THIS week Meat & Livestock Australia announced the launch of a Multibreed Beef Genetic Evaluation Information Hub.

This announcement reflects the rapid changes that have been occurring in genetic evaluation over recent years and signals that Australian genetic evaluation is moving beyond the traditional boundaries of individual breeds.

However, this development shouldn’t be seen as a sign that breed societies, pedigrees or performance recording are becoming redundant. In fact, comparing cattle reliably across breeds will require more accurate identification, more performance data, stronger genetic linkage and larger reference populations.

While multibreed evaluation changes the scale on which information can be analysed, it doesn’t remove the need to accurately collect and record that information in the first place.

For more than 40 years, Australia’s beef genetic evaluation system has largely reflected the structure of the seedstock industry. Breed societies maintain herdbooks, register pedigrees, oversee member data and support separate BreedPlan analyses for their respective populations.

That structure has supported substantial genetic progress. It has allowed producers to compare animals within a breed while accounting for many of the environmental and management differences that influence observed performance.

However, that information hasn’t always reflected or supported the needs and decisions producers are making in commercial herds.

In practice commercial producers may compare bulls from several breeds, use composites or operate structured crossbreeding programs. This often means that their decisions are less focussed on whether one Angus bull is genetically superior to another Angus bull, or one Brahman bull is superior to another Brahman bull.

More frequently, the information they are seeking focussed around which bull, from several possible breeds, offers the most suitable genetic package for their cows, environment and target market.

Current BreedPlan EBVs generally cannot provide that direct comparison because each breed analysis has its own genetic base. A growth EBV of +40 in one breed does not necessarily represent the same expected genetic merit as +40 in another.

The move towards multibreed evaluations is intended to address this limitation.

The MLA proposal announced this week involves two initial multibreed evaluations. TROPBEEF will incorporate nominated tropical breeds and composites, while TEMPBEEF will cover nominated temperate breeds.

TROPBEEF is presently scheduled for commercial release in November 2027, followed by TEMPBEEF in November 2028. Both remain in research and development and will undergo industry review and consultation before commercialisation.

This distinction between a tropical and temperate evaluation is important. Multibreed evaluation should not initially be interpreted as one universal scale on which every bull in Australia can be compared. The tropical and temperate populations will be evaluated separately, reflecting the data and genetic connections currently available from major research programs.

Demonstrating that animals from different breeds can be compared

Projects including Repronomics and the Southern Multibreed Project have been central to demonstrating that animals from different breeds can be compared under common environmental and management conditions. They have also helped establish genetic connections between populations and build the reference data required to support multibreed analysis.

While the creation of those connections in a research project is a fundamental step, maintaining an effective evaluation across the broader seedstock and commercial industries will require sustained participation and recording.

Participation and recording will be as integral to multibreed evaluations as they currently are to programs such as BreedPlan.

The accuracy of a breeding value depends on the amount and quality of information available on an animal and its relatives. This can include its own performance, the performance of progeny and other relatives, pedigree information and genomic results.

Genetic linkage is also essential for making fair comparisons between herds and management groups. Common sires, related animals and other connections between contemporary groups help the analysis separate environmental effects from genetic differences.

Formal seedstock registration has provided an important framework for maintaining animal identity and pedigree.

Submitting accurate performance data will continue to be an important factor in any genetic evaluation used in the future. While genomics can strengthen an evaluation, correct some pedigree errors and increase the information available on younger animals, DNA testing does not replace meaningful performance data.

Genomic predictions are only as useful as the reference population behind them. That population must contain sufficient numbers of genotyped animals with accurate measurements for the traits being predicted. It must also adequately represent the breeds, breed combinations and production environments in which the resulting genomic tools will be used.

Multibreed evaluation may allow information to be used across a larger and more connected population. This could be particularly valuable for traits that are expensive or difficult to measure, including fertility, adaptation, methane emissions, immune competence, structural soundness and mature-cow resilience.

However, expanding the analysis does not automatically guarantee accuracy. Its value will still depend on the depth, quality and relevance of the underlying data.

Three types of multibreed selection tools

The MLA announcement highlighted the development of three types of multibreed selection tools.  The first, named Australian Cattle Breeding Values, or ACBVs, will operate on similar principles to current BreedPlan EBVs. They will use pedigree, performance and genomic information to predict genetic differences between animals and allow comparisons across the breeds, herds and environments represented within the relevant multibreed evaluation.

The second tool will be known as Australian Cattle Genomic Values, or ACgVs.  These are intended to provide commercial producers with genomic predictions for individual animals. The animal being assessed will only need to be genotyped, rather than having its own submitted pedigree and performance records.

However the reliability of that prediction will still depend on the size, relevance and quality of the recorded reference population underpinning it. MLA identifies potential uses including selecting replacement heifers and sorting or marketing steers into different production pathways.

The final tool will be Australian Cattle Genetic Profiles, or GenProfiles, and are intended to provide a broader genetic benchmark for a commercial herd or defined group of cattle. MLA indicates that this would involve genotyping 30 animals randomly selected from the population being benchmarked, such as a recent calf drop, replacement heifers or breeding females.

These tools could give commercial producers a more direct role in genetic measurement and selection. Rather than relying solely on the genetic information supplied with purchased seedstock, producers may be able to benchmark their own herd, track genetic progress over time and use that information to guide future bull purchases.

Where do breed societies fit, under Multibreed?

As noted earlier, the development of multibreed evaluation doesn’t necessarily represent a move away from breed societies. However, it could represent a move away from a structure in which breed boundaries also define the boundaries of genetic comparison.

Breed societies remain custodians of much of the pedigree and performance data required to develop robust evaluations. They also provide herdbook integrity, member services, breed development, data quality systems and a connection between breeders and the national evaluation.

The larger question which some breed societies are already considering focuses on where they want to fit within a rapidly changing structure of genetic evaluation and information provision.  There are some societies who may see considerable value in participating fully in a multibreed evaluation. Equally there are several breeds who may wish to retain a specialised single-breed evaluation.

The Australian Wagyu Association has demonstrated that a specialised breed serving a clearly differentiated market can develop and use sophisticated genetic products. Detailed recording and strong commercial signals have supported selection for traits of particular importance to Wagyu production, including marbling and carcase value.

A robust breed-specific evaluation may therefore remain highly valuable where a population has distinctive breeding objectives, sufficient data, effective linkage and a strong commitment to recording.

Multibreed evaluation is not evidence that every breed-specific system has reached the end of its useful life.

While these decisions may reflect members’ priorities at the time, they can also have unintended consequences. Changes to an evaluation or the information published may affect data continuity, the ability to compare animals and the information available to commercial producers considering genetics from that breed.

Multibreed evaluation could add another pathway without removing these choices. Breed societies would remain important, while breeders and commercial producers could gain broader access to genetic information across breed boundaries.

Breed identity would also remain relevant. Breed influences adaptation, heterosis, complementarity and suitability for particular environments and markets. Multibreed evaluation will not identify one universally superior breed, nor will it replace the need to assess structure, temperament, fertility and overall suitability for a production system.

What it could remove is the current restriction that generally prevents objective comparison of breeding values between breeds. Commercial producers do not make all their breeding decisions within one breed and, in time, their genetic tools may no longer require them to do so.

For breed societies, the question is therefore broader than whether to support or oppose multibreed evaluation.

Rather it will be a question of how they choose to participate, which services they retain and how their breeders and data connect with the wider genetic evaluation system.

Alastair Rayner is the Strategic Account Manager for Southern Australia with Vytelle and Principal of RaynerAg. He has over 30 years’ experience advising beef producers and graziers across Australia. Alastair can be contacted here or through his website: www.raynerag.com.au