The future is a funny thing, impossible to know but easy to second guess. We don’t have to look too far into history to find relative sure things we now know were wrong. March Madness provides an annual reminder of how the majority can be in error. There were very few who had Purdue, Kansas, Virginia and Arizona all getting bounced before the Sweet 16.
A busted bracket is a relatively low-cost endeavor considering entry is a few minutes of time and the impact of poor decisions on the bottom line are small. That said the busted bracket serves as a great decision behavior model, where a risky decision can pay off due to the buzzer beater or an unlikely matchup.
Occasionally your operation may seem like the tournament, where the environment permits the unlikely to happen. Some exceptions that come to mind: ideal February calving weather, timely July rains, bumper hay crop, or selling calves at the market peak. If you consider each event or game individually, one can rationalize reasons why these exceptions occur yet these events occurring simultaneously are as improbable as a perfect bracket.
We appreciate these exceptions when they happen, however, we all recognize luck makes a poor business plan. Knowing that over time averages will hold, operational decisions tend to center on managing risk within our range of control. When it comes to managing decision risk, reversibility and optionality are key considerations.
These are shorter term considerations for the stocker/backgrounder and feedlot segments. For these production phases each turn represents an opportunity to change the procurement or management models to match the current environment. The option to reverse course and sell calves at lighter weights or retain calves past their original marketing window provides optionality all segments once calves are weaned.
If we consider pre-weaning reversibility and optionality the cow-calf segment represents the top of the funnel where the narrowing point starts the day the bulls are turned out. We know the impact of genetic selection is significant due to irreversibility and time. The genetic potential of an animal is established at conception and will ultimately influence the animal every day of life from birth to harvest. Genetic potential sets the performance baseline the environment acts upon.
Nutrition, management, and technology are an excellent environmental complement to genetics but a marginal supplement. There are practices that will improve performance in the short term, but those management practices are acting on genetic potential. Suggesting management as a supplement to overcome marginal genetics is a temporary effect at best because these management practices require repeated inputs whereas genetic potential reflects the management environment.
Nearly all market indicators suggest the time to rebuild the cow herd is here, all we need is a cooperative environment. For those turning out bulls this spring the foundation of herd rebuilding has already begun. In most operations the sire side of genetic improvement is well known, as genetic potential is the currency by which bulls are marketed. Yet in most commercial cow herds the genetic merit of traits on the dam side is limited to knowledge of the sire at best.
If sire selection is the sole process by which genetic potential of the cow herd is achieved, how does one make differential progress towards two separate goals. Back to my basketball example, in a tournament environment matchups matter, poor matchups are often how the favorites get beat. Sure, over the season good teams are better in most games but in single elimination environment they often struggle due to matchups. Selecting sires for the diversity of feeder calf marketing and replacement heifer goals can be a challenging matchup.
There are certainly sires capable of excelling in maternal and terminal traits but genetic progress within individual traits is often reduced in these systems because we cannot make progress as fast without tradeoffs. Selecting sires only to produce replacements will likely results in steer mates that under perform in the feedyard. Conversely selecting terminal replacements likely doesn’t achieve reproductive goals of the cow herd. As an industry we continue to make collective progress as evidenced by increased performance and carcass merit yet at the herd level this progress could be faster or more strategic to ranch level goals.
Fortunately, we have genomic tools to quantify the potential of each individual animal and then breed to compliment strengths or supplement weaknesses. Multiple sire herds have an advantage in the ability to use data to strategically mate bulls to females to address the problem of average matchups.
Single sire herds with knowledge of genetic strengths and weakness of individuals may see greater sire selection opportunities. While seeking balanced trait sires can remain a goal, the opportunity to find value in specific traits needed within the genetic foundation of your cow herd is expanded when you have visibility to the individual genetic potential of the cows.
The environment forced the industry to make significant culling and selection decisions in the last 2-3 years. We cannot underestimate the progress made by culling the bottom end. As you consider rebuilding your own herd, investments in genetics don’t stop at superior bull selection. Consider using data and genomic tools to not only select the best replacements but also inform genetic matchups for the next 10 years.
