DOI: 10.1111/jbg.
12252
EDITORIAL
Effective breeding programmes down under
Australia is a very large country far away from the rest of
the world. And while Australia may have had its fair share
of well-known geneticists, what happens on the ground is
what really matters. The breeding programmes in sheep
and cattle are remarkably successful, even though breeding
decisions are made by many independently operating indi-
viduals. Progressive and proactive breeders have been keen
to embrace the technology and schemes delivered by the
science of animal breeding. They have acted in their own
interest; with a shared fate of contributing via the breeding
programme to the same common benefits. How does that
work?
First, a bit of history. Australian animal production sys-
tems are mostly very extensive. They are based on low
input costs and are directly competing in world markets.
For much of the 20th century, the animal products, in par-
ticular wool from Merino sheep, helped Australia maintain
one of the highest living standards in the world. By the
1950s, wool was synonymous with the Australian way of
life along with the saying “Australia rides on the sheep’s
back.” Since the early 1970s income from wool has
declined considerably due to competition from cotton and
synthetic materials, both in absolute terms and also in rela-
tion to the price of the other major sheep product—meat.
Consequently the Australian sheep population has reduced
from 180 million to approximately 70 million over the last
25 years.
Beef cattle numbers in Australia were long steady at 10
million, but with the introduction of Bos indicus breeds in
the 1950s, the cattle population increased rapidly to
approximately 30 million in the 1970s. It is still around
that level, although the world market as well as severe
droughts can have a large impact on the total herd. Regard-
ing other species, there are around 2 million pigs, 1.5 mil-
lion dairy cows and close to 100 million chickens in
Australia. Much of the seedstock in poultry and dairy is
imported, whereas Australia has a ban on importing genetic
material for pigs. Australia is a competitive agricultural
exporter, with two thirds of total production exported.
Agricultural products account for 16 per cent of Australian
merchandise exports, with nearly half of these products
being from livestock.
In general, when reproductive rates are high in the tar-
get species of selection, there are only a few nuclei or
breeders playing a role. This is particularly the case in
plant breeding. Poultry and pigs follow the same pattern.
J Anim Breed Genet 2017; 134: 1–2 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jbg
In dairy cattle, there is a very open world market of top
genetics, drawing on approximately 10–15 breeding pro-
grammes across a number of developed countries, and at
the end of the day, much of the genetic improvement in
most countries is imported, reflecting global flows of
genetic material. The global concentration of breeding pro-
grammes may not be desirable, especially when production
environments differ or are subject to change. Australia has
a unique environment with heat waves and particularly
droughts, phenomena that are predicted to increase in inten-
sity. The ability to survive heat and drought is already part
of animal breeding programmes implicitly, but the specific
form of genotype by environment interaction or adaptation
demands explicit attention. Genomic information can pro-
vide scope for a much better handle on estimating the inter-
action. Challenges may lie in data recording in extreme
harsh conditions. Beef cattle producers in the tropical
Northern Australia endure highly difficult production envi-
ronments, where survival is often higher on the agenda
than data collection.
Australia also has a unique breeding industry, especially
in sheep and beef cattle. Due to the extensive nature of
these industries, limited use of AI arising from the scale of
enterprises and the low reproductive rates of the species,
there are very many contributors to genetic improvement.
Since the introduction of national genetic evaluation sys-
tems, such as BREEDPLAN for beef and LAMBPLAN for
meat sheep in the 1980s, much genetic progress has been
achieved. There are no large breeding or AI companies in
sheep and beef. The breeding structures can be considered
as large dispersed nucleus breeding programmes. What
makes the activities of the many breeders coherent is the
existence of national multitrait genetic evaluation. The abil-
ity to select the highest merit animals across herds (or
flocks) seems so trivial that we hardly realize that this is at
the core of dispersed breeding programmes. The national
breeding programme is working via Adams Smith’s invisi-
ble hand.
The structure of a breeding industry is quite critical
when it comes to implementing and modifying breeding
programmes. In strictly multitiered structures with closed
nuclei, large companies are in charge and there is usually
limited debate about strategies while there is good access
to funds for introducing new technologies. Further, breed-
ing values are not a currency, and seedstock is protected.
Breeding objectives are usually pretty clear and consistent
© 2017 Blackwell Verlag GmbH | 1
2
| EDITORIAL
as well. Therefore, these breeding structures face few hur-
dles in achieving substantial genetic gain. Even though
dairy cattle breeding programmes are concentrated around
(large) AI companies, bull proofs are an extremely impor-
tant currency— perhaps overemphasized (Bichard, 2002;
Livest. Prod. Sci. 75: 1-10)—and, interestingly, the seed-
stock of the nucleus is traded rather than protected. Beef
cattle and sheep are at the minimal end of this structural
continuum, and their breeding programmes are relatively
flat—bull or ram studs derive most of their income from
sale of herd bulls or flock rams that will be used for natural
mating. There are many decision-makers, each with a small
role relative to the total breeding population. Most impor-
tantly, breeders generally receive only a fraction of the
value of genetic improvement that they are generating.
These parameters are not conducive to the uptake of effi-
cient improvement, and they are the reason why breeding
programmes in the extensive industries often fail, for
example in developing countries. However, the sheep and
beef industries in Australia are making genetic gains of
more than 1% per annum, which, relative to potential
gain, is at par with many breeding programmes in the
intensive industries.
New technologies can change the structure of breeding
programmes. AI caused the first technology wave and
shaped dairy cattle breeding programmes towards progeny
testing, as was mapped out by Robertson and Rendel as
early as 1950 (J. Genet. 50, 21–31). The embryo technolo-
gies in the 1980s led to the formation of centralized MOET
dairy breeding programmes, but did not topple the tradi-
tional progeny testing schemes, for reasons related to risk,
as outlined by Bichard (2002; Livest. Prod. Sci. 75: 1–10).
Genomic selection has given the young bull testing a final
blow, and it will be interesting to see what breeding struc-
ture will emerge when this is combined with embryo and
possibly gene editing of monogenic traits.
The benefits of genomic selection in beef and cattle are
less obvious than in dairy cattle. The predicted rates of
gains are much lower, as target traits are not sex-limited,
and selection takes place in young animals with much less
scope to reduce generation interval. And rather than saving
money from avoiding an expensive progeny test, the
investment in the breeding programme might have to dou-
ble or triple because of animal genotypings. For an individ-
ual breeder, maximum economic returns are the main
objective, rather than maximum genetic gain, and although
investing in genetic improvement may be cost effective at
the national (population) level, it is often not so at the level
of the breeder that has to make the investment (Smith,
1978; Anim. Prod. 26:101-110). Therefore, the rates of
gain are often not as high as they could be, simply because
there is market failure, resulting in suboptimal use of tech-
nologies and suboptimal recording of important traits.
The invisible hand is therefore not working perfectly. In
Australia, levy (and tax) payers’ funds have been used to
address some of these issues. For example, “information
nuclei” have been created to have reference populations for
hard to measure traits. Genomic selection has been imple-
mented in the Australian beef and sheep breeding pro-
grammes and is now used by the more progressive
breeders who can now select on an index that improves
meat eating quality. Interesting scientific challenges have
emerged as well, notably those related to genomic predic-
tion and selection in the cattle and sheep populations that
have a multibreed and cross-bred nature. New applications
and tools can be invented, related to selection, culling and
sorting of animals into markets according to their genetic
potential.
An effective R&D programme is useful only if there is
an effective industry that actually implements the new
ideas. In Australia, this seems to work pretty well.
J. van der Werf1
R. Banks2
1
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of
New England, Armidale,
NSW, Australia
2
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New
England, Armidale, NSW, Australia
Emails: jvanderw@une.edu.au; rbanks@une.edu.au