Back in 2019, Alberta Innovates contracted AbacusBio—an ag science and business consulting company with core capability in breeding and genetics—to do an impact assessment of its dollars going into genomics research. That included an impact assessment of Gentec, and resulted in a high-level framework for the future. Fast forward to 2022, AbacusBio and former Gentecer John Crowley are back to flesh out that framework, especially around the funding structure, and Gentec’s sustainability.

John Crowley came to Gentec from Ireland in 2011 as a post-doc working on the Canadian Cattle Genome Project. He soon transitioned to BeefBooster in a role bridging Gentec and industry on genetic improvement. In 2014, he joined the Canadian Beef Breeds Council as Director of Scientific and Industry Advancement, which saw him conveniently co-located in Gentec offices and facilitated an adjunct professorship at the same time. AbacusBio opened an office in Edinburgh in 2018, and that’s where John found himself next.

“I’ve been in touch with this company since grad school and always admired its work,” says John. “When the opportunity came to be part of it, and close to home in Ireland, I jumped.”

Still with AbacusBio, John returned to Edmonton in 2021 to bring the company’s capabilities to the North American market in a more formal way than individual consultants.

“So instead of a few bullet points in the framework, we’re planning out a full five-year strategy, with the aim of reducing government funding as time goes on,” says John.

The background work involved deep reading of Gentec management reports and other reports; talking to Gentec staff/management, stakeholders who benefit from Gentec R&D; and funders to determine their priorities and what they want to fund in ag and genetics research.

The report, which is expected by end 2022, will take the form of a project proposal to take to funders. Very, very clever… because this avoids the time-consuming step of translating one type of document into another, and because funders and competitions have already been identified (notably, RDAR, CAAIN and Genome Canada) to which Gentec can bring value.

Funding is one piece of the strategy; one that scientists are familiar with. Branding, a second piece, is not usually in their wheelhouse. Clarifying Gentec’s role with industry will be critical.

“One approach is to get Gentec up as an institute for animal genetics within UAlberta with a focus on knowledge translation towards producers,” says John.

This would move Gentec away from the “centre of excellence” branding, which is federal language, and re-emphasize the affiliation to the university. The objective is to focus more on Alberta as the hub of beef cattle and swine genetics in Canada.

Gentec may be the best-kept secret in Canadian agriculture, partly because of the lack of stable funding for a top-notch industry liaison person. The strategic plan advocates for a steady stream of funding for such a person, funded through the above competitions.

“We know that profit is controlled by genetics,” says John. “Huge percentages in some cases. I see Gentec as the only obvious place for genetics R&D in Western Canada. So many organizations and producers can benefit from this incredible capacity that’s right in their back yards. THAT’S where we need to be.”

Given the prohibitive cost and large data sets required to identify the relationships between genetics, an animal’s environment and its management, the benefits of genomics in the cattle industry have often been limited to the pure breed and seedstock sectors. Recent improvements in the ability of producers to gather large quantities of data combined with massive reductions in the price of DNA analysis and the resulting shift in costs vs. benefits has opened the genetics door to the commercial beef producer, particularly the cow/calf sector. In accordance with this shift, commercial cow/calf producers are showing an increased interest in how genomics might help them better turn their forage into beef. And who better to turn to than their own forage and research associations.

Gentec’s work with Alberta’s forage associations has reached the point that we are pleased to announce a reciprocating, collaborative MOU with the Grey Wooded Forage Association headquartered in Rocky Mountain House. The agreement centres on research, education and demonstration of technologies to optimize the profitability and sustainability of turning sunshine into forage, and forage into beef. We are confident it will provide significant benefits to the stakeholders of both organizations. Watch for updates in this newsletter and in the GWFA’s The Blade.

Opening up the time capsule, GWFA was Gentec’s first forage association collaborator on our field days. It’s hard to believe that GWFA member Murray Abel opened the Cow-Forage Gentec Tour in as far back as 2017. See the article here. This was Gentec’s first pivot towards focusing on the forage aspect of beef production as part of a field-demonstration event, our first direct collaboration with a forage association—and one of our most highly-rated programs. Coincidentally, this was also the event at which Gentec launched the first genomic breed composition tool, EnVigour HX, which was also the first of several genomics tools Gentec developed to help Alberta’s commercial cow calf producers make better beef.

Our two organizations continue to work together to update GWFA members on opportunities to apply genomics and best forage and beef production practices, including opportunities to participate and benefit from practical on-ranch validation and research opportunities.

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) talks about why feeding the dam now helps the calf later.

You’ve invested a lot of money on buying the right bulls. You spent a lot of time (and money) selecting your replacement heifers. It took you over a week to match your sires and dams appropriately to go with all of your pastures. Finally, you can treat your herd like an easy oven, set it and forget it! Right? Wrong! You can’t just step away; you have to continually manage your investment.

Pregnancy nutrition is one aspect we should focus on quite heavily. Previously, we didn’t think much about it as long as we had the cows in good condition or, at the very least, in decent condition at calving. However, the observable fact of fetal programing or developmental programming has revealed that improper feeding of dams during pregnancy can have long-term consequences on the subsequent calf.

Cattle fetal programming is the concept that a maternal stimulus or insult at a critical period in fetal development has long-term effects on the offspring. When we talk about humans, if an adult develops weight issues, we quickly chuckle and say “It’s in my genes” (or as I’ve heard, “I’m big boned”). If someone stays slim, we compliment their genes. But what we are talking about here is that any stressor—including inferior cattle nutrition—can be an insult and cause DNA methylation in the developing fetus. The DNA itself cannot change but DNA methylation will cause the activity of the DNA to change, meaning genes will be expressed differently.

Essentially, methylation is turning on or off specific genes. Fetal nourishment can impact biological processes, such as growth, fertility and more once the calf is born.

In other words, the over- and under-nutrition of a mother can change the expression of genes in its progeny. This can then affect certain traits for better or worse when compared to a properly-fed contemporary.

The weight and body condition score of a cow varies throughout the year even though it’s based on the same farm. It is impacted by forage quality, growing, and harvesting conditions of the forage as well as the seasonality of the cow’s production cycle, not to mention regionality. Each environment places challenges on cows, and those that are resilient to those changes are the ones who are able to pass on their genetics to the next generation.

So how can we manage it? There are a number of nutrition specialists you may contact, along with forage specialists. If you are rotating pastures based on harvest to winter your cows, have these analyzed to determine if you need to supplement them. A deficiency in your bred-cow nutrition can seriously jeopardize the future calf’s potential. And it shouldn’t be acceptable to force your cows to rough it.

Think about supplementation from the view of meeting fetus needs as well. It’s important to not just think about the needs of the cows; ensuring their eventual offspring get proper sustenance is key to maximize its genetic potential.

And if you’re raising replacement heifers, think about the role fetal programming plays on a cow’s longevity and fertility. What you do today can affect a cow’s fertility for the next decade or so.

This is an exciting area that Gentec researcher Carolyn Fitzsimmons has been investigating, see here for example. More in a future newsletter.

For more information, contact John Basarab, Gentec’s Director of Beef Operations.

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) presents some options on short- and long-term sustainability.

During a recent family trip, my wife asked what my favourite fast-food restaurant was. It turns out that I had two favourites… and guess what? They both had a lot to do with beef!

On one hand, I love Arby’s because, well, they have the meats! On the other hand, when Cattleland Feedyards and I became engaged in their early work on their sustainability approach in 2014, I actually frequented McDonald’s the most. It was easy to see that their plan would benefit Canadian and global farmers.

Why is this significant, you ask? Well, in my opinion, McDonald’s helped build the framework for our current Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. They didn’t focus on short trends or beef niches like others, they wanted everyone to be on board for the long haul. AND they were willing to pay for it. Last time I checked, qualified producers could receive a payment per head through some certification and verification processes. To sign up, producers also had to be trained and audited by VBP+ or be audited by Where Food Comes From. They then had to register for BIXS and age-verify their cattle in BIXS or the CLTS database. CCIA would then disperse funds to qualifying producers.

Now this is a quick example of sustainability return on investment. Another option is to focus on the genetic selection of your herd so you can maximize all payments available. Unfortunately, sometimes we lose sight of the forest because of the tree line. What I mean is that sustainability is a long-term investment that needs to include genetic selection and management alongside the certifications that enhance your payments. Sometimes we focus on the now payments rather than the actual sustainability plan.

Not all payments will hit your bank account immediately. Some payments come in the form of land management. Take selecting for Residual Feed Intake (RFI) as an example. A potential benefit of this is that you can increase your herd size in the same amount of land you operate because you have more efficient cattle. If you sell sires, those with a negative RFI can bring a better premium during your sale. If you retain them, the benefit will stay in your herd, improving your operation year after year.

Another area where you can manage your genetics is to utilize genomic information (from DNA tests) that focuses on beef production traits that are economically important to maximize feeding margins. For example, have you ever purchased a group of calves by weight and about 120 days later, they are all different sizes, and wondered why? The fact is, we all gain weight differently, even if we have the same parental source, diet, and environment. Most feedlots and cattle finishers may not choose all the genetics coming into their lot but they do have to manage what they get. Knowing the genetic make-up of that pen can help you manage their sorting, implant strategies, and even market dates. These DNA test can be quickly done by companies like Quantum Genetix.

Options sometimes create more confusion, but the reality is that you don’t have to execute all of them. Find out what’s important to you, explore your choices, and do the math to make sure your investment into sustainability and genetics will have the proper return for your outfit.

For more information, contact John Basarab, Director of Beef Operations, Livestock Gentec

According to Health Canada, companies are allowed to sell new food that comes from genetically-engineered plants, without any government safety assessments, and only based on voluntary corporate information. In this voluntary transparency initiative (TI), plant breeders are encouraged to self-regulate the risks of their genetic products and provide concise information about the product, which Health Canada publishes online for public access.

At long last, Canada has opened door to the Canadian market for some genetically-engineered foods produced with new gene-editing (GE) techniques. Canada and several major crop-producing countries including Argentina, Australia, Brazil and the USA have examined the potential risk from genome-edited products, and concluded that these products don’t require additional risk assessments if no foreign DNA is present in the final variety. Rick White, chair of the Canada Grains Council believes this will open up the very real possibility of dramatic improvements for small- and large-acre crops alike, from productivity improvements to new solutions for emerging pest pressures to advances in food and fuel crops that will benefit the entire value chain including consumers.

This regulatory decision will reduce the time and cost to develop new crop varieties. The benefit of this is that, as climates change continues, plant breeders will be able to commercialize new crops, fruits, and vegetable varieties more rapidly, which will benefit us as consumers with more food on store shelves. As a result, everyone can benefit from this new regulation, according to Stuart Smyth, an associate professor at University of Saskatchewan in the College of Agriculture and Bioresources.

Health Canada intends to develop similar guidance for genetically-modified animals and microorganisms. However, one question might come up: following this decision, could Canadians soon be eating GE animal products that have not been assessed for safety? Should we put food options on the market without even introducing the products and asking the opinion of the consumers? This is important because a study by Global Market Insights Inc. estimates that the gene-editing market value could reach USD 19.9 billion by 2030.

According to Kajal Devani, Director of Science and Technology, Canadian Angus Association, we need to convince our parents, our community, and all consumers of the benefits of genetic engineering before commercializing gene-edited products.

In this regard, she mentioned the importance of the Beef Improvement Federation (BIF) symposium as one of the annual conventions that rotate across US states to connect science and industry to improve beef cattle genetics. The symposium is a great way to address topics ranging from fertility (estrus synchronization, timed-AI, sexed semen, genetic correlations of scrotal circumference to other traits) to consumer demands (beef production as a consumer-driven business; who is our consumer; what do they want today and 20 years from now; the genetics of meat science; and what can we do to improve the palatability of beef). Fortunately, in 2023 BIF is scheduled to be held in Calgary just prior to the 2023 Calgary Stampede.

In summary, Canada will remain at the forefront of crop innovation and environmentally friendly techniques while ensuring the financial viability of family farms. Moreover, many plant breeders believe GE could revolutionize crop development. It will allow scientists to quickly and precisely alter the DNA of a plant to achieve desired characteristics. For example, scientists can improve wheat disease resistance or create canola hybrids with healthier oil. As a result of new breeding technologies, such as CRISPR gene editing, plant and animal breeding has become more accessible and efficient.

Niloofar Pejman

Visiting Scientist, Livestock Gentec

Bovine respiratory disease or BRD is usually caused by a variety of pathogens, both viral (bovine respiratory syncytial virus (BRSV), paraInfluenza 3 (PI3), adenovirus, bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)) and bacterial (Pasteurella multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, Histophilus somni, Mycoplasma bovis). This makes it a challenge for traditional biosecurity or vaccination. Unfortunately, the way that most beef cattle are finished compounds this problem in a number of ways. For example, the cattle are challenged with several types of stress in addition to the potential for infection by these pathogens. Stresses include weaning, transport, mixing with cattle from different sources, and change of diet. Our own experiences with COVID-19 may help you sympathize with these cattle in terms of them keeping healthy.

How important is BRD in Western Canada? Mike Jelinski (Veterinary Agri-Health Services in Airdrie) and Eugene Janzen (UCalgary) reported respiratory infections as the leading cause of antibiotic treatments in calves from birth to weaning. At least one calf was treated for respiratory disease on 77% of Western Canadian cow-calf operations (and BRD accounts for 65-80% of the sickness and 45-75% of the deaths in some feedlots).

Now, Gentec and its partners are taking a multidisciplinary approach to better understand the options available and the return on investment for different approaches. For example, Karin Orsel at UCalgary has been looking at how preconditioning (vaccination, different types of weaning, and handling) can reduce the incidence of BRD in the feedlot. This work is part of the Major Innovation Fund initiative on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) led by Prof Herman Barkema at UCalgary, as is a Gentec project looking at the potential to select for animals that are more resilient to polymicrobial diseases (BRD in cattle and PRRS in pigs). It made sense to combine our ideas, and look more closely at the problem. We have now been joined by Xiaoli Fan from REES at UAlberta who is also part of the AMR Consortium. She is modelling the cost effectiveness of the different potential interventions.

Although Gentec CEO Graham Plastow has long suggested the use of genetic selection for disease resilience, especially for polymicrobial diseases such as BRD (see here, here and here), the value of this approach is thought difficult to apply. Barriers include collecting the phenotypes required for progress and the low reported heritability of the trait. And until very recently, veterinarians and researchers have been skeptical about the value of using breeding to select for reduced disease susceptibility. The low heritability of the trait was one of the main reasons. However, recent work has reinvestigated the idea and provided strong support for its potential. Why? Well, it comes down to the R value – again perhaps you recall the importance of R in managing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers at Wageningen University combined the fields of genetics and epidemiology to show that selecting for animals that are less susceptible and less infectious has great potential for reducing the spread of animal diseases. Hulst and colleagues identified a major flaw in such criticism building on some of the work of Gentec collaborators, such as the late Steve Bishop and Andrea Doeschl-Wilson at the Roslin Institute. The Wageningen authors combined epidemiological models of transmission with quantitative genetic analysis of disease status to identify the potential response to selection for reducing the prevalence of endemic infectious diseases. Their results show that the typical heritability values seen support a very substantial genetic variation in disease susceptibility among individuals and, IMPORTANTLY, that eradicating infectious diseases by genetic selection IS possible. This is because previous genetic models ignored the positive feedback effects that occur when reducing the transmission of infectious diseases. These effects are related to concepts of herd immunity (again, see COVID-19) and contribute substantially to the response to selection. These authors conclude that the genetic variation in disease susceptibility that is available can translate into a large responses to selection in terms of disease prevalence and that this will “make it possible to eradicate infectious disease, at least in theory.”

With funding from RDAR (A Multidisciplinary initiative to apply genomics to reduce the incidence of BRD and antimicrobial use in western Canadian beef production: $363,000), the Alberta team is set to try to demonstrate this for BRD. The researche team including Fan, Orsel, Jelinski, and Brenda Ralston at Lakeland College will be working with two commercial feedlots to collect the evidence and find tools to enable selection to reduce BRD. We hope to build on this study in the future. Please contact us if you would like to know more and/or would like to be part of future studies.

Graham Plastow

CEO, Livestock Gentec

This month’s At The Grill feature by William Torres (former Research Manager at Cattleland Feedyards and popular presenter at Gentec conferences) reminds us of Queen Elizabeth II’s passion for agriculture.

It is world news that this 8th of September, 2022, Queen Elizabeth II passed away. She was the longest-reigning monarch in British history and she was also a lover of cattle and horses. While most of the world remembers her corgis, those in the agricultural realm know just how vast her involvement was. Let’s recap some of Her Majesty’s involvements.

In 2001, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, had the idea of selling high-quality goods from the royal farms at Windsor and other small local suppliers to support smaller businesses in the area while providing customers with the best quality products Britain had to offer.

The royal farms at Windsor consist of 200 registered Jersey cows, a Sussex beef herd, 140 breeding sows, 1,500 Lohmann Brown hens, 1,000 acres of arable land and 2,000 acres of grassland, mainly used to feed the livestock.

According to the farm’s website , the late Queen’s Jersey herd is based at Prince Consort Farm in The Home Park. The original farm was designed by Prince Albert in the late 1850s. The original buildings were extended with new winter housing for the cows, and they now feature robotic technology. Additionally, the farm features automatic cow brushes as well as waterbeds for the royal herd to lie on.

YES! Real waterbeds. According to Mark Osman, the farm manager, “The water pushes underneath the pressure points, and the cows end up sort of floating.” Apparently, the entire royal family took part in choosing the water beds, which are also rather pricey.

While it is not known as to what will become of the royal farm, the milk is currently being sold to produce Windsor Castle ice cream.

In Scotland, the late Queen is fondly remembered for her long-standing enthusiasm and support for farming, rural life, and the countryside as well as her patronage and visits to the Highland Show. The late Queen raised Highland cattle since 1953 at her home in Balmoral.

She took part in, and visited many shows, like the Country Show at Saint John, Jersey herd in 1978. The breed was one of her favourites. The royal family’s Jersey herd is one of the oldest in the UK; some of the cattle can be traced back to 1871.

Personally, with my current involvement as President of a veterans’ support group, I have learned much about the devotion from our men and women to service and the Crown. One of our members with a farming background was presented to her during her coronation when he was only 10. He now stated, “Her Majesty has been the embodiment of duty and public service, seeing the country through seven decades where we have seen huge change in our nation and in our fields.”

From the agricultural point of view, Her Majesty, in an ever-changing and challenging world, has always been a constant and a great supporter, including here in Canada. Her examples of service, duty and loyalty are timeless, and ones that we can and will follow.

“How did they get THAT wrong?” mused Donagh Berry, Statistical geneticist at Teagasc in Ireland. “We asked producers for female DNA samples. These are bull samples!”

The physical differences between females and males are pretty clear. So, to paraphrase Donagh’s question, why this seemingly glaring error?

Let’s back up a bit…

The Irish Cattle Breeding Federation run a national program funded by the Irish government and the European Union to increase the productivity of the national beef herd by improving genetic merit. On average in Ireland, 83% of mated cows go into calf, which, in a herd of 1 million cows, means that 170,000 cows are walking around with no “output”. The benefit of simply increasing the pregnancy rate is putting more coin in producers’ pockets as well as improving environmental efficiency. The increase also means more meat on consumers’ plates.

Because using genomics tools can accelerate genetic gain, producers were asked to submit DNA samples of their cows and potential heifers in order to identify superior females to breed the next generation. Over 1 million samples were submitted.

Females have two X chromosomes; males have one X and one Y chromosome. That’s pretty simple. But as the DNA testing progressed, some anomalies were detected. A small number of samples were arriving with male DNA (i.e., one X and one Y chromosome) despite producers being instructed to submit samples from females. Hence Donagh’s question.

Producers had less faith in the technology, and more faith in the udders they saw in front of them. They sent in more samples from those animals. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The “heifers” still registered as male; and each side started digging in their heels. Donagh declared this mystery needed solving, and turned to his long-time collaborator, Gentec researcher Paul Stothard (UAlberta) for advice.

“I went to look at these heifers,” says Donagh. “They were definitely female. So I took yet more samples. It turns out that these animals are female on the outside but have the DNA of a male. In other words, they have the Y chromosome. Then I checked out the literature, and found that it was a known syndrome called Swyer, which exists in humans, too.”

Under necropsy, Donagh could see that the animals were female internally as well but infertile. Given the 680,000 genotypes generated at the time, and the eight anomalous results detected, Donagh and Paul deduced that the incidence of Swyer is 1 in 80,000 cows, about the same as in humans.

So what are the implications?

“Well, saving face is a big one,” says Donagh. “There’s always an undercurrent of skepticism about technology. An abnormal result like this puts the credibility of genomics into question. In Ireland, this could spread on social media, and the whole thing is in jeopardy.”

For producers, the implications are somewhat smaller—or 6-8 animals per million. A chromosome-counting technology is available for about $150 that detects karyotype abnormalities like Swyer, Edward syndrome, Turner syndrome and Down syndrome. Because these syndromes are so uncommon, Donagh doesn’t recommend this course of action.

But with current genomics technology that measures tens of thousands of pieces of DNA, Donagh and Paul discovered that seven of the eight cows were missing the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. (The eighth cow was an anomaly of an anomaly: she had the SRY gene. We don’t know why.)

“Detecting Swyer is as simple as adding DNA markers in the SRY gene on the genotyping platform already used at no additional cost. DNA markers on the rest of the Y chromosome already exist on these platforms” says Donagh. “A Swyer female will give you a signal for the Y chromosome but not the SRY gene on that chromosome because she doesn’t have it.”

Paul and Donagh have suggested DNA markers that companies can include on their platforms so that, when producers get their animals genotyped, they will get a result for Swyer as well. The group has already developed methodology to infer other chromosomal abnormalities, such as Turner Syndrome, again at no additional cost.

“We wanted to leverage the data to deliver more information,” says Donagh. “At the end of the day, producers are genotyping and getting information on parentage, abnormalities, congenital defects, etc. all from one sample. They get Swyer thrown in for free. You can argue that the incidence is low… but the cost is zero!”

A significant difference between the commercial and purebred cattle sectors is the lack of technology available to commercial producers to genetically evaluate their animals. The purebred industry has been using Expected Progeny Differences (EPDs) for decades but some of the traits assessed in full-blood cattle aren’t as economically applicable to crossbreds.

Gentec is working to increase the accessibility of genomics to commercial cow/calf producers in Western Canada so they can select more suitable breeding stock and increase their profitability. Gentec has developed the largest reference population for Western Canadian crossbred beef cattle, and created two DNA-based selection indexes for commercial cow/calf herds: a feeder profit index (FPI) and a replacement heifer profit index (RHPI). Each index aims to achieve objectives that are significant to feeder progeny and replacement heifer selection. Gentec has ongoing projects to measure these indexes’ validity, allowing producers to capitalize on the benefits of genomics for only $15/head—instead of the normal $45. Using a hair sample, the genome is assessed at the SNP level to detect the smallest differences in DNA. The results are called genomic-enhanced EPDs (gEPDs), which are about twice as accurate as regular EPDs.

The FPI aims to improve growth, feed efficiency, carcass value, and net return of feeder calves. The index was created by weighing relevant traits with their economic data, which can help producers detect changes in profits. The traits included in the FPI are post-wean average daily gain, feed intake, metabolic mid-weight, residual feed intake, and six carcass traits. The relationships between various traits were also accounted for, making it easier to improve multiple traits at once. Using the FPI can help produce progeny that perform more efficiently in a feedlot through the selection of better sires and dams.

The goals behind the RHPI are to improve the efficiency, fertility, and longevity of replacement heifers while maintaining or reducing production costs. One way to measure these three pillars is to quantify an animal’s genomic breed composition, which is referred to as the hybrid vigour score in the RHPI framework. By compiling the hybrid vigour score and gEPDs from up to nine traits, the RHPI is assigned to each female in the form of a numerical value, which can be compared with results from other females in a group. This is a great additional selection method as it offers a unique snapshot of their genome that can help producers make more informed decisions.

Our mission at the Grey Wooded Forage Association is to promote sustainable forage and livestock management practices. We are very committed to providing information to producers on new technologies to help them achieve their production goals and optimize efficiency. On June 22, GWFA hosted the ‘Livestock Roundup 2022’, a workshop and field event encompassing new products and solutions for cattle producers. Gentec was a significant contributor in both the workshop and field components. John Basarab and Diego Martinez Mayorga presented to the attendees about the indexes, and conducted a field exercise with the help of Clinton Brons to demonstrate the practical application of the RHPI, courtesy of Grant and Laura Smith. The opportunity to compare the phenotypes of live heifers with their gEPDs and hybrid vigour score was a great demonstration of how genomic assessments can influence decision making. All the heifers but one were black, and their RHPI results told us a lot more about their genetic makeup and potential value as a replacement female than what we could determine just by looking at them.

Although he is in the early stages of genomic testing, Grant Smith described the data as “well worth the $15/head to get a better idea of where your herd is at.” Getting a closer look at genotypes can help producers decide which animals they want to further invest in.

“I used the most expensive semen on the cows with the highest genomic score,” said Smith. “I plan on using it as a secondary selection tool to help increase uniformity. Gentec is committed to giving producers as much information as possible.”

The indexes can serve as an indispensable source of data when selecting breeding stock for commercial operations. With the agriculture industry striving for heightened sustainability and efficiency, there is plenty of room in the commercial beef sector for genetic progress. Having the ability to make important economic decisions earlier with the help of pertinent data will help producers save money and resources in a business with tight margins.

Annika Peckham

Grey Wooded Forage Association

On August 11, 2022, Genome Canada hosted a webinar on the benefits genome editing can bring to agriculture, which Gentec researcher Niloofar Pejman summarizes for us here. The webinar is a nice add-on to our gene-editing series, which you can catch up on here, here, here, and here.

PANELIST DR. JASWINDER SINGH, MCGILL UNIVERSITY, CANADA

By 2050, the global population will reach nearly 10 billion people and in order to feed them, we need to double food production, but how?

Dr. Singh explained that before talking about technologies and ideas, we have to think about what crops or plants are needed to feed the world. Many kinds of cereal are very important for food security because the majority of calories come directly or indirectly from animals.

So if we want to double or triple the yield of cereals…is it possible? It would be a big challenge, especially in the face of significant yield declines (20-30%) in cereals due to climate changes via abiotic (heat, drought, salinity) and biotic stresses. Dr. Singh’s research focuses on the genetic dissection of important traits. Originally, he started with transposon mutagenesis and gene editing (GE) in small grain cereals for decoding and tuning genes.

He continued that GE is an amazing tool. It is revolutionizing agriculture, and will be very useful. He mainly uses CRISPR-Cas9, although many GE tools are available.

What is GE? Our crops were domesticated thousands of years ago. Since the last 100 years, our breeding techniques have not changed, so basically, it takes 20 years to have a new variety.

In the meantime, new tools are available such as speed breeding that allows us to cut maybe ten years. And we have a revolutionary technique, CRISPR-Cas9, with which we can develop new varieties in four or five years. Note that GE is a targeted alteration of DNA sequences, and does not bring new DNA from other species. He believes that the CRISPR-Cas9 system demonstrates great potential for developing generation cereal cultivars and regulating beta-glucan in oats.

Why oats? Oat is an important crop with multiple uses: grain, forage, fodder, silage and, most importantly, it has soluble dietary fibre (β glucan), which can reduce serum cholesterols and high blood glucose. So one potential application of CRISPR-Cas 9 is to enhance the nutritional value of oats to meet the growing food demand for β-glucan and improve abiotic stress tolerance in response to global warming, drought, salinity, etc.

PANELIST DR. ALISON VAN EENENNAAM, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS, USA

Dr. van Eenennaam explained that many objectives visualized in plants are the same for animal breeders as well. She talked about livestock breeding, and conventional breeding acts on alterations of the genome brought through natural selection or artificial selection to give us obviously distinct breeds and behaviours and appearances. The huge discussion point is around sustainability. If we look at the alterations made between 1957 chickens and 2005 chickens using conventional breeding, we can see incredible changes in the rate of growth and food conversion. A similar change took place in the dairy industry since the introduction of artificial insemination in 1940 when we had a four-fold increase in overall production per cow.

The goal of animal breeding is to introduce useful genetic variation into the germline of selected parents such that genetic improvement is inherited by the next generation. There are a couple of ways of doing this. Dr. van Eenennaam explained about injecting the CRISPR-Cas9 into the one-cell bovine zygotes. The interesting thing is that both alleles (mom and dad) can be edited and produce non-mosaic homozygous animals that have alterations in both copies of the genome.

What might we knock out? Genes associated with disease susceptibility, allergens, unwanted development, thermo tolerance, etc.

She showed examples of different traits in different groups; for example, GE to produce porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus-resistant pigs. These pigs are the first GE product taken through the regulatory pathway in the US for animals. Another example was GE to knock out a gene associated with sexual maturity in male pigs. In North America, male pigs are castrated to prevent boar taint, and that is an animal welfare concern. GE can control the sexual development hormones.

What might we knock-in? Genes associated with disease resistance, improved food quality/nutrition, unwanted development, etc.

We are still probably going to target improving food quality nutrition and disease, such as gene knocking of NRAMPusing CRISPR-Cas9 to create animals that are resistant to tuberculosis. Also, groups are working to produce pigs resistant to African swine fever.

Dr. van Eenennaam also talked about global GE regulations. The table shows that countries around the world have different kinds of regulations about GE in food and crops and gene editing in food and animals.

According to the table, for instance, Argentina, Australia, Japan and Brazil have already determined how they will regulate GE crops and livestock, allowing some GE products to pass regulation faster.

Canadian regulators have a unique stance toward products containing novel traits, such as GE animals, regardless of the process used to develop the product. So, new traits in foods require environmental and safety approval before being sold.

In summary, new breeding technologies, including CRISPR-Cas9, have enabled new opportunities to be explored in the breeding of plants and animals. In addition to enhancing our food supply, GE can improve animal welfare. Since GE does not involve introducing DNA from another species, many scientists believe it is less risky. However, in many countries, GE products are regulated differently, and the use of gene technologies remains controversial.

Niloofar Pejman

Visiting Scientist, Livestock Gentec