The next USDA “base change” is going to occur in
2010. This means the range of PTA
yield values will be slightly reduced.
This change usually subtracts 500 pounds of PTA milk from historical
sires, and readjusts downward all current sires according to the relative
performance of most recent offspring.
Dairymen today pay less attention to
sire evaluation changes than was true ten+ years ago—today it is mostly a
concern of purebred breeders trying to compete in the “numbers” game. But many AI sales people try to inject
excitement back into sire selection by making a big deal of base changes—the
time when “old” bulls get culled, and “new” bulls show up at the top of
indexing lists.
Given we have had +2000m sires for
four decades, at the top of AI offerings, and frozen semen to make them more
easily available, why is the average base change only +500m per generation?
Is it that we are not able to manage
that rate of production gain within basically “fixed” environments, feeding
technology our only way to “upgrade” facilities to higher genetic
potential? Or is it, as many
commentators always suggest, “we place too much emphasis on ‘secondary’ traits
like type”??
Indexing formulas change while no one is looking
In a recent conversation with a fairly
aware young Holstein breeder, I was surprised to learn he did not know that, in
the current version of “Lifetime Net Merit” (USDAs primary sire ranking index),
pounds of Milk carries a zero $ value. That’s right—times have changed since
Clint Meadows taught us all that “PD Milk is the primary selection trait”. Today, when you analyze milk checks, gross
milk yield is equated with the water left after you remove all the Butterfat,
Protein and Mineral solids… those milk components that make milk
unique and marketable.
Likewise, every couple of years,
Holstein’s TPI formula, or Jersey’s JPI formula, will go through some massive
recalculation, usually because breeders become dissatisfied with the cumulative
impact of the trait preferences of the prior version of the formula. As casual semen buyers, we see the same
term of “TPI” or “JPI” so we assume using it for sire selection keeps us consistent. In fact, it is pushing your herd from one
fad to another, and may not be helping you solve problems unique to your herd a
bit.
When you challenge the orthodoxy of
“ranking index”, everyone thinks you are crazy—but on any level of biology
related to gene pairing, trait heritability, or physical adaptation, the Rel%
of an index is zero.
Indexes were designed to sell semen
and embryos—not to guarantee cattle improve from matings.
What kind of cows do you wish to milk??
There is a common sense reason why
people today select on more than just PTA Milk. They wish the increases in milk production
to be sustainable, they wish the increases to be cost effective,
and they wish to avoid a loss in milk price per cwt as the volume of milk
produced increases.
The only way to look at “more genetic
milk” is to first determine what changes in milk production will produce the
most income gain on your dairy. For
anyone whose SCCs are too high or whose blended bf% and pr% are too low, the
more important become pounds and percent butterfat, pounds and
percent protein, and lowering the SCC selection level (3.00 is standardized
breed average). Higher bf% and pr%
will raise milk price, both on the attained “management” herd average, and the
genetic gain if any.
How important is type?
The less “type” you have, the more
important it is. Why? Because improving “type” has more impact on
reducing the incidence of short herdlife cows, than it really has on gaining
cow longevity.
Weak traits (shallow feet in
combination with refined bones, loosely attached udders in combination with
weak ligament supports, bad teat placement with strutting teats, shallow and/or
narrow chests) can indicate a short herdlife.
When the overall animal just looks “frail” to the classifier, the net
result will also be a lower final score.
The highest correlation among bulls with type problems and a negative
Productive Life (PTA- PL) is that daughter score averages below 76 indicate
“below average” type even if the bull is plus PTA Type (his daughters are bad,
but the herdmates were worse= “plus” type).
Type data would correlate higher with
PL ratings if the scoring system would (a) quit comparing the new
heifers to contemporaries, instead compare them to a minimum standard of
functional traits; (b) give the wider bodied heifers more credit for
“dairyness” [reduce the weighting of ‘angularity”].
What really drives longevity?
No single trait has more impact on
longevity than cow fertility.
Think about your own herd and be honest-- (1)
If an “ugly” heifer breeds back on time, you will keep her;
(2) If a “pretty” heifer does not breed
back, you will sell her.
Likewise, no matter how much a heifer milks, if she does not breed on
time, and drops below x pounds per day, you will sell her to make room
for the next fresh heifer. Thus all
other traits being equal, Fertility determines how long a cow stays in a
dairy herd.
Next to “fertility” we also need
“health”. In a broad sense, as an
unhealthy cow cannot sustain a level of production profitable to the dairy,
only healthy cows are retained for future production. One of the most important health researches
was the Canadian study in which it was found that higher SCC heifers do not sustain predicted higher levels of
production in second or later lactations thus indicates a faster aging,
shorter herdlife, and a lower lifetime milk yield. [The exceptions will be really high bf%
and pr% sires—due to inexact methods of SCC testing in use. “SCC” is not specific to mastitis
infection; heel warts and foot rot are more likely to send a cow’s SCC through
the roof.]
Foot and Leg problems will cull cows
quicker than poor udder traits. Poor
mobility will cause a cow to spend less time at the bunk eating—more time lying
in her stall (or in the alley). Poor
udder shapes we put up with as long as lots of milk can be pried from that
udder. Unfortunately, the two most
primary type determinants of good mobility—(1) Thurl position, (2) Front leg
position—are not measured in any linear type scoring system. [The “aAa” breeding guide does analyze
Thurls and Front Legs.]
Create your own trait selection matrix – then mate cows for physical balance
The lesson in all this is—approach
sire selection additively, seeking sires strong in those
traits costing you the most in your present herd; approach mating physically,
matching sires to cows to produce more structural balance, as well as more
uniform expression of growth rates, size and dairy capacity.
A sire selection based on longevity of production
produces a second income—
From
surplus reproduction.
This is part of the message that has always sustained
independent AI distribution, and made a good income for its many customers—the
understanding that genetic selection can accomplish a multiple of goals
simultaneously.
There never was much sense in the “if
you want the most milk, you can’t select for type” line—that is a result of
obsolete single trait selection concepts.
What has been overlooked is that “index” ranking was really just a
continuation of the “single trait” preference of armchair geneticists who could
get excited on which bull has the highest (PD Milk) and later the highest (Net
Merit).
Single trait selection has been proven
to be a failure at sustaining both genetic gains and profitability. If you wish a sustainable
approach to dairy productivity, you need a different, sustainable
process for genetic selection, mating and reproductive efficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment