The Balance Between Science and Practicality
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
One of the areas where balance cannot be denied is that between the science of livestock production and the production practicalities that cannot or at least have not as yet become quantitatively definable.
a) How do you measure an animal’s temperament, behaviour and personality traits?
b) Is there a method of practically measuring a live animal’s skin thickness, density and pliability?
c) And if we could measure it, what would it tell us about that animal?
there is still a great deal about livestock production that has not been scientifically diagnosed, but rather handed down through generations of stockmen...
* Science has provided us with many answers to what happens when animals are bred in a certain way or eat certain foods etc. However, there is still a great deal of information about livestock production that has not been scientifically diagnosed as yet and has been handed down through generations of stockmen and is still very important to the industry.
* Part of the CLMS system has been developed from this type of information. One of our greatest frustrations as a company is the lack of acceptance by many sectors of the industry in today’s technological age to accept anything that cannot be scientifically computed. Having said that, we, as a company, are striving to produce the necessary scientific evidence that will justify our claims.
* We have seen the emphasis being placed on breeding for high daily weight gain in cattle over the last 40 years or so. This has led to larger, faster growing animals, but what has happened to things like meat yield and feed conversion rates. There has also been a significant increase in the number of cows that look more like males than females and this affects things like calving ease and percentages and milk quality.
* Similarly, in the dairy industry the trend has been to produce more milk per cow and what has happened? Instead of cows producing consistently for 12 – 15 lactations, their udders are collapsing after 4 – 5 lactations of high production. Is it worth the cost involved in breeding all the extra replacements or producing lower quality milk?
These are just obvious examples of what breeding for just one or two selected traits can do.
* Over the last 10 years, members of our company have spent many hours developing this system. Most of the research we have done, through the very nature of what we are establishing, has meant a practical, hands on approach. We have evaluated hundreds of animals and then sampled the meat to evaluate the relationship between the scoring system and meat quality. The system that has been developed is certainly between 98% and 100% accurate based on taste tests.
What extent does it affect our human health when the genetic balance of animals is manipulated?
We have done several scientifically based trials. One was conducted by the Rutherglen Research Institute and involved the use of a Warner Bratzeler Shear Force test on some 16 samples of meat that we sent them for analysis. The following table shows the results.
| Body No. |
Fresh Weight (Kg) |
WB. AV. Shear Test. |
CLMS Live Grade. |
| 111 |
199.8 |
4.40 |
3 |
| 137 |
253 |
4.96 |
3 |
| 141 |
234.7 |
5.71 |
4 |
| 143 |
231.9 |
6.40 |
4 |
| 210 |
181 |
3.01 |
3 |
| 214 |
190.7 |
4.57 |
4 |
| 219 |
185.1 |
4.59 |
4 |
| 233 |
159.8 |
4.44 |
3 |
| 234 |
272.8 |
3.00 |
2 |
| 239 |
201.9 |
3.25 |
3 |
| 246 |
214.9 |
7.01 |
5 |
| 251 |
205.2 |
2.49 |
2 |
| 253 |
263.7 |
7.49 |
5 |
| 255 |
280.7 |
4.94 |
4 |
| 269 |
274.7 |
3.99 |
3 |
| 271 |
214.8 |
3.48 |
3 |
| AVERAGE |
- |
4.299 |
3.44 |
| Grade |
No. tested |
WB tested |
Total |
Average |
| 1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 2 |
2 |
2.49
3.0 |
5.49 |
2.74 |
| 3 |
7 |
4.40
4.96
3.01
4.44
3.25
3.99
3.48 |
27.53 |
3.93 |
| 4 |
5 |
5.71
6.40
4.57
4.59
4.94 |
26.01 |
5.20 |
| 5 |
2 |
7.01
7.49 |
14.50 |
7.25 |
The company have also carried out some DNA tests of cattle hair to see if there is any correlation between cattle that had been tested as producers of A2 milk and our system for determining meat tenderness. These tests were carried out by a company called Agri Quality in New Zealand.
| DNA Trial Comparing A2 Cows for Tenderness |
| 17/07/03 |
| TAG NUMBER |
TENDERNESS |
DNA/A2 |
| 125 |
3 |
A2 |
| 138 |
2 |
A2 |
| 503 |
4 |
A1 |
| 1769 |
4 |
A1/2 |
| 42 |
3 |
A2 |
| 356 |
3 |
A2 |
| 200 |
3 |
A2 |
| 9429 |
5 |
A1 |
| 9423 |
5 |
A1/2 |
| 9430 |
5 |
A1 |
| 394 |
5 |
A1 |
| 9431 |
3 |
A2 |
| 9419 |
3 |
A2 |
| 9409 |
5 |
A1 |
| 9415 |
5 |
A1/2 |
| 9425 |
5 |
A1 |
| 9385 |
3 |
A2 |
| 9443 |
3 |
A2 |
| 9387 |
5 |
A1 |
| 32 |
3 |
A2 |
| 344 |
3 |
A2 |
| 356 |
3 |
A2 |
| 42 |
3 |
A2 |
| 47 |
3 |
A2 |
| 503 |
4 |
A1 |
| 529 |
3 |
A2 |
| 59 |
3 |
A2 |
| 69 |
3 |
A2 |
| 87 |
3 |
A2 |
| 100 |
3 |
A2 |
| 105 |
3 |
A2 |
| 117 |
3 |
A2 |
| 124 |
3 |
A2 |
| 125 |
3 |
A2 |
| 133 |
3 |
A2 |
| 138 |
2 |
A2 |
| 139 |
3 |
A2 |
| 1673 |
3 |
A2 |
| 1769 |
4 |
A1 |
| 200 |
3 |
A2 |
| 250 |
3 |
A2 |
| 2570 |
3 |
A2 |
| 2587 |
3 |
A2 |
| 262 |
3 |
A2 |
| 274 |
3 |
A2 |
| 279 |
3 |
A2 |
| 287 |
3 |
A2 |
| 2925 |
3 |
A2 |
| 293 |
3 |
A2 |
This result shows all but three cattle graded at 3 or 2 for tenderness as being A2 milk producers. All the cattle that were graded as tender were A2 milk producers.
