Belmont Red cattle are often associated with flat bone

OVER the course of the spring bull sale season, an enduring image from every sale is one of producers armed with catalogues examining bulls in pens, catalogue details in hand.

For many, this is the final stage of selection, making physical observations for bulls identified as offering the best genetic potential for improvement in their herds.

For others, the inspection is the beginning of their selection process. Often the process for producers works on finding bulls they like the look of, and then considering if the genetics match their needs.

There is a risk in this approach. That risk lies in a desire to buy a bull that visually appeals, but genetically is not at all suited to the desired direction of the business. Often that appealing bull can set a program back for several years.

In either approach, selection decisions are never straight forward with only one of two things to consider. The challenge faced by all producers is to find the combination of the physical suitability of a bull to take a place in a breeding herd, and to produce progeny that will meet the production goals of a herd in the longer term.

Increasing accuracy of genetic information, a result of investment in research and development in areas such as genomics, as well as expansive data collection in research and commercial herds, has made a significant difference to producer’s selection decisions.

Different ‘schools of thought’

However, despite these advances, there are still some schools of thought that encourage selection to be based on single traits exhibited in phenotype. Often these recommendations are based on anecdotal evidence or unproven theories.

Unfortunately, many of these theories gain some traction among producers because of the convincing manner in their presentation. Or because it is a simple approach and, for people struggling with complexity, simple is often easier. However, simpler doesn’t always mean that the process works. And anecdotal or unproven methods are equally risky.

One of the largest risks with anecdotal or traditional approaches is the irrelevance to current practice or knowledge.

Beef markets and the industry in general have evolved rapidly in the past two decades.  Basing selection on traits that are firstly, not relevant to modern production systems, and secondly, justifying these traits on a tenuous connection to production will result in producing cattle that are less likely to achieve meaningful production goals.

Flat bone, ear wax and adrenal hair whorl

Examples of these risks can be found in the promotion of cattle selection on physical traits such as flat bone, ear wax and adrenal hair whorl.

These are all physical traits that can be observed in cattle. In some cases, there are linkages between these traits and the production outcomes claimed by advocates for this form of selection.

All three, along with ‘greasy spine’ (said to be an indicator of hormonal activity and palatability) have been discussed enthusiastically via social media threads focussed on cattle genetics recently.

Flat bone is associated with tenderness in some muscles, and in earlier times at least, with superior carcase yield.

However, finding scientific peer reviewed information that can prove tenderness for all muscles is associated with flat bone is another matter.

By comparison, the science underpinning MSA is peer reviewed, well proven and applicable for production systems across the country and indeed internationally.

For producers wanting to breed cattle that are more likely to meet consumer expectations of tenderness, genetic traits such as marbling; flight speed, growth rate are all infinitely more valuable in selection than a visual observation of bone shape.

Another equally tenuous trait is to consider selection based on the level of ear wax produced by an animal. Advocates for this trait claim ear wax levels are indicators of butterfat content in milk and therefore are likely to produce calves that grow faster and will achieve higher weaning weights. Again, there is little to no scientist proof of such a relationship.

The primary function of ear wax is to protect the ear canal by trapping dirt, dust, and micro-organisms, thus preventing infections and maintaining ear health. While in dairy selection traits including milk yield and butterfat content occur, these are based on data and genetic information.

Adrenal Hair Whorl

A third physical characteristic is the location of the Adrenal Hair Whorl on the spine of the animal. Hair whorls, technically known as Trichoglyps, have been a source of much interest and research.

US animal scientist Dr Temple Grandin and others have looked at relationships between hair whorls and temperament.  However, the visual selectors advocating consideration of the Adrenal Whorl argue that the location along the spine of the animal is an indicator of hormonal function and as such, an indicator of fertility.

Again, there is little to no proof that the site of this hair whorl has any relationship with hormonal response or ability to improve herd fertility.

Genetic selection can be used to improve fertility, however as a trait of lower heritability, management of the environment is also essential in achieving improvement in fertility rates.

Ultimately producers need to be careful when presented with advice that encourages a simple approach based on one or two traits and possible linkages to production outcomes.

Almost all production is a result of several genetic combinations. As tempting as it is, sometimes the simple approach is best avoided if the end goal is to produce cattle capable of meeting current industry production goals.

Alastair Rayner is the General Manager of Extension & Operations with Cibo Labs and Principal of RaynerAg.  Alastair has over 28 years’ experience advising beef producers & graziers across Australia.   He can be contacted here or through his website www.raynerag.com.au