What is the value of Breedplan?

We received an email from a breeder in the UK with a link to a copy of their National Beef Association newsletter which had some negative comments about Breedplan. This is the newsletter link:

https://nationalbeefassociation.com

These are our personal comments on Breedplan which we hope will generate some productive discussion.

There is a statement in the NBA Newsletter:
“Breedplan recording, which focuses on comparisons within the same herd, is not sufficiently thorough, or consistent, to generate confidence in the system.”

Obviously Breedplan will only be as good as the data supplied. Breedplan should depend more on between herd comparisons of similarly bred animals to reduce the effect of within herd management. Restricting comparisons to within a herd will get minimal accuracy. It is best if different herds use a common bull as a benchmark sire to allow linkages and comparisons between the herds.

There is a wide range of opinion among Murray Grey breeders:

• A few completely reject Breedplan and do not enter any data at all.
• Some enter limited data but do not really get much benefit from Breedplan nor use it when selecting animals.
• The majority enter growth data but not scan data and do not get the carcase data that the commercial breeders are looking for.
• Stud breeders with a predominantly commercial focus will scan for carcase data and take carcase EBVs into account when selecting.
• Some breeders, particularly in Angus, are totally focussed on Breedplan and breed for numbers irrespective of other issues. It has become a marketing tool both for the Angus breed and individual studs.

The complaints heard from people about Breedplan include:

• People can falsify numbers. (Not that it can do them any good in the longer term.)
• Their own good animals usually have bad numbers.
• Some animals with good numbers have other faults like structure.
• Even with high calving ease and low birth weight EBVs there can be calving difficulties
• etc etc

The issues as we see them:

Obviously you must judge the animal first and then the numbers.

• Obviously you must judge the animal first and then the numbers.
• Breedplan is just one tool and if there are other faults like temperament, structure etc they must over-rule whatever the numbers are.
• It is hard for a small herd to get good accuracies. Even if the bull is great you will not get an increase in EBV ranking until accuracy increases and for that you need numbers and good linkage comparisons.
• Even when they have numbers, many herds have their calvings spread out so they have limited contemporary comparisons.
• Many herds do not use high accuracy linkage sires bulls to assist comparisons.
• Whatever the failings of Breedplan there is no better method of making comparisons between animals and between herds.
• If you truly believe in Breedplan you will choose to buy or breed animals with higher than average Breedplan numbers because they are better than average.
• But the evidence is quite clear that many breeders buy or use bulls with average or below average Breedplan numbers.
• Most of our commercial clients do take some notice of Breedplan figures so there is a marketing component. The commercial people feel that show cattle are overfed and may break down. There is some research that supports this. However, showing gives the breed some much needed publicity and exposure.

At Cadfor Murray Greys our approach is to:

• Take all measurements that we can for own own analysis and for entry into Breedplan.
• Base our breeding strategy on our district and its climate which dictate commercial livestock management.
• Base our selection within our herd on our own measurements rather than EBVs.
• Select females for retention firstly based on temperament and structure.
• Put some selection pressure on replacement females’ data on Eye Muscle Area (EMA/body weight) and to a lesser extent Muscle Score.
• Then cull cows based on the growth rate of progeny to weaning because we believe that is the most significant issue affecting productivity and profitability in our district.
• Place great emphasis on EBVs as a means of comparing animals between herds when buying stock, particularly bulls.
• Seek out studs with higher average EBVs as these herds probably share our commercial focus on productivity.
• Set a minimum Supermarket Index figure when selecting potential replacement animals and then pick the bloodlines and structure we like.

It takes a couple of generations of recorded data before the figures reflect the real worth of the cattle. This is largely because Breedplan uses close relatives to help estimate the true genetic worth of animals. We have found that our breeding program has produced a steady increase in our Breedplan figures in parallel to our increasing productivity.

Quoting again from the NBA newsletter:
“Some have even suggested the information currently offered does more harm than good and they would be better able to judge the potential of a bull (or female) by eye instead of studying misleading figures.”

Because we have science backgrounds we like objective measurements. We certainly support judging animals for soundness based on visual appraisal but some of the best looking animals are not commercially relevant.

For the Murray Grey breed to prosper there needs to be more support for Breedplan. Also we need to have less division between breeders whose focus is on the show ring and those who are focussed on productivity.

There is a middle ground and we should work towards it.