BEEF

A machine learning approach for predicting the most and the least feed-effficient groups in beef cattle Shirzadifar, A.; Plastow, G.; Basarab, J.; Miar, Y.; Li, C.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Riazi, M.; Manafiazar, G.

From BovReg (and other projects eg GC Resilient Dairy etc)

Accuracy of genomic prediction of dry matter intake in Dutch Holsteins using sequence variants from meta-analyses Gredler-Grandl, B.; Raymond, B.; Chitneedi, P.K.; Cai, Z.; Panzanilla-Pech, C.I.V.; Fischer, D.; Bolormaa, S.; Chud, T.S.; Wang, Y.; Li, C.; Villanueva, B.; Fernandez, A.; Kuehn, C.; Lidauer, M.H.; Pryce, J.E.; Plastow, G.; Baes, C.F.; Charfeddine, N.; Veerkamp, R.F.; Bouwman, A.C.

Multi-dimensional functional annotation of bovine genome for the BovReg project Moreira, G.C.M.; Dupont, S.; Becker, D.; Salavati, M.; Clark, R.; Clark, E.L.; Plastow, G.; Kühn, C.; Charlier, C.

Comparative analysis of CAGE-Seq across tissues reveals transcription start sites unique to cattle Salavati, M.; Clark, R.; Becker, D.; Kühn, C.; Plastow, G.; Moreira, G.C.M.; Charlier, C.; Clark, E.L.

OTHER BOVINE

Functional SNPs and INDELs within regulatory elements associated with mastitis in Holstein cow using -OMICs technologies Asselstine, V.; Medrano, J.F.; Stothard, P.; Miglior, F.; Karrow, N.A.; Baes, C.F.; Schenkel, F.S.; Cánovas, A.

PIGS

Genome-wide association analyses and genomic prediction for pork meat quality traits using whole-genome sequence Heidaritabar, M.; Huisman, A.; Bink, M.C.A.M.; Charagu, P.; Plastow, G.

Prediction of breeding values for feed intake in pigs using individual versus group records along with correlated traits Zhang, C.; Kemp, R.A.; Dekkers, J.C.M.; Plastow, G.S.; Gao, H.

Multi-trait genomic estimation of genetic parameters for growth and carcass traits of Duroc pigs Akanno, E.C.; Thekkoot, D.M.; Zhang, C.; Bierman, C.; Plastow, G.; Kemp, R.A.

Large-scale cis-eQTL analysis of gene expression in blood of young healthy pigs using PigGTEx Kramer, L.M.; Teng, J.; Lim, K.S.; Gao, Y.; Yin, H.; Bai, L.; Liu, G.E.; Zhang, Z.; Fang, L.; Plastow, G.S.; Tuggle, C.K.; Dekkers, J.C.M.

Indicators of disease resilience from complete blood count and in vitro immunoassays data from young-healthy pigs Bai, X.; Cheng, J.; Fortin, F.; Harding, J.C.S.; Dyck, M.K.; Dekkers, J.C.M.; Field, C.J.; Rogel-Gailard, C.; Blanc, F.; Plastow, G.S.

GBP5 PRRSV resistance gene had no effect on pigs’ infectivity or susceptibility in a trial simulating natural infections Chase-Topping, M.E.; Plastow, G.; Dekkers, J.; Fang, Y.; Gerdts, V.; Van Kessel, J.; Harding, J.; Opriessnig, T.; Doeschl-Wilson, A.

Genetic relationships among immune response traits of young healthy pigs evaluated by immunoassays Bhatia, V.; Schmied, J.; Cheng, J.; Bai, X.; Mallard, B.; Fortin, F.; Harding, J.C.S.; Dyck, M.K.; Plastow, G.S.; Field, C.J.; Rogel-Gaillard, C.; Blanc, F.; Piggen Canada; Dekkers, J.C.M.

Methods and Tools: Software and Computing Strategies

Subsetted orthogonal data augmentation for fast parallel implementation of Bayesian models for whole-genome analyses Chen, L.; Plastow, G.

The stage was set on July 22, 2022, for over 100 kids from central Alberta to find out what their 6-month effort yielded. Members of 4H clubs had been feeding a steer through the winter, and were all keen to learn how their steer carcass placed in a regional and provincial competition. Oscar Lopez Campos from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada graded the carcasses for both competitions. But before getting those all-exciting results, the 4Hers toured Olds College and attended a presentation on the beef market.

With this backdrop, enter Livestock Gentec. In the corner of the auditorium, on a foldable table sat reports with the name of each 4Her and the CCIA number of the steer they raised. Inside each report was an introduction to genomics, several individualized genomic values (genomically-enhanced gEPDs, a Feeder Profit Index value, genomic breed composition and genomic retained heterozygosity) and a description of each tool. This way, each 4Her could get a report on the expected performance of their steer/steer’s progeny, the steer’s breed makeup and the amount of hybrid vigour present in that animal—all from a small hair (DNA) sample. That might not seem significant to a 10-year-old 4Her but, in commercial operations, these data could be a deciding factor between a profit or loss when selling a given animal.

For Gentec, the benefits of attending 4H events and being involved with this organization are clear. We are reaching out to the future ranchers of Alberta and introducing them to a novel, easy and a relatively inexpensive way of gaining a large amount of information on their animals. Instead of having to backtrack through hundreds of records and pedigrees of sires and dams, they can get accurate gEPDs from a single hair strand.

While some of the 4Hers “get it”, plenty of them had no idea what we were here for. Parents, too. As one put it, “We thought you guys were here to make sure the carcasses weren’t swapped for the competition. We had no idea you could predict performance from DNA.”

Beef Industry Liaison Clinton Brons quickly changed that lack of knowledge with an introduction and appreciation for Gentec’s funders, as did Knowledge Translator Diego Martinez with a short presentation on the genomic reports. Soon after, parents and kids collected their reports and the Gentec’s team answered questions.

Questions ranged from what the Feeder Profit Index is, what the genomic breed composition of an animal tells them and how hybrid vigour impacts replacement heifers and cows.

Over 130 4Hers have been exposed to genomics through these reports since April 2022 so… does that mean that Gentec has 130 new producers willing to test their herds genomically? Not quite. Over the past few 4H events, we’ve seen that some parents are keener than others, ask for more information and even provide their contact for follow up. And some 4H leaders/executives have already introduced this tech to their farms, like Paul Franz who spoke to Gentec earlier this year. This showcases the importance for research organizations like Gentec to reach out to grassroots organizations like 4H to communicate and demonstrate the validity and importance of tools and resources that research yields for the industry.

The 4H experience in 2022 has been fantastic for Gentec as it has shown a new approach to share information. The approach is two-fold: 1. Educate young farmers about genomics so they might be willing to use these tools when they take the reins of an operation, and 2. Give young kids the information with the hope that Dad/Mom or Grandpa/Grandma read it, like it and use it on their farm (or at least reach out for more information).

It is Gentec’s mission to develop validated genomic solutions to improve the competitiveness of the beef industry. Collaborating with 4H has given us the opportunity to increase trust in our validated tools, which will overall increase the productivity and sustainability of the Canadian beef industry.

If you are a 4H member/parent/leader interested in collaborating with Gentec—or if you are a producer interested in talking to a Gentec representative about genomics or possible research projects you could be involved in, reach out to us at lsgentec@ualberta.ca.

By Diego Martinez Mayorga

During my PhD defence, my external examiner Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam  an expert in Animal Biotechnology and Genetics from the University of California, Davis asked me, “If you could gene edit anything in cattle, what would it be?” Under pressure to respond quickly and concisely, I fumbled something unsatisfying but—just like those clever retorts you come up with after an argument is over and done with—I go back and redraft what I should have said every day.

Here’s the thing about gene editing: it’s excellent technology, used by bacteria to shred invading viral DNA as a defence mechanism. And it’s opening the door for medicine and agriculture to make precise, targeted edits in the genome for genetic solutions to serious challenges. But it’s expensive, highly regulated, and currently limited to traits that are impacted primarily by one (or few) genes. Most economically-relevant traits in agriculture, particularly livestock, are polygenic (many genes contribute a small proportion of variation observed).

So given the opportunity to rehash my response to Dr. Van Eenennaam’s question, I’d say, “Nothing, yet.” This is partially because the obvious (single) gene traits have already been edited. New, gene-edited variants for livestock, include:

Holstein cattle, genetically selected to produce high volumes of milk, are naturally horned. Horns pose a safety and welfare challenge to humans and animals in their proximity. Dehorning animals is labour-intensive, stressful and painful. The polled (hornless) genetic variant occurs naturally in other bovine populations: Angus, for example. Holstein bulls genetically edited to be polled by Acceligen and their progeny were tested extensively at the University of California, Davis. They offered dairy industries globally a way to improve animal health and welfare without having to crossbreed with a naturally-polled animal. Crossbreeding may offer significant advantages for horns and other traits such as fertility, body condition, foot structure and carcass quality but it would also reduce milk production. This particular gene editing endeavour also provided a lot of learning lessons, both in terms of quality control and in navigating regulations. In the process of seeking FDA approval for commercial use of the bull, a bacterial antibiotic resistance gene was found in the genome sequence due to the specific editing technology used.

Other gene edited variants include change of sex to male. Male offspring in beef production grow faster. This results in shorter time to market, less resource requirements and less environmental impact. Addressing animal health, two disease-resistant variants, one in pigs that targets susceptibility to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus and one in cattle that targets susceptibility to bovine tuberculosis have been developed. Both diseases have significant financial and welfare impacts. Also impacting animal welfare, several variants addressing heat stress and heat tolerance in cattle have been developed. One approach has been to change coat colour, moving from black to red or tan. Another approach has been to genetically engineer the slick coat gene in animals. Both variants for coat colour and slick coat are naturally occurring, and could be introduced to the population through crossbreeding. Gene editing eliminates having to manage other factors (advantages in some traits such as increased fertility are often realized by crossbreeding, and moderation to some production traits such as milk production might also be an outcome).

Growing global populations, shrinking resources such as land and water, and heightened social licence to operate have put significant pressure on agriculture to deliver consistent quality food at low prices. Science and technology can and do help deliver on both fronts. So as an advocate and proponent of science and technology, why wouldn’t I jump at the chance to genetically edit any trait?

The second half of my answer is in deference to my heritage and my parents. They want science and technology in their medicine, their cars, their computers, their smart phones that they use to communicate. They are not sure they want science and technology in their food. Now, I’m going to convince them of the benefits of genetic engineering. And, I’m going to convince them that we’ve learnt to look for the ‘unknowns and the unintended consequences’, to do the quality controls. But, this will take time. I don’t believe we should put food options on the market before we’ve had the opportunity to have this conversation with my parents, my community, your community—and all consumers.

We’d like to know: what traits would you genetically engineer into your livestock if you could?  And as a consumer, are you comfortable consuming food produced using gene edited livestock?

Kajal Devani

Director of Science and Technology, Canadian Angus Association

“Sustainability: Rhetoric vs. Reality”

How do we address rhetoric like ‘meat is murder’, ‘we need to rewild cattle’, ‘the beef industry is causing climate change’? These were the thorny questions raised and addressed at the BIF Symposium 2022 ’s opening discussion on “Sustainability: Rhetoric vs. Reality”  with presentations by Ruaraidh Petre, of the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef; John Crowley, AbacusBio in Canada ; and Jason Sawyer, of the King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management at Texas A&M University–Kingsville.

Beef industries globally are being used as a scapegoat by people like Richard Branson, Oprah and David  Suzuki. The reality is that beef demand remains strong, globally. However, inflation and global volatility is impacting production costs significantly. Reality is that consumers want to eat beef. They just want the assurance that it’s ok to do so.

Because it is not in our nature to communicate well about the great things that we do in raising beef and protecting the environment, we need to support agencies like the Global Round Table for Sustainable Beef and the Canadian Round Table for Sustainable Beef to help us. The communication needs to include GHG emissions from inefficient systems, such as long periods under poor nutrition and management, and poor land conversion practices (e.g., deforestation to grow soybean and then graze cattle).  In reality, our emission intensity in North America is low (relative to what?; milk, plant-based protein?; certainly lower relative to young cattle in South America that are kept on pastures for long periods of time and then slaughtered at 36-38 months of age)—but we should still be part of the solution. Solutions discussed ranged from fitting environmental impacts into economic selection indexes, through improving production efficiencies through selection for traits such as weight at days-to-finish, feed efficiency, methane emissions , and fertility with the goal being nature-positive beef production / carbon neutrality .

Carbon neutrality can only be a measure and an objective if calculated accurately and objectively. So far, calculations of the global impact from beef production do not consider the tremendous variation between countries, intensity, production systems, gross emissions versus emission intensity (i.e. per amount of product), and warming impacts versus carbon impacts. The measuring stick has to be correct first.

Having said that, improving production efficiencies through management and genetic selection can be a lower-cost way to reduce GHG emissions  and assist producers reduce the resources needed per unit of produce. Gentec researchers have been working on this for many years (feed efficiency, reducing age at slaughter, McDonald’s pilot project, increased herd-level hybrid vigour through genomic indicators of heterosis, more accurate breeding values using genomics, grazing practices to improve carbon sequestration).

Another solution discussed at BIF is fitting the genetics to the environment. If you’ve ever heard the term G by E (GxE) interactions, it refers to differences in genetic expression in different environments. It’s a source of frustration for animal-breeding geneticists as well as producers because it means that one size does NOT fit all. A selection index, for example, developed for use across a country or even a continent isn’t going to work the same way in each environmental pocket. Strong evidence suggests that using a generalized index is still significantly more effective than basing selection decisions only on phenotypic appearance, raw performance information or EPDs for one or a few traits.

Personally, I see GxE interactions as an opportunity. There’s a very good home for different types of cattle and genetics . Notably, Gentec is working on GxE in its BCRC Fertility DMI project (winter grazing vs confined feeding) though the number of animals and environment must be increased dramatically to obtain meaningful results. It’s a start. The key is to pair the right type with your environment (a theme explored in the forthcoming Field Day at the University of Alberta Kinsella ranch). GxE interactions are good to be aware of, and if you’re interested in playing with a customized index based on your specific breeding targets, market drivers and inputs, then Matt Spangler and Bruce Golden have developed an app that will be available through the BIF website (stay tuned for the release of IGENDEC ).

Discussion on ‘one size doesn’t fit all environments’ led into significant discussion about the need for different genetics based increasingly on use  – CED (calving ease) emphasis really should vary based on current dystocia levels and the breeding herd (size, breed, heifers versus cows). Producers are also going to want to vary genetics based on different selling markets (are you selling weaned calves, breeding heifers, breeding bulls, boxed beef?). One market that has grown significantly and has specific genetic requirements is the beef-on-dairy market. This gives dairy producers the opportunity to change profitability from females that might be great milk producers but not the top 30%. Genetics from the beef industry can facilitate improvements in muscling, average daily gain and feed efficiency. The dairy industry is responding to this trend by moving its focus from putting selection pressure on calving ease. Instead, dairy producers are measuring pelvic size and moving females to handle a better-muscled calf. Dairy producers identified an opportunity to increase profitability, and are using genomics technology to help them adapt their herd to maximize this. In collaboration with Semex, Herdtrax by Telus Agriculture and other industry partners, Gentec’s John Basarab and co-researchers have been funded by RDAR and Genome Alberta to conduct a small-scale project on validation and deployment of a feeder profit index for beef-on-dairy feeders. They plan to expand this through proposals to initiatives such as Genome Canada’s recently-announced Climate Action Genomics Initiative.

Advances in genetic evaluations assist producers in addressing some of the requirements for diverse genetics. Heart scores are being collected to develop genetic selection tools for animals that are better equipped to finish at higher altitudes, and to finish in feedlots at low or moderate elevations without incidence of heart disease. Another example discussed is incorporating traits that impact environmental sustainability into genetic selection indexes, and the challenges (but also successes) involved with across-breed and across-country genetic evaluations. These will ultimately provide beef producers globally with robust genetic selection tools with which to address global challenges and opportunities associated with beef production.

“Global Perspectives on Adaptation and Genetic Prediction”

Our second day at BIF 2022 was launched by a general session on “Global Perspectives on Adaptation and Genetic Prediction.” Speakers included Tony Clayton, president of Clayton Agri-Marketing; and Phil George, Miratorg Agribusiness Holding production director, beef & lamb operations, Moscow, Russia.

I strongly recommend that you watch these presentations (links below). I can’t articulate the magnitude of the export projects that these two gentlemen are working on. We’re not talking about exporting a ewe, a goat, and two cows to some remote country. We’re talking about export projects where 300,000 head of cattle get exported to Russia to populate a complete integrated system from propagation of a genetic nucleus, commercial multiplication and management of these genetics to point-of-sale with data collected every step of the way. And those data are being used to validate which of the initial imported US genetics actually worked.

If you’re on the fence about EPDs, know that these people don’t make purchasing or breeding decisions without them. They’ve also learnt, Phil George will attest, that best-quality genetics result in better outcomes all the way down the production chain. I’m still reeling from their use of technology and the amount of data they collect throughout their integrated production.

Both men talked about the huge global market potentials for U.S. beef genetics. If you’re a Canadian beef producer talking to someone who can lobby for Canadian beef exports, we need to be more competitive in the global export market. And we need access. We need to market Canadian beef genetics to places like China. Pakistan and Vietnam were the biggest importers of beef genetics last year. And Canadian beef genetics need to be described by EPDs because that’s what global buyers are considering when making large-scale buying decisions.

This piece gives you a brief flavour of the discussions that happen at the Beef Improvement Federation annual symposium but is by no means inclusive of all the sessions that were offered. All the sessions are recorded and available for viewing. For more information on BIF and the BIF Symposium, visit beefimprovement.org. The BIF 2023 Symposium will be in Calgary, AB on July 3 – 6. Please join us for what is going to be a stellar event.

Kajal Devani

Director of Science and Technology, Canadian Angus Association

NOTE

If these talks sounded interesting to you, you might consider “saving the date” for BIF 2023

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) teaches us why we’ll never have the same relationship with meat alternatives as with the real stuff.

I mean, is it a surprise to anyone here who reads this column and/or understands the beef industry!?

Apparently, producers like Beyond Meat are facing hurdles with consumers and investors, and then Maple Leaf’s Mr. McCain now said that the company would “reassess” its investment. The latter is quite the change after years of proselytizing about doubling down on the business. The thing about trying to convert people is that it might seem easy at the beginning, and sure, you get some new parishioners but, before long, consumers are not going to pay those high prices for a protein that lacks delivery.

Superstore’s Beyond Meat patties cost $17.99 for a pack of 6; that’s $3 a patty vs. President’s Choice real meat at $10.99 for a pack of 8 ($1.37 each). Heck, even Wagyu burgers are cheaper: $10.99 for a pack of 4 ($2.75 each). I’m a firm believer that the consumer is no dummy. Sure, you’ll still have people who purchase alternative proteins but they are not the masses. The average meat consumer like you and I keep an eye on economy, especially if you have a family to feed. We still like to enjoy juicy burgers, roasts, steaks, etc. but we have to stretch the dollar as far as it’ll go, specially with today’s rampant inflation.

To add fuel to the fire, the Wall Street Journal reported on May 28, 2022, that burgers and steaks are set to stay pricey in the months ahead as US cattle ranchers shrink their herds due to droughts and increasing feed costs. So, if everything is getting more expensive, and one can get the real beef cheaper than an alternative protein, is there even a question as to what one should buy?

Additionally, go back 2 years and include the pandemic global disruption of supplies, sprinkle some drought dust over the Canadian prairies and voilà, you have yourself a 45% drop in yellow pea production, which is a common ingredient in many plant-based meat alternatives. Many of these companies, like Maple Leaf, struggled.

“If you can imagine,” Mr. McCain told investors in a separate shareholder call, “trying to operate a business with a third of your people missing one day, half of your ingredient supply not showing up the next, and suppliers jacking the price by 15 percent of another set of ingredients the day after, all repeating itself over and over and over.”

Thanks goodness real beef has only one ingredient!

For years, I’ve been telling people that I’m in the memories industry. You know, when you get together with family and/or friends because you’re celebrating a birthday, graduation, anniversary or baptism, and someone lays a beautiful steak on the grill and you hear it sizzle… or you can smell Grandma’s roast across the room, those core memories kick in, your mouth starts to salivate, and you can’t wait to taste that marbling or, as I like to call it, “little specs of heaven”. Yeah…that’s what I do, that’s what beef producers do. We provide you with the goods that help you create memories.

An article in the New Food magazine reminded us that, if and when we can provide information related to the GHG emissions of the product inside the package, we also need to be conscious of the need for the public to understand the environmental footprint of the package and of the labels themselves. Consumers occur throughout supply chains so input suppliers need to ensure their consumers (farmers, for example) have the environmental impact information to add to the data they provide their own buyers to ensure the information is comprehensive.

The example in the article is labels related to animal-feed additives. One thing the article makes clear is that adding labels to inputs and products along the supply chain can be critical to purchasers making environmentally-sensitive decisions—but the labels can also create significant waste themselves. When asked in 2016 and again in 2022, 50% of Canadians wanted environmental footprint labelling on all meat and dairy products. The consistency and magnitude suggest that the demand for information is strong, unlikely to go anywhere and that suppliers satisfying it are likely to be well received in the marketplace.

Environmental footprint labeling by product may be different than the environmental status of a company in the eyes of a consumer. The company approach to environmental sustainability is important in generating the trust consumers feel in the products they buy from the company but it cannot completely satisfy the demand for information to influence individual product selection at the point of purchase.

What does this trend imply for livestock genomics? Consumers looking for more information on the products they purchase do not want to see their information demand result in more waste per product than they had before. Thus, including the information required on inputs in an environmentally friendly approach to labeling could be a very good thing in the eyes of the consumer. At the same time, it could increase the information flow on production practices of interest all the way to the final consumer.

Can genomics help us reduce the environmental footprint from tracking and labeling inputs, livestock production practices, and final consumer-ready product preparation? Livestock genomics in combination with other tools such as blockchain could enhance information accessibility while not requiring as many more environmentally wasteful labels at different points in the livestock supply chain. In the New Food article, the author refers to Neogen which has partnered with Ripe Technology to improve the connection between livestock genomics, feed use and food safety. The company uses blockchain technology on labels to support value-added claims on production labels. Blockchain integrated into labels will help meat producers understand the safety quotient of the feed ingredient before the animals are converted into meat products. The label will convey the entire lifecycle of the meat from birth to slaughterhouse, and whether it has received antibiotics. This will provide meat food manufacturers with information regarding the nutritional quality of the animal feed.

This intriguing use of combined technology will allow a significant amount of information per animal to be collected and be available to final consumers without increasing the footprint of the labeling requirements associated with full information flows at every stage of livestock production. In addition, industry is developing new forms of labels (when labels are necessary) that are more environmentally friendly; for example, linerless labels. The combination of adding blockchain to labels and reducing the footprint of labels could be a boon to the significant demand for environmental footprint information by consumers. The fact that this information could be linked to individual animals through genomics will increase the trust consumers feel in the products, companies and processes used in the livestock products they purchase. These innovative uses of technology will be viewed positively by consumers eager for eve- increasing information on all aspects of the environmental footprint of the final foods they buy.

In a similar vein, a Gentec research project focused on estimating the number of animals in industrial-scale ground beef to map meat products and trace the finished product during a food safety recall.

Ellen Goddard

Professor, University of Alberta

We started this look at gene editing and livestock in our April 2022 edition with a question from Kajal Devani “in view of supply chain issues, labour shortages, food shortages, war and climate change… Are these products coming to market too soon or not soon enough?”

It looks as if the regulatory environment is leaning towards approving the introduction of gene-edited livestock. Against all the problems Kajal identifies, surely this is the correct approach. Providing sufficient high-quality food from fewer and fewer resources is an achievement that agriculture should be proud of, therefore should we not continue to adopt new technologies that can help meet the growing challenges we face? This is the position taken by those advocating the rapid introduction of gene edited animals: the challenges we face are too large, we need to address them quickly before they get even worse.

So am I more cautious than Kajal as to whether it is too soon or not soon enough? Am I against using gene editing in livestock or am I concerned about the safety of the technology? My answer to both is No. Instead, I’m concerned that we haven’t learnt ANY lessons from the introduction of genetically-modified organisms, and we should try to win public support for these products before they enter the marketplace. The proponents of gene editing argue that the technology is precise and different from genetic modification. If the public understands this, then they will accept the next wave of developments. (I believe this argument is based on the discredited “information deficit model” of science communication so unlikely to work.)

I don’t think we need to rush to introduce gene-edited animals when we can focus on increasing consumer acceptance and explaining their potential benefits for consumers and the animals themselves. This effort should not be about the technical differences between gene editing and genetic modification – the differences are small and are often presented incorrectly [see GE tomatoes on the BBC]. This approach is particularly ineffective and, when the explanation is oversimplified, it opens the door for campaigns against gene editing as it can be claimed to be misleading.

We’ve seen that consumers don’t necessarily embrace the use of novel technology to improve company or farmer profits. What else may resonate with the public? Do climate change and food shortages change the debate? What about protecting animals from disease and reducing the use of antimicrobials in food production (to help reduce antimicrobial resistance) or improving animal welfare? How do these align with public values, a more powerful approach than the information deficit model?

That said, examples that benefit animal welfare such as gene-editing dairy cows to remove the need for painful dehorning, should also be chosen very carefully (see our companion piece on this by Niloofar Pejman). A report on gene-editing of animals in the UK acknowledges that the technology has the capacity to bring “real benefits”. But Elizabeth Cripps from Edinburgh University, a member of the group that produced the report, said that it could also make things worse. “Genome editing could be used to perpetuate or possibly increase the dense stocking of animals in industrialised (production).”

I recall this argument from animal welfare groups many years ago when we were looking to select for reduced aggression in livestock. That’s why we should take social licence in animal breeding and the application of new technologies very seriously, whether genomics, genetic modification or gene editing. Reducing aggression in farmed animals has benefits for animal welfare as well as worker welfare just as we see for polled/hornless cattle. Selecting for animals that are less fearful of man (domestication) has provided multiple benefits, from a more sustainable food supply to the emotional support provided by companion animals. Selecting for females only also has tremendous animal welfare benefits. However, without proper codes of practice, we could also see negative outcomes as those proposed above.

In this newsletter, we introduce the work taking place to remove the need for dehorning many of the dairy cows in Canada and elsewhere. This seems like a very positive application, and a model for regulating and introducing gene-edited animals. There are very careful studies to show the absence of unintended consequences of this gene edit – the milk and eggs from these animals are indistinguishable from those produced from existing cows. So what’s the concern? Well, the strongest argument for de-horning cows by gene editing is economic. It’s perfectly do-able without gene editing simply by crossing dairy cows with naturally polled bulls: all the progeny will be hornless/polled. In other words, we have a simple alternative that doesn’t require new technology. The problem for the dairy industry is that this simple alternative would reduce milk production and increase costs.

The scientific committee reviewing the code of practice for the welfare of dairy cows in Canada identifies a number of public concerns, including dehorning. Does this suggest the public will welcome gene-edited cows even though there’s an alternative? Another example is one of the edits that Kajal introduced in her article (see link above), gene-edited cattle that are more heat tolerant. Again, this has animal welfare and production benefits (animals stop eating and producing when they are heat-stressed). But here, too, we have an alternative. The “slick” gene (or more correctly, “allele”) can be introduced into Canadian breeds from breeds where the mutation arose. There are already animals on the ground in Alberta that include “slick” produced in this way. A comment from one announcement of the approval of this gene edit in the US read, “we have been introgressing slick coat into composite cattle for 15 years…..It seems crazy to convince customers [of] the benefits of CRISPR [ ] when the benefits already exist naturally…….That is simply science [ ] for science sake.”

Exactly right! we should always ask whether there is an alternative approach and not just apply technology because we can. Headlines such as “Gene-edited cows just secured record-fast FDA approval” don’t help. As Aesop’s fable indicates “slow and steady wins the race.” Surely, this maxim applies in the case of gene-edited cattle.

Graham Plastow, CEO, Livestock Gentec

Did you know the milk you drink may well come from cows that have been dehorned with a hot iron? Horns? Hot iron? Ouch! Many people are surprised to learn that nearly all dairy cows, which come from the Holstein breed, are born with tissue that grows into horns. Horn-forming tissue is often removed by farmers from the cows’ skulls with chemicals or a hot iron to protect farmers, animal handlers and other cows. This process is painful, stressful and time-consuming, and requires expertise and pain control. In Canada, the NFACC Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle requires all calves to be disbudded to avoid injuries and behavioural problems associated with horns in later life. It reflects current dairy management practices such as disbudding calves before three weeks of age, adequately restraining the calf, using an appropriate method for the size of horn and/or age of animal, ensuring only trained persons carry out disbudding/dehorning procedures and using a combination of sedatives, local anesthetics and analgesics.

However, according to the scientific committee revising the Code of Practice, “disbudding/dehorning without pain mitigation” is one of “the most contentious practices” (along with early cow-calf separation, tail docking, culling of male dairy calves, and zero-grazing [lack of pasture access] and/or tie-stall housing systems). These results align with the surveys showing that 27-31% of Canadian producers say they always use pain killer for dehorning. However, 14-23% of producers indicate that using pain killers depends on age and method of dehorning.

Thus, another question might be: what if scientists could create hornless Holsteins just by changing the “gene for horns” to the one found in the naturally hornless Angus breed? Would they improve animal welfare by reducing pain? Or are they just using animals as mere objects to serve human purposes?

CRISPR Cas9 (CRISPR) is a breakthrough in biology with gene-editing applications for plants, animals and humans. Gene-editing, as one of the newest tools of biotechnology, can be a win-win for the animal and the producer. It’s also expected to have a positive influence on public opinion regarding the use of the technology in animal products due to its wide range of benefits (dehorning is just one). While consumers showed that they are more likely to accept gene-edited products than those from genetic modification (GM) or transgenesis, most people don’t understand what gene editing is. So how can they make a decision to buy it?

THE MOVE TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY

The lack of transparency is one of the greatest obstacles to the progress of gene-editing technology. For example: you need milk so you go to the grocery store. One jug is labeled “natural” and the other “genetically edited”. Which one do you choose? Regardless of price and origin, you probably feel more comfortable drinking “natural” milk. However, almost nothing we eat is truly “natural”.

Even though you may not realize it, more than 75% of food products sold in Canadian grocery stores can contain some GM ingredients but labels don’t mention it, says Sylvain Charlebois, senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie.

Moreover, some Canadians with an appetite for salmon may have already consumed the world’s first GM food animal without even knowing it, according to Sarah Cox, an award-winning journalist and author based in Victoria, BC. Along a similar line, people who support organic agriculture are convinced that plants are grown without chemicals. That’s not true. Even if people know about them, their belief system—that these are dangerous chemicals—kicks in.

How will Canadians react to gene-edited foods? Will they embrace this technology? According to Stuart Smyth, an assistant professor at the University of Saskatchewan’s department of Agricultural and Resources Economics, more than 90% of the Canadian public has no awareness about what technologies are used to develop plant varieties right now.

WE MUST OVERCOME THE FEAR OF GENETIC ENGINEERING IN OUR FOOD

Habits are hard to break. Researchers aren’t going to talk to people about the CRISPR Cas9 protein or a piece of RNA that’s skewing their viewpoints. We prefer to focus on what might work better instead. How’s that as a good starting point for a reasoned discussion? Talking can become very easy if we focus on specific benefit messages to increase consumer acceptance of gene-edited foods rather than on technical explanations.

For instance, when consumers have a close relationship with the trait or benefit itself, they are more likely to be interested in the technology; they’ll want to learn more and they’ll be more open to accept it, says Ian Affleck, vice-president of plant biotechnology at Ottawa-based CropLife Canada, a trade association representing plant science companies.

But the most important question is whether gene-edited foods can still be called natural products. There’s no reason at the moment to expect they will be any less of a concern to consumers than other genetically engineered foods.

Niloofar Pejman
Visiting Scientist, Livestock Gentec

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) focuses on labelling meat that has been raised different ways.

Once upon a time, when I lived in East Texas, I had to learn to defend my religion. I mean, if there’s a Bible belt in the USA, Texarkana Texas is the buckle portion.

You might ask, what does religion have to do with cattle? They’re one in the same. It’s a way of life! If you don’t know how to defend your way of life, how can you keep it going?

I don’t mean get into a fist fight with vegans. I want to be able to explain the important details to those who want to learn about beef. As I travel the world for pleasure and business, I always get asked what I do for a living, especially when I’m in airplanes or wearing a cowboy hat, lol. So here’s my elevator pitch to welcome people into Team Beef.

The first thing is that all meat is 100% antibiotic free. It’s the law! Just because an animal was sick doesn’t mean that we will let it suffer. Regardless of marketing program, breed, environment, etc., some cattle have natural disease immunities, and others will be susceptible. Cattle are mammals, and just like you and I, some get sick and need help. However, to be harvested, they need to meet specific standards that require withdrawal dates from their last (if any) dose of antibiotic. Ergo, all cattle meat is antibiotic free. I repeat: it’s the law!

Second, grass-fed doesn’t mean they lived their lives chasing puppy dogs and rainbows. Chances are, they were still finished in a feedlot, just with a more foraged-focused diet. Personally, when I want 100% grass-raised protein, I hunt it. I don’t like grass fed/finished beef. I’m a big fan of grain-fed beef. Those little specs of marbling (or as I like to call them, “little bite sizes of heaven”) is what really gives you the flavour that creates core memories.

Yes, I know you know a guy who raises 100% grass-fed beef but I’m willing to bet the herd is less than 15 head, and they’re not feeding the world. And that’s also why you always have to smother that meat in some kind of gravy or sauce.

Organic. This is the one label that almost got me banned from the farmer’s market. If someone has a small operation and they do all the work themselves, including hugging their cattle daily, it doesn’t automatically grant them an “organic” label. This is probably one of the most difficult meat labels to get in Canada. The feed must be certified organic, the bedding has to be certified organic, the water source has to be free from run-off from non-organic fields, etc., etc. And all these certifications need to be in place for at least 3 years before an animal born on the operation can be labelled as such. I mean, you really must be committed to losing an additional 30-50% of your profits for 3-5 years just to get that label. But at least you can charge it all back to the consumer, right?

When I managed the feedlot and we gave tours, I always made a point to explain the differences of the diets for our conventional cattle and those on a natural program. In other words, none! The difference was the enrollment process of the cattle from birth, and the mounds of paperwork required. How did we handle the inefficiencies of such programs that added costs? We passed them on to the consumer.

Lastly, no, we don’t genetically modify any animals destined for slaughter. We can only select genetics that best fit our environment, feed availability and purpose.

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) focuses on how to translate packing plant information into genetic change.

It’s been a long ~16 months of struggles, feeding and keeping your cattle alive. Now, your cattle are finally going to the slaughterhouse. Withing 72 hours or so, they will have been harvested, weighed, chilled, weighed again, and graded including yield. All of this information will come to you in a very complex report that includes carcass weights, grades, rib eye areas, payout and discounts.

Most of us pay attention first to the payout, followed by discounts, and then averages. But that’s the top of the iceberg. How do you translate packing plant information into genetic change? Here are some simple steps to help you out.

First, remember that bull or two (or 20) you bought in the spring a few years ago? Their theoretical genetic outcome (along with every other bull in your battery), is now being measured in real life. Let’s hope you kept up with your sires’ and dams’ offspring’s records.

Second, ask ahead of time that the carcass information be matched to each animal’s Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA) Electronic Identification (EID) as this may not be a standard procedure at your plant. Commonly, all the information is matched to a carcass ID… but NOT to your EID.

Third, match the EIDs to your birth records. If you haven’t already, start a database that allows you to keep track of each offspring’s information, including harvest information. Ultimately, this is what allows you to track the outcome of your genetic decisions. Remember those Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) we talked about in February[SD1] ?

Data is everything, and as John Doerr said, you need to Measure what Matters! How you manage your data is what separates the cattleman from the hobbyist. This is HUGE, especially if you don’t retain ownership of your cattle. That’s why it’s also important to have a great relationship with your feedlot.

What decisions you make are unique to your outfit. For example, if you’re getting too many overweight discounts, it may not be a genetic influence but merely a management aspect that needs to be addressed. Maybe you already knew that you held on to your cattle too long, and there was going to be some adjustment to the schedule.

However, if you’re meeting or exceeding your contract expectations i.e.; minimum 70% AAA and you are consistently delivering 90+, maybe it’s time to renegotiate your grid. On the other hand, underdelivering will always cost you more; remember, you never get paid more for doing a great job but you’ll be penalized for not doing a good one.

Bottom line comes down to being realistic vs. what you were expecting. If you measure against true goals, you’ll be able to make proper decisions. I don’t have to remind ya’ll—but I will—that our industry is not a sprint race. Genetic change moves slowly like a never-ending marathon. Therefore, you need to make genetic decisions that will impact your operation for at least the next 10 years.

For more information, contact John Basarab [SD2] here at Gentec for help.