois

In 1996, Stan and Lisa Buzzard of Beecher City, Illinois, purchased 27 bred heifers from the Elite Heifer
Program at Paris, Kentucky, which was the start of their commercial cow-calf business. The Buzzards now run an
800 acre grain and commercial beef cattle operation consisting of 120 cow-calf pairs and 45 replacement heifers.
The brood cows are an Angus/Charolais cross and are smoky colored and are bred to high performance, superior
carcass Angus bulls to produce approximately 25% smoky calves and 75% black calves.

In the spring the cow-calf pairs are divided into groups and are placed into multiple pastures. Their herd
calving occurs during the months of February through April. The herd has a tight calving period with 85% of
their calves born within the first 30 days of calving. With multiple pastures, the Buzzards are able to analyze the
performance of each individual sire. Calves are early weaned the first week in August at 165 days of age, while
maintaining a 96 percent calf crop at weaning with a 526 pound weaning weight. The steers are finished in the
feedlot and the heifers are enrolled in the Illinois Heifer Development Program. The Buzzards have consigned
heifers in the spring calving sale since 2003 receiving premium prices with repeat buyers.

Stan began farming in 1973, while at the same time working and co-owning a concrete construction com-
pany. In 2000, he sold his shares of the company to devote his time to the farm.

Stan and Lisa Buzzard are proudly nominated by the University of Illinois Extension and the Illinois Beef
Association.

Downey Ranch
Owners: Members of the Joseph L. Downey Family
Managers: Joe Carpenter and Barb Downey
Wamego, Kansas

Downey Ranch, Inc. (DRI) is located in the Flint Hills, just southeast of Manhattan, KS. Formed in 1986
by Joe Downey, the ranch encompasses more than 6,300 acres of mostly forages and a herd of 550 cows. The
ranch calves 425 spring cows, which includes 140 registered Angus and 285 commercial Angus, F-1 baldies and
Red Angus x Angus cows. In addition, there are 125 fall-calving commercial cows with the same breed make-up.

From day one, DRI has focused on the efficient production of high-quality beef utilizing a multitude
of practices to make sure no animal “ever has a bad day.” Low-stress handling of all cattle; integrated disease
management, including vaccinations and providing an environment to prevent disease; fence-line weaning; early
weaning; research- and feedback-based management; individual end-point management of feedlot cattle, etc. are
tools used by DRI to accomplish this goal.

Currently, almost all calves (except seedstock) are marketed through U.S. Premium Beef on an age- and
source-verified quality grid. Commercial bred females and registered bulls are marketed through an annual pro-
duction sale. DRI assists female and bull customers in optimizing return on their calves using those tools that
have proven successful.

160
 With a good handle on production, DRI now is focused on intense financial analysis, having added a fam-
ily member to the team for that purpose. With all these tools, DRI hopes to ensure a well-run business, capable
of supporting family members and employees, that exists long into the future.

The Kansas Livestock Association is proud to nominate Downey Ranch.

G.W. Jones and Sons Farms

Owners: Raymond B. Jones, Elizabeth Jones Lowe, and Carolyn Jones Blue
Huntsville, Alabama

In 1804, the Jones ancestors moved to Madison County, Alabama from Lincoln County, Tennessee, for the
purpose of farming. For the last 205 years, the Jones family has continued to farm in Madison, currently operating
2,000 acres for the cattle operation, which began in 1939, and has now been surrounded by the City of Huntsville.
The farming enterprises have also expanded over the years and include farming operations in Jackson, Marshall,
and Limestone counties.

From the 1940’s through most of the 1980’s, Horned Hereford cattle primarily made up the cow herd.
Today, half Red Angus half red Gelbvieh, or Balancer, herd sires produce a calf crop consisting of approximately
half Red Angus, half red Gelbvieh. The cow herd consists of approximately 450 cows with a fall calving season
of 63 days beginning on October 1st. All performance data is collected, maintained, and evaluated using the Red
Wing Cow/Calf software. Calves are marketed at the end of May or June. The steers are sold at an average of 650
lbs in truck load lots directly to a feedlot. A select group of heifers are retained as replacements, with the balance
being sold to local cattlemen.

G.W. Jones & Sons Farm has received favorable feedback from their customers on the feedlot and carcass
performance of their calves. Their reputation of performance has resulted in repeat customers for the past several
years. Future plans are to continue to improve using all the tools available to the 21st century cattlemen. Available
tools to improve genetics, EPD’s, record keeping, and forage production will be utilized as the family continues
their farming legacy in this wonderful country called America.

The Alabama Beef Cattle Improvement Association is proud to nominate G. W. Jones and Sons Farms.

M&B Limousin
Owners: Mike & Betsy Cravens
Lee’s Summit, Missouri

The Cravens have been in business for over twenty years. Their operation is comprised of 1050 acres.
They maintain both spring and fall calving seasons on their 280 head operation.

M&B Limousin started as a small commercial herd with rented Limousin bulls. Impressed with the calv-
ing ease, performance, and sturdiness of Limousin, they have expanded their commercial herd of crossbred cows
in addition to maintaining 110 head of registered Limousin cows. The Cravens believe in sound science and read-
ily use expected progeny differences and genomics data in selection and breeding decisions. They have devel-
oped strong relationships with Strauss Veal and Laura’s Lean Beef, two branded programs which Cravens market
a large percentage of calves through. They also appreciate economic advantages of age and source verification
and keeping calves natural.
161
 The Cravens have operated single handedly, while both working full-time jobs. Retirement has allowed
full operational focus, improving their cowherd and maintaining industry ties. True stewards of the land, the Cra-
vens are continually working on pasture improvement and preservation of the land. As well, they have continued
to upgrade facilities and working equipment in an effort to improve operational efficiency. Mike and Betsy are
always looking for ways to increase reproductive efficiency and performance of their cattle. They have fine tuned
their nutrition program and honed their selection criteria.

Mike attributes much success to a formal background in Animal Science, judging at the University of Mis-
souri Livestock, and 40 year ownership of “The Old Mill, Grain and Seed.”

M&B Limousin is proudly nominated by the North American Limousin Foundation.

Duane Martin Livestock

Owners: Duane Martin Family
Ione, California

Duane Martin Livestock is a diversified ranching operation covering seven states of grazing feeders,
stockers and cow/calf. These states include California, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming and Colo-
rado. Duane has been in the ranching business for forty-six years, building from the ground up. He started out
driving a ready mix cement truck. He earned enough to buy his first cows at age 24. Ever since then, every dollar
he’s made has been related to the cattle industry. He is involved in order buying, cattle feeding, grazing stockers
and cow/calf.

The calving season is both spring and fall, which is determined by the climate and location of the ranches.
The cow/calf operation includes over 8,000 mother cows. Duane Martin Livestock owns a feedlot in Wiggins, Colo-
rado, Magnum Feedyards, and feeds many of his cattle there along with other feedlots in the heartland.

Duane continues the philosophy passed on by his father, Frank Martin, which is to “never sell a thin ani-
mal” and “water (availability on a ranch) is half the feed.” This commitment to animal welfare reaches further,
with continual improvement of facilities, professional development for staff, and the ranch policy to not sell sick
or injured animals, but rather to heal them or euthanize.

The links between cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot provide much of the advantages of vertical integration,
without being rigid since the strength of the business has been to take advantage of marketing opportunities and
knowing when to buy or sell cattle into the various markets.

Everything is centered around cattle, not with money from other businesses. There has been no outside
inheritance or capital. The Martins believe that theirs is an example of what beef production should be – a busi-
ness that can profitably stand alone, and that is their goal. They say there is never enough time in the day to do it
as wonderfully as they want.

Duane Martin Livestock is proudly nominated by the California Beef Cattle Improvement Association.

162
 Optimal Beef, LLC
Owner: Alan Graybeal
Blacksburg, Virginia

Optimal Beef is located in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwest Virginia. The cattle operation has been
in existence since 1950 when Alan’s father purchased land and began his beef cattle production system. Alan
joined the cattle enterprise fulltime in 1993, at which point they purchased additional land and significantly ex-
panded their cow herd. Currently they maintain a herd of 400 Angus/Simmental crossbred cows. Cows are calved
in February/March and in September/October. Generally all cows are bred AI, and then herd bulls are introduced
for 64 days. All calves are weaned and backgrounded at the farm. Replacement heifers are selected from their
calf crop and developed to enter the cow herd. All remaining calves are fed for retained ownership through Circle
Five Feedyard in Henderson, Nebraska and enter an age and source verified program.

Their cow herd is maintained on 800 acres of owned land. Pasture and hay management are critical to
the success of their operation. Rotational grazing is used on all their land and they strive to maintain a mixture
of grasses and legumes in their pastures. Some paddocks are also used for haying, and in late summer some are
stockpiled for winter grazing. Their goal is to feed hay for only 75 days during the winter months.

Optimal Beef is proudly nominated by the Virginia Beef Cattle Improvement Association.

163
 BIF Pioneer Award Recipients

Jay L. Lush . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1973 Mr. & Mrs. Carl Roubicek . Arizona . . . . . . 1979
Reuben Albaugh. . . . . . . California . . . . . 1974 Joseph J. Urick . . . . . . . USDA . . . . . . . 1979

Charles E. Bell, Jr.. . . . . . USDA . . . . . . . 1974 Richard T. “Scotty” Clark . USDA . . . . . . . 1980

John H. Knox . . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1974 Bryon L. Southwell . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1980

Paul Pattengale . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1974 F.R. “Ferry” Carpenter . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1981

Fred Wilson . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1974 Otha Grimes . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1981

Ray Woodward . . . . . . . ABS . . . . . . . . 1974 Milton England . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1981

Glenn Butts . . . . . . . . . PRT . . . . . . . . 1975 L.A. Moddox . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1981

Keith Gregory . . . . . . . MARC . . . . . . . 1975 Charles Pratt . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1981

Braford Knapp, Jr.. . . . . . USDA . . . . . . . 1975 Clyde Reed . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1981

Forrest Bassford Gordon Dickerson . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1982

Western Livestock Journal . . . . . . . . . 1976
Mr. & Mrs. Percy Powers . Texas . . . . . . . . 1982
Doyle Chambers . . . . . . Louisiana . . . . . 1976
Jim Elings. . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1983
Mrs. Waldo Emerson Forbes .Wyoming. . . . . . 1976
W. Dean Frischknecht . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1983
C. Curtis Mast . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1976
Ben Kettle . . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1983
Ralph Bogart . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1977
Jim Sanders . . . . . . . . . Nevada . . . . . . . 1983
Henry Holsman . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1977
Carroll O. Schoonover . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1983
Marvin Koger . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1977
Bill Graham . . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1984
John Lasley . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1977
Max Hammond . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 1984
W. L. McCormick . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1977
Thomas J. Marlowe . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1984
Paul Orcutt . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1977
Mick Crandell . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1985
J.P. Smith
Performance Registry Int’l . . . . . . . . . 1977 Mel Kirkiede . . . . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1985

H.H. Stonaker . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1977 Charles R. Henderson . . . New York . . . . . 1986

James B. Lingle . . . . . . . Wye Plantation . . 1978 Everett J. Warwick . . . . . USDA . . . . . . . 1986

R. Henry Mathiessen . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1978 Glenn Burrows . . . . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1987

Bob Priode . . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1978 Carlton Corbin . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1987

Robert Koch . . . . . . . . MARC . . . . . . . 1979 Murray Corbin . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1987

164
 BIF Pioneer Award Recipients

Max Deets . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1987 Robert E. Taylor. . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1995

Christian A. Dinkle . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1988 A.L. “Ike” Eller . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1996

George F. & Mattie Ellis . . New Mexico . . . . 1988 Glynn Debter . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1996

A.F. “Frankie” Flint . . . . New Mexico . . . . 1988 Larry V. Cundiff . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1997

Roy Beeby . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1989 Henry Gardiner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1997

Will Butts . . . . . . . . . . Tennessee . . . . . 1989 Jim Leachman . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1997

John W. Massey . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1989 John Crouch . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1998

Donn & Sylvia Mitchell . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990 Bob Dickinson . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1998

Hoon Song . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990 Douglas MacKenzie Fraser . Alberta. . . . . . . 1998

Jim Wilton . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1990 Joseph Graham . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1999

Bill Long . . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1991 John Pollak . . . . . . . . . New York . . . . . 1999

Bill Turner . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1991 Richard Quaas . . . . . . . New York . . . . . 1999

Frank Baker. . . . . . . . . Arkansas . . . . . . 1992 J. David Nichols . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 2000

Ron Baker . . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1992 Harlan Ritchie . . . . . . . Michigan . . . . . . 2000

Bill Borror . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1992 Robert R. Schalles . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2000

Walter Rowden . . . . . . . Arkansas . . . . . . 1992 Larry Benyshek . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 2001

James D. Bennett . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1993 Minnie Lou Bradley . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2001

M.K. “Curly” Cook . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1993 Tom Cartwright . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2001

O’Dell G. Daniel . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1993 H.H. “Hop” Dickenson . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2002

Hayes Gregory . . . . . . . North Carolina . . . 1993 Martin & Mary Jorgensen . South Dakota . . . 2002

Dixon Hubbard . . . . . . . USDA . . . . . . . 1993 L. Dale Van Vleck . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2002

James W. “Pete” Patterson . North Dakota . . . 1993 George Chiga . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 2003

Richard Willham . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1993 Burke Healey . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 2003

Tom Chrystal . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1994 Keith Zoellner . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2003

Robert C. DeBaca . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1994 Frank Felton . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 2004

Roy A. Wallace . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . 1994 Tom Jenkins . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2004

James S. Brinks . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1995 Joe Minyard . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 2004

165
 BIF Pioneer Award Recipients

Jack and Gini Chase . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 2005 David and Emma Danciger . Colorado . . . . . . 2007

Jack Cooper . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005 Jim Gosey. . . . . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2007

Dale Davis . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005 Donald Vaniman. . . . . . . Montana. . . . . . 2008

Les Holden . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005 Louis Latimer. . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

Don Kress. . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005 Harry Haney. . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

John Brethour . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2006 Bob Church . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

Harlan & Dorotheann Rogers Bruce Golden . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2009

. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mississippi . . . . . 2006
Bruce Orvis . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2009
Dave Pingrey . . . . . . . . Mississippi . . . . . 2006
Roy McPhee (posthumously)
Rob Brown . . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2009

166
 BIF Continuing Service Award Recipients

Clarence Burch . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1972 Dick Spader . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1985

F. R. Carpenter . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1973 Roy Wallace . . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . 1985

Robert DeBaca . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1973 Larry Benyshek . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1986

E.J. Warwick . . . . . . . . Washington, DC . . 1973 Ken W. Ellis . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1986

Frank H. Baker . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1974 Earl Peterson . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1986

D.D. Bennett . . . . . . . . Oregon. . . . . . . 1974 Bill Borror . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . 1987

Richard Willham . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1974 Jim Gibb . . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1987

Larry V. Cundiff . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1975 Daryl Strohbehn . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1987

Dixon D. Hubbard . . . . . Washington, DC . . 1975 Bruce Howard . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1988

J. David Nichols . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1975 Roger McCraw . . . . . . . North Carolina . . . 1989

A.L. Eller, Jr.. . . . . . . . Virginia. . . . . . . 1976 Robert Dickinson . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1990

Ray Meyer . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1976 John Crouch . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1991

Lloyd Schmitt. . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1977 Jack Chase . . . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1992

Don Vaniman . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1977 Leonard Wulf . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . 1992

James S. Brinks . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1978 Robert McGuire . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 1993

Martin Jorgensen . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1978 Charles McPeake . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1993

Paul D. Miller . . . . . . . . Wisconsin . . . . . 1978 Henry W. Webster . . . . . South Carolina . . . 1993

C.K. Allen . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1979 Bruce E. Cunningham . . . Montana . . . . . . 1994

William Durfey . . . . . . . NAAB . . . . . . . 1979 Loren Jackson . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1994

Glenn Butts . . . . . . . . . PRI . . . . . . . . . 1980 Marvin D. Nichols . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1994

Jim Gosey. . . . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 1980 Steve Radakovich . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1994

Mark Keffeler . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 1981 Doyle Wilson . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1994

J.D. Mankin . . . . . . . . . Idaho . . . . . . . . 1982 Paul Bennett . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1995

Art Linton. . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1983 Pat Goggins . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 1995

James Bennett . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1984 Brian Pogue . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 1995

M.K. Cook . . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1984 Doug L. Hixon . . . . . . . Wyoming. . . . . . 1996

Craig Ludwig . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 1984 Harlan D. Ritchie . . . . . . Michigan . . . . . . 1996

Jim Glenn . . . . . . . . . . IBIA . . . . . . . . 1985 Glenn Brinkman . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1997

167
 BIF Continuing Service Award Recipients

Russell Danielson. . . . . . North Dakota . . . 1997 Chris Christensen . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 2004
Gene Rouse . . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 1997 Robert “Bob” Hough . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 2004

Keith Bertrand . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1998 Steven M. Kappes . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2004

Richard Gilbert. . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . 1998 Richard McClung . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2004

Burke Healey . . . . . . . . Oklahoma . . . . . 1998 Jerry Lipsey . . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005

Bruce Golden . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 1999 Micheal MacNeil . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005

John Hough . . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 1999 Terry O’Neill . . . . . . . . Montana . . . . . . 2005

Gary Johnson . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 1999 Robert Williams . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . 2005

Norman Vincil . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 1999 Jimmy Holliman. . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2006

Ron Bolze. . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2000 Lisa Kriese-Anderson . . . Alabama . . . . . . 2006

Jed Dillard . . . . . . . . . Florida . . . . . . . 2000 Dave Notter . . . . . . . . . Ohio. . . . . . . . 2006

William Altenburg . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2001 Craig Huffhines. . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 2007

Kent Andersen . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2001 Sally Northcutt . . . . . . . Missouri. . . . . . 2007

Don Boggs . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . 2001 Dale Kelly. . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

S.R. Evans . . . . . . . . . Mississippi . . . . . 2002 Doug Fee. . . . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

Galen Fink . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . 2002 Duncan Porteous . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . 2008

Bill Hohenboken . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2002 Mark Thallman. . . . . . . Nebraska. . . . . . 2009

Sherry Doubet . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . 2003 Renee Lloyd. . . . . . . . . Iowa. . . . . . . . 2009

Ronnie Green . . . . . . . . Virginia . . . . . . 2003 Dave Daley. . . . . . . . . California. . . . . . 2009

Connee Quinn . . . . . . . Nebraska . . . . . . 2003 Darrh Bullock. . . . . . . . Kentucky. . . . . . 2009

Ronnie Silcox . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . 2003

168
 BIF Ambassador Award Recipients

Warren Kester . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEEF Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . . 1986

Chester Peterson . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simmental Shield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . 1987

Fred Knop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drovers Journal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . 1988

Forrest Bassford . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Livestock Journal. . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . . 1989

Robert C. DeBaca . . . . . . . . . . . . The Ideal Beef Memo . . . . . . . . . . . Iowa . . . . . . . . . . 1990

Dick Crow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Livestock Journal. . . . . . . . . Colorado . . . . . . . 1991

J.T. “Johnny” Jenkins . . . . . . . . . . Livestock Breeder Journal. . . . . . . . . Georgia . . . . . . . . 1993

Hayes Walker III . . . . . . . . . . . . . America’s Beef Cattleman . . . . . . . . . Kansas. . . . . . . . . 1994

Nita Effertz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beef Today. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idaho . . . . . . . . . 1995

Ed Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hereford World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . . 1996

Bill Miller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beef Today. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . 1997

Keith Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American Angus Association. . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . . 1998

Shauna Rose Hermel . . . . . . . . . . Angus Journal & BEEF Magazine. . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . . 1999

Wes Ishmael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clear Point Communications . . . . . . . . Texas . . . . . . . . . 2000

Greg Hendersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . Drovers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . 2001

Joe Roybal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BEEF Magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minnesota . . . . . . . 2002

Troy Marshall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seedstock Digest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . . 2003

Kindra Gordon . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freelance Writer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . South Dakota . . . . . 2004

Steve Suther . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certified Angus Beef LLC. . . . . . . . . Kansas . . . . . . . . . 2005

Belinda Ary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cattle Today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alabama . . . . . . . . 2006

Angie Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hereford World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Missouri . . . . . . . . 2007

Gren Winslow and Larry Thomas. . . . Canadian Cattleman Magazine . . . . . . . Canada. . . . . . . . . 2008

Kelli Toldeo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cornerpost Publications . . . . . . . . . . California . . . . . . . 2009

169
 2009 Frank H. Baker Memorial Scholarship Awarded to Speidel
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (April 30, 2009) – Scott Speidel, research associate in breeding and genetics at Colo-
rado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., is a recipient of the 2009 Frank H. Baker Memorial Scholarship Award,
presented during the 41st Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April
30 - May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

Speidel accepted the award from Robert Williams, Ph.D., director of breed improvement and foreign marketing
for the American-International Charolais Association, Kansas City, Mo.

The late Frank H. Baker played a key leadership role in helping establish the BIF in 1968.

Each year since 1994, two deserving graduate students have been recognized for his or her winning essays.

A California native, Speidel holds a bachelor’s degree in Animal Science from California State University, Fres-
no; a master’s degree from the University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz., and plans to complete his doctorage this fall
at Colorado State University.

An abstract from his award-winning essay follows.

“Genetic Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Beef Cattle”

Currently, many different data types are collected by beef cattle breed associations for the purpose of genetic
evaluation. These data points are all biological characteristics of individual animals that can be measured multiple
times over an animal’s lifetime. Some traits can only be measured once on an individual animal, whereas others,
such as the body weight of an animal as it grows, can be measured a multitude of times. Data such as growth has
been often referred to as “longitudinal” or “infinite-dimensional” since it is theoretically possible to observe the
trait an infinite number of times over the life span of a given individual.

The analysis of such data is not without its challenges, and as a result, many different methods have been or are
beginning to be implemented in the genetic analysis of beef cattle data each an improvement over its predecessor.
These methods of analysis range from the classic repeated measures to the more contemporary suite of random
regressions that use covariance functions or even splines as their basis function.

Each of the approaches has both strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the analysis of longitudinal data.
Therefore, the objective of this essay is to summarize past and current genetic evaluation technology for analyzing
this type of data and to review some emerging technolo-
gies beginning to be implemented in current national
cattle evaluation schemes along with their potential im-
plications to the beef industry.

The California Beef Cattle Improvement Association

(CBCIA) and the California Cattlemen’s Association
(CCA) hosted the 41st BIF Research Symposium and An-
nual Meeting. For more information, visit www.bifcon-
ference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California

Cattleman. Caption: American-International Charolais Associa-
tion Director of Breed Improvement and Foreign Marketing Rob-
ert Williams, Ph.D., presented Colorado State University graduate
student Scott Speidel (left), Fort Collins, Colo., with a Frank H.
Baker Memorial Scholarship Award during the Beef Improvement
Federation 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April
30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.
170
 Leachman Recipient of 2009 Frank H. Baker Memorial Scholarship Award
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (April 30, 2009) – Lance D. Leachman, Christiansburg, Va., is a recipient of the 2009
Frank H. Baker Memorial Scholarship Award.

The award was presented by Robert Williams, Ph.D., director of breed improvement and foreign marketing,
American-International Charolais Association, Kansas City, Mo., during the 41st Beef Improvement Federation
(BIF) Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30- May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

The late Frank H. Baker played a key leadership role in helping establish the BIF in 1968.

Each year since 1994, two deserving graduate students have been recognized for his or her winning essays during
the BIF annual meeting.

Leachman was born in Maidstone, Sask., Canada. He holds a bachelor of science degree in Animal Sciences and
Industry with a business option from Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kan., and a master’s degree in Animal
and Poultry Science – Breeding Genetics from Virginia Polytechnic State University (Virginia Tech), Blackburg,
Va. Currently, Leachman is a graduate student at Virginia Tech.

An abstract from his award-winning essay follows.

“Combined Selection for the Beef Cattle Industry”

Beef cattle production entails a small sector of purebred seedstock producers supplying bulls to the much larger
commercial sector. Crossbreeding plays a vital role in increasing the productivity and profitability of many com-
mercial producers through breed complimentarity and heterosis.

In commercial herds, bull selection should be geared toward producing crossbreds that are optimal for the pro-
duction system, thereby raising the question, “Are we better served in utilizing purebred information alone, or a
combination of purebred and crossbred information, in genetic evaluation of potential sires?”

Combined Crossbred Purebred Selection (CCPS) allows the combination of vast amounts of performance data
potentially available on crossbreds with that on purebred cattle in a selection index or BLUP evaluation. The
genetic correlation between purebred and crossbred performance indicates the extent to which genetic progress
achieved in purebreds will translate to crossbred offspring. Genetic correlations of less than 0.7 suggest that cross-
bred data can aid in genetic improvement, due to the weak relationship between additive gene effects of purebreds
and crossbreds. The purebred heritability and crossbred heritability are also useful for determining potential selec-
tion accuracy and potential rates of progress with CCPS.

Combined Crossbred Purebred Selection has been used in the swine and poultry industries; however, the increased
requirements for pedigree and performance recording have limited its acceptance in beef cattle. Still, if genetic
gains were sufficiently accelerated with CCPS, the potential use of molecular genetic tolls to verify parentage in
multiple sire pastures may provide incentive to collect phenotypes on crossbred cattle. Adoption of CCPS needs
to be evaluated as cost-effective and applied initially to intensively managed commercial operations.

The California Beef Cattle Improvement Association (CBCIA) and the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)
hosted the 41st BIF Research Symposium and Annual Meeting. For more information, visit www.bifconference.
com or www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

171
 Beef Improvement Federation Names 2009 Seedstock Producers of the Year
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 1, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) recognized Champion Hill,
Inc., of Bidwell, Ohio, and Harrell Hereford Ranch of Baker City, Ore., as the 2009 Seedstock Producers of the
Year during its 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.
Traditionally, a single breeder is honored, but this year, the committee selected two producers deserving of the
nation’s top seedstock award, sponsored by BEEF magazine, Minneapolis, Minn.

CHAMPION HILL, INC.

Paul Hill and Marshall Reynolds of Champion Hill, Inc.,

run 220 breeding-age registered Angus females and 630
mostly half-blood Angus females, used as recipients, on
4,000 acres of owned and leased land in southeastern
Ohio. Each year, the operation sells 300 females in two
production sales and 200 bulls through a genetic part-
nership.
Reynolds owned the land, and in 1993, formed Champi-
on Hill, Inc., naming Hill as its president. Their philoso-
phy has always been to breed the kind of cattle that will
not only perform in the showring, but will also make
a positive contribution to the beef cattle industry. The
team at Champion Hill has selected females from the
top cow families in the Angus breed to use as foundation Champion Hill, Inc., Bidwell, Ohio, was named as one of the Beef
donor cows in order to consistently produce the quality Improvement Federation’s (BIF) 2009 Seedstock Producers of the
of cattle that their customers have come to expect. Year during its 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. Pictured receiving
“Paul Hill is one of the best promoters of seedstock in the award from BIF Outgoing President Tommy Brown (far left),
the Angus breed. He should be complimented on what he Clanton, Ala., and BEEF magazine Senior Editor Burt Rutherford
(far right) are Angus producers Lynn and Paul Hill of Champion
has done to advance the breed,” says Darrell Silveira of Hill, Inc.
Silveira Bros., Firebaugh, Calif. He adds, “Paul is very
deserving of this honor. He has come a long way since the
first time we met in 1975, when our reputations were so great, that we were both stalled near the wash rack during
the National Western Stock Show in Denver, Colo.”
“We are honored to have been chosen as the Beef Improvement Federation’s 2009 Seedstock Producer of the Year,”
said Paul Hill. “Lynn and I accept this award on behalf of our partner, Marshall Reynolds, and the entire staff at
Champion Hill. We would also like to thank our genetic partners Kelly and Martie Jo Schaff of Schaff Angus Valley,
Saint Anthony, N.D.” Hill adds, “We are indebted to the Beef Improvement Federation for providing the guidance to
the breed associations in order for them to provide the tools necessary to advance our herd.”

The Ohio Cattlemen’s Association nominated Champion Hill. For more information, visit www.championhillan-
gus.com.

HARRELL HEREFORD RANCH

In 1870, ancestors of the Harrell family traveled the Oregon Trail, settling near Baker City, Ore. Three generations
later in 1970, Bob and Edna Harrell established the Harrell Hereford Ranch along the foothills in eastern Oregon’s
Baker Valley.

172
The ranch is family owned-and-operated with Bob Harrell Jr. and his wife Becky and their daughter Lexie, shar-
ing the duties with his mother Edna Harrell, and his sister and brother-in-law Beth and Wannie Mackenzie, who
are also involved as partners in the Harrell-Mackenzie Quarter Horse operation.

“To be nominated by the American Hereford Association for this award was a great honor in itself, but to actually
be recognized at this level is more than our family could have ever imagined,” says Bob Harrell Jr. “To be voted
one of the top seedstock producers in this country by the most prestigious body of performance-minded producers
in the world is a feeling that will probably never be matched again in our lifetime,” he adds.

The cattle ranch originated with 100 head of Hereford cows purchased from TT Herefords, Connell, Wash., and
80 acres of land. Today, the operation has grown to six ranches, consisting of 300 registered Hereford cows, 400
black baldy commercial cows, an 800-head feedlot for backgrounding cattle and 45 Quarter Horse broodmares.
The cattle run on 8,000 acres of high-desert, native range and 3,000 irrigated tillable acres on which alfalfa and
meadow hay, corn silage, earlage and small grains are raised.

The Harrell herd has been performance testing since its

inception in 1970, and for nearly four decades the goal
has been to produce performance cattle that work under
a variety of management systems and branded beef pro-
grams.

The Harrell’s celebrated their 30th anniversary sale in

2009, offering more than 100 bulls, 30 heifers and 20
Quarter Horses to buyers from 11 states and Canada.
The successful event was driven by the program’s ad-
herence to the economics of the American beef industry
and their role as a seedstock leader. Through their breed-
ing and customer programs, the Harrells have emerged
The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) named Harrell Her- as a true genetics and marketing partner for their com-
eford Ranch, Baker City, Ore., as one of its 2009 Seedstock Pro- mercial customers.
ducers of the Year, in Sacramento, Calif., during its 41st Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009. Bob“Harrell Herefords is one of the most progressive seed-
stock producers in the United States. They are the epit-
Harrell Jr., his wife Becky and mother Edna Harrell are pictured
ome of a family operation and understand what their
receiving the award from BIF Outgoing President Tommy Brown
(far left), Clanton, Ala., and BEEF magazine Senior Editor Burt
commercial customers expect out of their program be-
Rutherford (far right).
cause they are also in the commercial cattle business,”
says Matt Macfarlane of Matt Macfarlane Marketing,
Sheridan, Calif. “The Hereford genetics offered by the Harrell family are truly balanced and are backed by one of
the great cow herds of any breed in the country,” he adds.

To find out more about the Harrell Hereford Ranch, visit www.harrellherefordranch.com.

Highlights from the 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, hosted by the California Beef Cattle Im-
provement Association (CBCIA) and the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), in conjunction with the
Beef Improvement Federation (BIF), can be found online at www.bifconference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/
bif2009.html.

Photos by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California Cattleman.

173
 Nebraska Operation Named Beef Improvement Federation
Commercial Producer of the Year
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (April 30, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) named the JHL Ranch,
Ashby, Neb., as its 2009 Commercial Producer of the Year. The family has run cattle in the southwest corner in
the Nebraska Sandhills since 1885. The JHL brand is reputed to be one of the oldest used in Nebraska having been
legally registered in the state in 1920.
Ranch owners Art and Merry Brownlee, along with their son Ethan, accepted the award from BEEF magazine
Senior Editor Burt Rutherford during the 41st BIF Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3,
2009, in Sacramento, Calif. The ranch was nominated by the Nebraska Cattlemen and the Braunvieh Association
of America, both based in Lincoln, Neb.

Harlan Doeschot of Golden Link Braunvieh, Firth, Neb., said, “There is not a more deserving recipient of the
commercial producer of the year award than the JHL Ranch. Art and Merry have tested their cattle and built a
tremendous herd based on the data they have gathered.”

The Brownlees took the reins of the operation in 1995 and spent the past 14 years working toward their goal to ap-
ply research and analysis principles to ranching. The ranch runs between 1,300 and 1,400 Angus- and Braunvieh-
cross cows, utilizing 80 paddocks in an intensive, managed rotational grazing system on approximately 30,000
acres.

The complete tracking and analysis of two end products – replacement females and carcass merit, have driven the
spring-calving operation. These actions have been made possible by the computer-based use of Deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA), ultrasound and linear measurements, as well as Expected Progeny Difference (EPD) technology.
The majority of the cows are bred through artificial insemination (AI) and calves are weaned at 150 days of age.
The calves are backgrounded and supplemented on grass at the ranch and then custom fed with ownership re-
tained to the rail. The ranch has marketed a USDA Source and Age Verified product since 1995.

After years of tracking, verifying and incorporating the progeny in the commercial herd, the JHL Ranch pur-
chased an existing Braunvieh herd in 2009, launching its seedstock division.

“We are honored and blessed to be named as this year’s commercial producer of the year,” said Art. For the past
decade, we have had the guidance and counsel of past recipients and individuals here today, as well as the Beef
Improvement Federation guidelines to develop our program and take it to the next level. We are a testament
that change is possible and change can be profitable,” he added.

For more information on the JHL Ranch, visit www.jhl-

beef.com.

The 41st BIF Research Symposium and Annual Meeting

is hosted by the California Beef Cattle Improvement As-
sociation (CBCIA) and the California Cattlemen’s As-
sociation (CCA). For more information, visit www.bif-
conference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications. Caption: Beef Improvement Fed-

eration (BIF) Outgoing President Tommy Brown (far left), Clanton,
Ala., and BEEF magazine Senior Editor Burt Rutherford (far right),
Amarillo, Texas, present the 2009 BIF Commercial Producer of the
Year Award to Art and Merry Brown and their son Ethan of the JHL Ranch, Ashby, Neb. The award was sponsored by BEEF magazine,
Minneapolis, Minn.

174
 Beef Improvement Federation Presents 2009 Pioneer Award
to Lifelong Hereford Breeder

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 2, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) presents the Pioneer Award
each year to deserving individuals who have made contributions to the genetic improvement of the beef industry.

This year, Bruce Orvis of Orvis Cattle Company, Farmington, Calif., was honored with the 2009 Pioneer Award
during the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.
A lifelong Hereford breeder, Orvis currently runs 300 head of registered cows and heifers at his ranch located in
the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. He markets 50 to 60 bulls annually to producers throughout Cali-
fornia, Nevada, Oregon and Mexico. The operation also runs 300 to 500 feeders on grass each year. He served as
a member of the American Hereford Association Board of Directors from 2001 through 2004.

Orvis Cattle Company has been performance testing cattle since 1952. The ranch began ultrasound testing in
1987. The operation is one of the longest running herds in the state to be certified free of Johne’s disease. Over the
years, Orvis Cattle Company bulls have been recognized at shows and sales across the state, including the Grand
National Stock Show, San Francisco, and the Red Bluff Bull Sale, Red Bluff, Calif.

During college, Orvis joined the family herd established in 1918 by his father and grandfather, C.B Orvis & Son,
and later W.S. Orvis & Sons. He was a standout football player and graduated from the College of the Pacific,
Stockton, Calif., with a bachelor’s degree in business economics in 1950.

A founding member of the California Beef Cattle Improvement Association (CBCIA), Orvis served on its board
of directors from 1959 through 1985. He served as president of the organization from 1961 through 1962. Orvis
was named the CBCIA Seedstock Producer of the Year in 1993 and in 2000. In 1997, he received the CBCIA
Horizon Award for his dedication to the California beef cattle industry.

Since 1970, Orvis has been an avid supporter of the Western Nugget National Hereford Show and Sale, held each
winter in Reno, Nev. In 1995, he was appointed to the Western States Hereford Committee, which oversees the
event. In addition, the Orvis family is an avid supporter of Hereford youth programs.

Bruce and his wife Roma have four children and twelve
grandchildren. In 1996, the ranch was preserved for fu-
ture generations when it was placed in a conservation
easement with the California Rangeland Trust, an orga-
nization governed by ranchers working to conserve the
open space, natural habitat and stewardship of California
ranches.
For highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium
and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sac-
ramento, Calif., visit www.bifconference.com or www.
calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California Cattleman. Caption: Bruce Orvis (second from right), Farmington, Calif.,
was recognized by the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) with the 2009 Pioneer Award during its 41st Research Symposium and Annual
Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. Pictured with Orvis are sons Mike Orvis (far left) of Livermore, Calif., and Bruce
Orvis III of Arnold, Calif. BIF Outgoing President Tommy Brown (far right), Clanton, Ala., made the presentation.

175
 Golden Honored with Beef Improvement Federation Pioneer Award
SACRAMENTO, CALIF., (May 2, 2009) – Bruce Golden, Ph.D., Dairy Science department head and professor
at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly), San Luis Obispo, Calif., was honored as a recipient of the
Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Pioneer Award during the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and An-
nual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

A California native, Golden received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Animal Science from Washington
State University, Pullman, Wash. In 1989, he received a doctorate in Animal Breeding and Genetics from Colo-
rado State University (CSU), Fort Collins, Colo.

Golden was a faculty member at CSU for 19 years before becoming the chief operating officer of OptiBrand®, a
company he founded in 1998 with two colleagues from CSU that worked with him to develop a secure, biometric
and humane method to identify and trace livestock.

Past students consider him an enthusiastic teacher and over the years, he taught several undergraduate and gradu-
ate classes at CSU and Cal Poly. Throughout his career, he has worked with a large number of graduate students
who have gone on to careers in academics, industry and government.

During his time on the CSU faculty, Golden established the Center for Genetic Evaluation of Livestock (CGEL),
which today remains one of the premier national cattle evaluation research and development groups in the world.
He produced one of the first multiple trait national evaluations using the animal model for Red Angus in 1986.
Since its inception, the CGEL has produced population-level genetic evaluations for dozens of beef breed associa-
tions and producer groups in North America, South America, New Zealand and Ireland.

One of Golden’s strengths is in computing; he is responsible for the original creation of the genetic evaluation
software known as the Animal Breeder’s Tool Kit (ABTK). The ABTK is a suite of computing tools for conduct-
ing large-scale genetic analyses. After several updates and additions, the ABTK is still the core software used by
the CGEL, as well as genetics researchers around the world.

His most significant programming contributions, include efficient algorithms for computation of the inverse re-
lationship matrix from large pedigrees; approximation of the inverse coefficient matrix used to obtain prediction
error variances and accuracy values; and biometric methods for animal identification. Golden was responsible
for establishing the first Linux-based Beowulf cluster computing platform used for large-scale genetic prediction
work in livestock at CSU.
During his research at CSU, he focused on trait development and Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) for novel
traits, such as heifer pregnancy, stayability and maintenance energy. In order to foster discussion about animal
genetics in an open forum, he founded the Animal Genetics Discussion Group (AGDG), an online network of
animal breeders from throughout the world.

Golden is a longtime participant in and supporter of the BIF. He was honored by the BIF with a Continu-
ing Service Award in 1999. He has served on the BIF Genetic Prediction Committee and wrote significant
portions of the National Cattle Evaluation (NCE) methods chapter in the BIF Guidelines for Uniform Beef
Improvement Programs.

His presentation on the next generation of EPDs under the economically relevant trait framework, during the 2000
BIF annual meetings in Wichita, Kan., remains a key reference and discussion point today. In 2008, he gave an
invited paper on the history of national cattle evaluation development in the United States at the Federation of
Animal Science Societies (FASS) annual meeting.

176
 In addition to his pioneering work in genetic evaluation
and improvement of beef cattle, Golden is an avid fly
fisherman, guitarist, dog enthusiast and chef. He and his
wife Mary live in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

For highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium

and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sac-
ramento, Calif., visit www.bifconference.com or www.
calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California

Cattleman. Caption: Bruce Golden (left), Ph.D., San Luis Obispo,
Calif., was honored by the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) with
the 2009 Pioneer Award during the organization’s 41st Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sac-
ramento, Calif. Presenting the award is BIF Outgoing President
Tommy Brown, Clanton, Ala.

177
 McPhee Posthumously Honored with 2009 Pioneer Award
by the Beef Improvement Federation

SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 2, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) posthumously honored Roy
McPhee with the 2009 Pioneer Award during the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting,
April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

The McPhee family of Lodi, Calif., believes that persistent selection for practical profit-making traits will lead
to efficiency and success. The late Roy McPhee, together with his wife Nellie, and children Mike, Mary and Rita
and their families, have worked together since 1970 to develop one of the nation’s largest Red Angus herds west
of the Rocky Mountains.

In 2005, the Red Angus Association of America recognized McPhee Red Angus as one of the 40 most influential
herds in the breed. The family owned-and-operated business markets cattle through its annual production sale at
the ranch in late September, selling 100 bulls and 40 females.

McPhee Red Angus bulls have topped the toughest yearling bull tests in the nation, including the California Poly-
technic State University (Cal Poly) Bull Test, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; the Midland Bull Test, Columbus, Mont.;
and the Snyder Livestock “Bulls for the 21st Century” Test, Yerington, Nev.
McPhee first became involved in the registered cattle business in 1943 with the purchase of an Angus bull. After
spending several years in the commercial cattle and feedlot feeding business, he decided to breed purebred Red
Angus cattle because they were the only breed at that time to require performance information as a prerequisite to
registering cattle. A former agricultural banker, McPhee had seen many registered programs startup, sputter and
go out-of-business as a result of lack of commitment and a vision for longevity.

McPhee was named the California Beef Cattle Improve-

ment Association (CBCIA) Seedstock Producer of the
Year in 1986. In 1993, he was honored as the San Joa-
quin-Stanislaus County Cattlemen’s Association Cattle-
man of the Year. He was awarded CBCIA’s Horizon
Award in 1996 for his contributions to the advancement
of performance cattle in the state. The CBCIA was privi-
leged to have had his leadership and guidance over the
years.
For highlights from the Beef Improvement Federation’s
41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April
30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif., visit www.bif-
conference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California Cattleman. Caption: The late Roy McPhee was posthumously honored
by the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) with the 2009 Pioneer Award presented to his family during the organization’s 41st Re-
search Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. Pictured receiving the award from BIF Outgo-
ing President Tommy Brown, Clanton, Ala., are (L to R): Rita McPhee, Lodi; Nellie McPhee, Lodi; and Mary Miller, Linden.

178
 Bullock Receives 2009 Beef Improvement Federation Continuing Service Award
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 1, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored Darrh Bullock,
Ph.D., Lexington, Ky., with a Continuing Service Award, presented during its 41st Research Symposium and An-
nual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

Bullock was raised on a large commercial cow-calf operation and watermelon family farm near Williston, Fla.
He earned a bachelor’s degree in Animal and Dairy Science from Auburn University, Auburn, Ala., in 1984. He
worked at the Auburn University Lower Coastal Plain Research Station, Camden, Ala., as the herdsman for the
beef cattle breeding project from 1984 through 1986. 

He returned to the Auburn campus and earned a master’s degree in Animal Breeding and Genetics in 1988. He
earned a doctorate in Beef Cattle Breeding and Genetics from the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga., in 1992.

Bullock was appointed the University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service assistant professor in 1992.
He earned the rank of associate Extension professor in 1997 and beef cattle Extension specialist in beef breeding
and genetics in 2004. 
His primary responsibility is coordinating the state’s beef breeding and genetic management educational ac-
tivities. He also serves as a core member of the University of Kentucky Beef Integrated Resource Management
(IRM) Committee and as the Extension Beef Group coordinator for all beef-related research, teaching and Exten-
sion activities in the Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. He also serves
as the overall Extension coordinator for the department. 

Bullock continues to be very active in both national and international beef breeding organizations. He recently
stepped down as the eastern regional secretary and chair of the Multi-trait Selection Committee for the Beef Im-
provement Federation (BIF) and currently represents the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium (NBCEC)
on the BIF board. He also serves the BIF as the U.S. representative to the International Committee for Animal
Recording (ICAR) Beef Recording Working Group, based in Rome, Italy.

He is a member of the board of directors and coordinator of educational programs for the NBCEC and he has also
been active in the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), serving in leadership positions for the southern
section and southern region Extension Beef Group. 

Bullock is a member of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, as well as the Kentucky Cattlemen’s Associa-
tion and the Kentucky Beef Improvement Association. Darrh and his wife Helene have two children, Lukas and
Hanna. 
Highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium and
Annual Meeting, hosted by the California Beef Cattle
Improvement Association (CBCIA) and the California
Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), can be found online
at www.bifconference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/
bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California

Cattleman. Caption: Darrh Bullock, Ph.D. (left), Lexington, Ky.,
was honored by the Beef Improvement Federation with a Continu-
ing Service Award presented during its 41st Research Symposium
and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento,
Calif. Presenting the award is BIF Outgoing President Tommy
Brown, Clanton, Ala.

179
 Daley Honored with 2009 Beef Improvement Federation
Continuing Service Award
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 1, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored David A. Daley,
Ph.D., with a Continuing Service Award on May 1, during the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and An-
nual Meeting in Sacramento, Calif., hosted by the California Beef Cattle Improvement Association (CBCIA) and
the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA). The award recognizes individuals who have made major contribu-
tions to the BIF and/or the beef industry.

Together with his wife, Cindy Daley, Ph.D., and their three children, Daley owns and operates a commercial cow-
calf and seedstock operation, based in Oroville, Calif., where his family has been ranching for five generations.

In the early 1990s, Daley founded and coordinated an international group of progressive cattlemen and academics
focused on the use of composite and hybrid seedstock in the beef industry. For nearly a decade, the national meet-
ings for the Composite Cattle Breeders’ International Alliance became a think-tank for progressive leaders in the
industry to evaluate and compare non-traditional approaches to cattle breeding.

More recently, he has been coordinating research projects with Harris Ranch Beef Company, Coalinga, Calif., and
Lacey Livestock, Independence, Calif., on the utilization of DNA fingerprinting in beef production and evaluating
the implication of crossbreeding in vertically coordinated beef systems.

Daley has also been actively involved in the potential application and implementation of the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS), including hosting a nationally recognized animal identification academy.

He presently serves as the president of the Butte County Cattlemen’s Association, a technical advisor to the CB-
CIA and is active on state and national issues that affect the beef industry. His present involvement focuses on the
implication of animal welfare issues to the beef industry, serving as vice chair of a statewide task force, as well as
on an advisory committee for the University of California, Davis, on the same topic.

In addition, he currently serves as the Associate Dean, College of Agriculture, and the Director of the Agricultural
Teaching and Research Center at California State University, Chico, where he manages a diversified farming op-
eration and supervises the beef program. In that capacity, he has worked to develop and mentor student members
of the California Young Cattlemen’s Association, an organization designed to develop future leaders in the beef
industry.

For highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacra-
mento, Calif., visit www.bifconference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California

Cattleman. Caption: Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Outgoing
President Tommy Brown, Clanton, Ala., presents David A. Daley,
Ph.D. (left), Oroville, Calif., with a BIF Continuing Service Award
during the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual
Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

180
 Lloyd Honored with 2009 Beef Improvement Federation Continuing Service Award
The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored Renee Lloyd, Johnston, Iowa, with a Continuing Service Award
during the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento,
Calif.

Lloyd is an account executive with McCormick Company, a full-service sales communication firm, located near
Des Moines, Iowa. She works with agricultural clients on their marketing campaigns and communications initia-
tives.

Prior to joining McCormick Company, Lloyd served for 10 years as the director of production education with
the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), Centennial, Colo. While at the NCBA, she led producer
education initiatives, including the Cattlemen’s College®, the Cattle Learning Center and the Integrated Resource
Management (IRM) programs.

During her tenure with NCBA, she staffed many producer-leader working groups, councils and committees and
assisted with the Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) efforts. She also was a field producer for NCBA’s weekly televi-
sion program, Cattlemen to Cattlemen. She was also a tireless representative to the board of directors for the BIF.
She was an important voice for the BIF and genetic improvement on the national beef cattle scene.

Lloyd was instrumental in the planning and implementation of many symposia and other producer education ini-
tiatives as a part of the BIF team. She was a champion of finding resources to assure that the BIF proceedings were
first-rate. A valued member of the annual meeting planning and implementation team for the 39th BIF Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting in 2007, she never faltered in her responsibilities.

Before joining NCBA, she was employed as an area agricultural economist for the Oklahoma Cooperative Ex-
tension Service in Ada, Okla., and Enid, Okla. During her 10-year career with the Extension service, she worked
one-on-one with farmers and ranchers and developed educational programs in areas like cattle and grain market
outlook, computer record keeping, financial planning and ag policy. She also assisted with the 4-H and junior
livestock activities at the county and district levels.

Lloyd grew up in west central Illinois on a livestock and grain operation. She studied agricultural economics and
earned a bachelor’s degree from Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla., and a master’s degree from Vir-
ginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va. As a fourth generation beef producer, she still is
involved with the family cattle operation in Illinois and enjoys spending time with her nieces and nephews on the
family farm.

Highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium and

Annual Meeting, hosted by the California Beef Cattle
Improvement Association (CBCIA) and the California
Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), can be found online
at www.bifconference.com or www.calcattlemen.org/
bif2009.html.

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California Cat-

tleman. Caption: Renee Lloyd (left), Johnston, Iowa, was honored
by the Beef Improvement Federation with a Continuing Service
Award presented during its 41st Research Symposium and Annual
Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. Presenting
the award is BIF Outgoing President Tommy Brown, Clanton, Ala.

181
 Thallman Receives 2009 BIF Continuing Service Award
 SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (May 1, 2009) – The Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) honored Mark R. Thallman,
Ph.D., Blue Hill, Neb., with a Continuing Service Award during its 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting
in Sacramento, Calif., April 30 – May 3, 2009.

After working for nearly a decade for major beef cattle seedstock producers, Thallman joined the U.S. Meat
Animal Research Center (USMARC), Clay Center, Neb., operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Ag-
ricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) as a research asso­ciate in October of 1996. He went on to become a
permanent staff member in June of 1998.

Thallman is recognized internationally as a leading scientist in the areas of beef cattle breeding and statistical ge-
netics. His career is devoted to the application of technology to acceler­ate the genetic improvement of beef cattle.
He has co-authored 23 peer-reviewed articles, one peer-reviewed book chapter, 24 conference pro­ceedings and
12 technical reports, manuals and theses. He is the first author of 25 of these 60 publica­tions, has given 43 invited
presentations and is frequently consulted by the beef industry on a variety of topics.

Genetic evaluation has been a common theme throughout Thallman’s career. He is the USDA-ARS representa-
tive to the BIF Board of Directors. He served on the Emerging Technologies subcommittee of the BIF to write
guidelines for use of DNA testing in beef cattle improvement from 2004 to 2007. He also served on the Ad-Hoc
Committee in 2007 to 2008 to revise the BIF guidelines, which is the most highly respected source that breed as-
sociations and other organizations rely on when setting policy related to genetic improvement. He also currently
serves as the chairman of the BIF Genetic Prediction Committee.

The ability to develop innovative solutions to challenging problems is one of his greatest attributes. Thallman has
influenced the nature of DNA tests offered commercially, the ways in which the results of these tests are reported and
the ways and extent to which producers utilize these tests. He identified selective reporting of DNA test results as a
problem and proposed a solution that has been implemented by the major DNA testing companies.
Thallman developed a software package, GenoProb, in 2002, which is useful for detecting errors in marker data and
pedigrees, as well as to compute probabilities useful for quantitative trait loci (QTL) detection. GenoProb has many
worldwide users, including researchers, DNA testing companies, breed associations and breeding companies. 
In addition to his pioneering work in genetic evaluation
and improvement of beef cattle, Thallman enjoys riding
and caring for his horses. He and his wife, Cheryl, have
two daughters, Caroline and Allie.

Highlights from the 41st BIF Research Symposium and

Annual Meeting, hosted by the California Beef Cattle
Improvement Association (CBCIA) and the California
Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), in conjunction with the
BIF, can be found online at www.bifconference.com or
www.calcattlemen.org/bif2009.html

Photo by Cornerpost Publications, publisher of the California Cattleman. Caption: Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) Outgoing Presi-
dent Tommy Brown, Clanton, Ala., presents Mark R. Thallman, Ph.D. (left) Blue Hill, Neb., with a BIF Continuing Service Award during
the organization’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif. 

182
 Beef Improvement Federation Names 2009 Ambassador Award Recipient
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. (MAY 2, 2009) – Each year, the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) recognizes an
individual of the press corps that had made a major contribution to beef improvement or the BIF.

Kelli Meged Toledo, Visalia, Calif., received the 2009 Ambassador Award during the organization’s 41st Research
Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 2, 2009, in Sacramento, Calif.

Toledo has two decades of professional marketing and design experience. She received a bachelor’s degree in
Business – Marketing from Montana State University (MSU), Bozeman, Mont., where she worked as the man-
aging editor of the MSU newspaper. She went on serve as an intern at several publications before moving to
California. For nine years, she was employed at an advertising agency in Visalia, Calif., handling marketing plan
development, advertising design and print and electronic media relations.
In 1998, she founded Trailhead Designs, a full-service, marketing and design firm, where she handles everything
from advertising development and video production to Web site design and marketing campaigns for agribusi-
nesses.

That same year, Toledo was named co-publisher of the California Cattleman, the official monthly publication of
the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), Sacramento, Calif. She oversees the editorial, as well as handles
the design, development, production and accounting for the publication. Her partner Matt Macfarlane, Sheridan,
Calif., handles the advertising sales, ring services and customer service for the magazine.

A Montana native, Toledo purchased her first group of registered Angus cattle with a 4-H loan more than three
decades ago. She continued to build her herd and show cattle throughout her youth. She served as a board member
and communications director for the National Junior Angus Association. In 1990, she married John Toledo and
the couple went on to form Toledo Ranches, a diversified farming and Angus cow-calf operation.

Over the years, Toledo has devoted countless hours serving as a volunteer dedicated to promoting agriculture. She
was member of the California Angus Association (CAA) board of directors for six years and served an additional
two years as the CAA secretary. For the past decade, she has been the editor, also responsible design and layout,
of the California Angus News.

She was a Kings County 4-H beef leader for 10 years. She served for 15 years as the co-chair of the American
Angus Auxiliary Publicity Committee, where one of her duties was to produce the organization’s annual report.
For six years, she was the newsletter editor for the Tulare-Kings Chapter of the California Women for Agriculture
(CWA) and served as the CWA Kings Area director for two years.

She has served for 10 years on the CCA Allied Industry Council and worked with the California Beef Cattle Im-
provement Association (CBCIA) to promote the organization’s annual tours, 50th anniversary celebration and the
41st BIF Research Symposium and Annual Meeting.
For highlights from the BIF’s 41st Research Symposium and Annual Meeting, April 30 – May 3, 2009, in Sacra-
mento, Calif., visit www.bifconference.com.

183
 Thank you to the 2010 BIF sponsors
for their continued support and valuable contributions.

PATRON SILVER
Igenity ABS Global, Inc.
Pfizer Animal Genetics Accelerated Genetics
MU Extension Allflex USA, Inc.
USDA-NIFA American Chianina Association
American Gelbvieh Association
PLATINUM American International Charolais Association
Angus Productions, Inc. American Simmental Association
BEEF Magazine Beefmaster Breeders United
Land O’Lakes Purina Feeds BioZyme
Missouri Beef Industry Council Certified Angus Beef
Osborn and Barr Circle A Angus Ranch/Circle A Feeders
Sydenstricker Genetics CRI Genex Coooperative, Inc.
The Beef Checkoff Program Destron Fearing
International Brangus Breeders Association
GOLD Joplin Regional Stockyards
American Angus Association MFA, Inc.
American Hereford Association/ Midwest Microsystems
Certified Hereford Beef Missouri Beef Cattleman
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. Missouri Beef Cattle Improvement Association
California Beef Cattle Improvement Association ORIgen
Canadian Beef Breeds Council Red Angus Association of America
GrowSafe Systems, Ltd. Select Sires
Missouri Show-Me-Select Replacement Heifer Program TransOva Genetics

BRONZE
American Maine Anjou Association
FCS Financial
Frank-Hazelrigg Cattle Co. LLC
Indiana Beef Evaluation Program
Missouri Angus Association
Green Springs Bull Test
Missouri Grape and Wine Program
Professional Beef Genetics
McBee Cattle Company
LaBoube Farms / Bear Valley Farms, Inc.
American Wagyu Association
MO Department of Agriculture

184
 Beef Improvement Federation Research Symposium and Annual Meeting
Pre- and Post-Conference Tours

June 28, 2010

Pre-Conference Tour, 7:00 am to 5:00 pm
Tour Stops

Sydenstricker Genetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.sydgen.com

Circle A Feeders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.circlearanch.com/feeders.html
McBee Cattle Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.mcbeecattlecompany.com
Warm Springs Ranch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.warmspringsranch.com
“Home of the World Famous Budweiser Clydesdales”
University of Missouri, Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center, “From tissue sample
to diagnostic DNA test: The Process of Genomic Discovery,” Dr. Jerry Taylor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . http://animalsciences.missouri.edu/animalgenomics/

July 1, 2010
Post-Conference Tour, 7:00 am to 6:00 pm
Post Tour Stops

University of Missouri Beef Research Teaching Farm and Feed Intake System
LaBoube Farms and Guesthouse and Cattle Operations Managing Partner:
Bear Valley Farms, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.laboubefarms.com
Stone Hill Winery — Tour/Lunch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.stonehillwinery.com
LongView Animal Nutrition Center, Purina Mills. . . . . . www.purinamills.com/BetterAnimals.aspx

185
®

186
~ Silver Sponsors ~

~ Bronze Sponsors ~

187