CONFIRMING PREGNANCY IN THE FALL

 

A highly skilled inseminator on a ranch with a lot of cows might choose to purchase their own “Ultrasound” equipment, but you have to be prepared to spend around $ 5,000.    For the rest of us, hiring a veterinary service to check the herd once or twice a year still pays, IF you decide to send the “open” cows to market, to save the feed $$ they will cost to carry to next season.

The cheapest alternatives today may include the Enlabs “P Test” which is a strip that will test for hormones in the urine stream.     They will give some indication nearly as early after breeding as ultrasound, but are most accurate around 60 days post breeding— and when you are checking spring bred cows in the fall, this covers a majority of the cows.

Breeding cows to get pregnant more easily, is a good long term strategy.    How much money is an “open” cow making you?     (She is costing you feed instead.)      How much do you currently spend to achieve optimal pregnancy percentages?     Genetic selection for cow fertility is maybe even more important to cow-calf profitability than chasing the premium price “performance” sires that do not enhance fertility genetics in your future cow herd.

Irregardless, whether seeking show type “clubby” sires, or performance type purebred sires, or maternal traits sires, our selection of breeds and variety of breeder sources works in your favor.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc  ***     “For the best in bulls”   as well as    “Higher energy forages”
ph (989) 834- 2661                              email:  greg@michiganlivestock.com

Yes, we stock “portable” semen tanks

 

Many of you keep an extra standard size (20 liters, six canisters) semen tank to be able to use portably in the breeding season or when attending events where semen gets traded.    As the typical “standard” tank weighs close to 60 pounds full, this can give you a strenuous workout in corrals or at fairgrounds when you get parked in the “back 40”.

We now stock for sale new “portable” semen tanks from MVE.     The canisters hold as many semen canes as a standard tank, but they only take 10 liters of liquid nitrogen and will weigh 20 pounds less when full than that older standard size 20 liter tank. 

Unlike the “vapor style” shippers accepted by UPS and Federal Express, that only hold nitrogen for three weeks, these model SC 11/7 vessels will usually hold long enough to be recharged on our eight-week service schedules.        They are 9 inches in diameter and 22 inches tall, so will ride on the car floor behind a seat or in the cargo space of a cab pickup.

At any time you find you need to upgrade your semen storage and transport equipment, give us a chance to help you arrive at the ideal configurations.

 

Mich Livestock Service, Inc   ***     “For the Best in Bulls”     “High Energy forages”
110 N Main St   (P.O. Box 661)   Ovid,  MI  48866    office ph (989) 834- 2661 fax (989) 834- 2914
website:  www.michiganlivestock.com        email:  greg@michiganlivestock.com

Select bulls from long-life naturally productive cows

 

What do we know about any momma cow who earns the nickname of “brood cow”?    She gets with calf every year.   She delivers a live calf every year.    She coaxes that calf to life after birth, getting it to stand up, teaching it to nurse.     As that calf grows alongside her, she teaches it to forage for its feed, preparing it for a seamless weaning.    She does this every year into a great older age.     No cow gets “old” unless she has good reproductive genes.     Any son she raises should have half his genetic makeup from her;  hopefully, it includes the natural fertility genes.

These kinds of cows produce the “maternal trait” bulls.     As much as you can, get your cows bred to enough “maternal trait” sires that their heifers meet your annual replacement needs.    It will over time produce a less efficient cow herd if you are forced to keep heifers from the “performance type” sires, as they will be more masculine/less feminine, have bigger calves and more difficult calving, all indicators of a progressive loss of fertility (the result of “single trait selection” over multiple generations).

Using “performance” sires on “maternal” cows maintains a constant level of heterosis in your mating results, so you will get competitive growth on your male “market” calves and superior mothering ability and potential long herdlife from your female calves.     The odd female that is not “shemale” enough to be a good mother cow brings a good price in today’s fed cattle market.

All “production” in animals and plants starts with “reproduction”

 

Should it be a surprise that statistically, the “average” of “club calf” cow herds is lower for all reproduction measurements than is true of “bare bones commercial” cow-calf operations?

In the case of “club calf” breeding, the focus is on genetic selection.    Specifically, we seek out sires with known success in siring top “show calves” or, among younger sires, a close pedigree relationship to such sires.     There is NO correlation between “show phenotype” and the basic economics of natural fertility, calving ease, growth to weaning, growth after weaning, marbling or other carcass traits.    One of you once told me, “the most important selection trait is HAIR.”  

Purebred breeders, on the other hand, should not be smug about purebred advantages in the competition with crossbreeders.     For example, there is a disturbing percentage of cattlemen who complain of  “lameness” in Angus service bulls bred with a selection focus on weaning and yearling weight gain.    In the “EPD” breeds, outside purebred shows, there is no consistency in selection for “phenotype” (physical conformation) and its relationship to adaptation to variable environments.      A feedlot is a long ways from a “natural” environment, but it is considered a viable “economic” environment.

To summarize, while different breeds and crosses appear superior in a given environment, the one constant across all environments is --  no calf equals zero income.    No cow-calf operation makes a dime from any cow that cannot produce a live calf each calving season.    In spite of this basic fact of commercial beef cow economics, all of us as purebred or show breeders have been (and may continue to be) guilty of “holding over” an open cow to the next year…

How do we select for optimal reproduction genetics?

Decades in the AI business have taught us, the relative conception rate of each bull has little to no correlation with cow fertility rates.    The physiology of male fertility is quite simple compared to female fertility:  produce normal sperm cells (intact acrosomal caps), within healthy testicles (no fat tissue inside and away from the body outside), and when used naturally, maintain good libido (seeking out and breed any cows in heat).      

By contrast, female fertility involves both physiology (produce healthy eggs on a regular cycle, maintain a healthy uterus through repeated parturition and involution) and metabolism (good use of nutrient energy intake to maintain body condition during lactation so that new pregnancy occurs in the desired season).     Increasingly, blamed on seasonal shortage of labor, we now use “OvSynch” [synthetic hormone injection] to enable AI reproduction in place of heat detection on the natural cycle.    Again, the external human/management/economic environment will use a technology solution to solve a natural biological opportunity, in spite of its impact on costs.

So how do we breed for momma cows that give us the best chance of successful reproduction?  

The evolution of pregnancy confirmation in cattle

  In earlier days of cattle domestication, with generally smaller herds closely observed, the “art” of pregnancy detection involved close inspection of the vulva.    “Open” cycling cows showed a visible “heat” cycle by more moving about, bawling, and mounting activity.    Their vulvas were slightly swollen, protruding outward, lubricated, and pinkish colored from elevated blood flow.    Once pregnant, the vulva would recede, its outer skin folded flat and wrinkled, and the interior was “bland” without color or lubrication.
Only trouble was, a non-cycling cow (C.L. cystic) would be like a pregnant cow, but empty of a calf.    As veterinary practices developed, detection and treatment of “cystic” ovaries required palpation.   Alongside palpation came determining or confirming pregnancy.   From a veterinary view, when you ask for cows to be “pregnancy checked” your vet is likely thinking, checking for “open” cows (and diagnosing why they might be open after being exposed to breeding) is the important part of the process.
As the medical industry developed electronic technology used by obstetricians, this equipment found its way to veterinary practices, and “Ultrasound” became the popular option.    Carrying the signal probe into the rectum in their glove, they can palpate both uterine horns as well as ovaries, studying the various structures, and when pregnant, a picture of the nascent calf would show up on the computer screen.     This can be done safely a couple weeks earlier than we did for manual pregnancy palpation, which again, is mostly important for detecting “open” cows.

The problem with both manual palpation and ultrasound viewing of possible pregnancy, there is a risk of dislodging the conceptus prior to “fetal transformation” (        approximately six weeks, or 42 days, when the fetal attachment has transitioned from a single membrane to the caruncles and cotyledons all about the uterine horn ).    It is definitely good to know at 30 days post-breed when a cow is “open”;  it is relatively immaterial to know she is pregnant at a time when she is still at risk for early-term abortion.    Thus the value of blood or urine tests to tell us cow is still pregnant at 60 days, a time after which abortion rarely occurs without serious illness.

What are you REALLY selecting for when you follow typical genetic advice?

 

You may be perpetuating deficiencies that grew out of the 1970s belief that cows needed to set higher “peaks” in order to eat more corn and oilseeds, less hay, and linear traits that favored “angularity” over healthy body condition.

Young cows milked more like mature cows, but fewer maturing cows become that competitive matured cow  (only a third of all cows completing a full third or later lactation).     This is built into the current “Genomic” theory.     

These genetic pathways lowered butterfat% and eventually protein%, which now are the driving forces that add up to your milk checks.    They allowed “negative” milk component traits (such as A1 Beta Casein and E Kappa casein) to proliferate.   They created cows that were increasingly harder to rebreed on natural estrus.

To anticipate what current milk market trends mean in future dairy profitability, it is past time to take a hard look at how you select AI sire genetics.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc      ph (989 )834-2661       “The alternative genetic view” since 1952

 

1970s feeding research into using more corn in dairy rations

 

The Holstein breed proved to have the most genes for “metabolizing corn into milk instead of weight gain”.      The Red color breeds (Shorthorns, Ayrshires) had the least similar genes-- and those smaller frame breeds (Jerseys, Guernseys, various heritage breeds) lost persistency if fed higher corn/oilseed rations, but were mainly condemned for producing “too much butterfat” given government nutrition advice based on bad science from the corn and soybean lobbyists aimed at convincing American consumers to substitute vegetable oils for animal fats.

Thus in the 1970s there was wholesale crossbreeding of “colored” cows with Holstein bulls and the national butterfat average fell from 4.02% (1945) to 3.69% (1966), staying under 3.65% for four decades as a consequence of “Class I bottling milk” premiums and AI “PTA Milk” emphasis.     Today with the combined effects of multiple component pricing in the northern milk orders, and noted growth in consumer demand for butterfat products  (including “whole” milk is replacing “skim” in modern nutrition advice to control weight)  accompanied by explosive yogurt and hard cheese sales, the national butterfat blend has reached 4.08%.    In spite of this, the USA imported over 105 million pounds of butter in 2012, over half from Ireland  (where cows still graze grass and produce premium taste butter quality).

Breeding for ever more butterfat to keep up with consumer demand

You are in luck, because the highest selection traits in heritability are lactose %, protein % and butterfat % in that order  (twice the level of heritability for all linear type traits except Stature, and three to four times the heritability of most promoted DNA “health and fitness” traits!)   In breeding for increased butterfat and protein production, genes will accumulate fastest if you focus on sires “plus” more than .05% for butterfat and .03% for protein.

How important is “pounds of milk” in your sire selection?    According to the calculation for “Net Merit” index, not much.     If your milk goes through MMPA, they will tell you otherwise, mostly because their key handlers are bottlers, not cheese or yogurt processors.    Most bull studs still push “pounds” over “per cents” because they are still overcoming a four decade selection trend where indexing formulas remain built upon history rather than the future.

But a key problem with the decades of genetic selection on “high milk” was its high correlation to the promotion of “high early lactation peak production” which 1970s scientists identified as a key characteristic of the cow who could eat a corn-based ration and make milk instead of meat.   This type of cow (and genetic selection) is what held butterfat down to 3.65% in spite of twenty years of breeding advice “ select on pounds, not percent “ and was accompanied by reduction in natural cow fertility.     Basically, cows who peaked the highest, shedding the most body fat, converting rumen proteins to body energy to keep alive, delayed reproduction as long as they were in persistent negative energy states.     Increased feed costs are the required solution.

Extraordinarily high lifetime production cows have “flatter, more persistent” lactation curves

If you are struggling with fertility, spending $200 per cow on “Ov Synch” to get 80% of the cows rebred, selling 20% annually for failure to rebreed, it is this fifty years of genetic selection for a high peak milking cow designed to eat high energy dense corn and oilseed rations.    Very little genetic research has gone into comparing the correlation between flatter lactation curves, full persistency (from calving to dry off) and its correlations with better “natural” fertility response.

Many have found that, on dollar value of milk sold per cow per day, a persistent 80-pound cow testing 4%+ butterfat and 3.2%+ protein, calving back every thirteen months beats a 120-pound peak cow testing 3.7%- butterfat and 3.0%- protein calving back in fifteen to eighteen months!!  Translated into sire summaries, this is the possible difference between bulls +200 to +500 milk but +.10% bf and +.05% pr and bulls +1500 to +2500 milk but -.10% bf and -.05% pr…  

From a physical traits standpoint the Holstein bulls offering aAa 1 + 5 + 6 (currently discouraged by the pedigree-based Genomic selection)  are more likely to help you with slow fertility genes.

Genetic selection for flatter, more persistent lactation curves

 

Genetic selection for flatter, more persistent lactation curves.

Up to 1962 when USDA data shows the six measured breeds had national averages within 100 pounds of butterfat each per 305 day lactation (380 pounds for Milking Shorthorns, 480 pounds for Holsteins, every other breed in between) and the milk market basically priced on butterfat, there was little impact from the nearly 100% difference in the volume of milk each breed made.

This large difference in comparative milk yield mostly tracked cow frame size:  Holsteins, with twice the frame size (weight) of Jerseys, at that time produced nearly twice the volume of milk (but with less efficient rumens, barely 20 pounds more butterfat).   But a key difference, mostly ignored in the butterfat and pasture-based era was  the comparative lactation curves  between the smallest frame breeds (Jerseys and Guernseys) and the two largest framed breeds (Holsteins and Brown Swiss).    Ayrshires and Shorthorns fell in between, being breeds more favored for seasonal milk production in harsher climates, often selling to Grade B condenseries.

Jersey and Guernseys, the most “dairy” in behavior of all the breeds, but smallest in frame size, tended to have flatter, more persistent lactation curves, which would optimize butterfat yields when calved seasonally following the growth patterns of grasses in pasture:

 

 

Spring flush of grass / Weather warms, grass slows, corn grows / Fall rains, grass returns /  Snow
Calve early spring     (Store up spring hay)     Rebreed early summer    (Harvest silage)        Dry up

These breeds (especially Jerseys) bred back easier because they did not make fresh cow “peaks” so high that loss of body condition put them into negative energy states, while the smooth body type (and red-based hair/hide color) gave them more heat resistance.   

The economics of “ultrasound” equipment

 

Did you know that seedstock breeders in the double-muscled  Piedmontese  breed routinely measure the pelvic capacity of yearling heifers, to identify those more likely able to have a calf unassisted?     They do this with ultrasound.

Those with insufficient pelvic capacity go straight into their feedlots.   In their case, culling becomes a valuable selection tool (to improve a trait for which the breed was originally criticized) while maintaining the premium carcass value of their breed.    As for the heifers culled from breeding and going to feeding, the premium carcass value recovers the rearing cost (better than would be true for most conventionally bred cattle).     Heifers in virtually all beef breeds are able to reach a “finish” condition faster than bulls, given they have passed through puberty.   

Ultrasound for early pregnancy diagnosis.

More established veterinary services now have “ultrasound” equipment primarily for use when asked to examine cows for pregnancy.     Compared to palpation, ultrasound offers advantages such as:    (1)   earlier PG confirmation with less risk of “therapeutic” abortion.
                  (2)   electrovisual confirmation of calf sex
                  (3)   potential identification of fetal abnormalities
                  (4)   confirmation of breeding dates

For most of us, especially as herds get larger, the breeding season comprises a couple rounds of AI services with pre-selected planned matings to desired sires, followed by turning in “cleanup” bulls we either bought (at a bull test, or from a trusted breeder)  OR raised (from better fertility record “momma cows”).     For next-season marketing plans, we might wish to know which cows got bred AI vs which cows waited for “barnyard barney”.     This is an area where “ultrasound” is more precise than manual palpation.

Palpation skill is still necessary for successful Ultrasound.

If you have not learned how to AI your cows, you should not be thinking (much) about buying “ultrasound” equipment, which in our research costs $3500 to $7000 from most vendors just for the hardware (hands-on training mostly not included).     While you may find the veterinary service charges are larger than they used to be, you would be hiring someone with enhanced skills in this area.

The downside to “ultrasound” vet training is that they tend to lose the skills needed for manual palpation diagnosis.     Plus there might be over-reliance on the technology encouraging earlier pregnancy confirmation, which might miss those pregnancies that fail to complete transition from the “embryonic division” stages to the “fetal attachment” stage, a process that takes six to eight weeks.     Based on some data from twenty years ago in large Michigan dairy herds, 5% of all cows diagnosed as pregnant prior to 60 days post-breeding end up open after 60 days …   No calf in cow equals no income from cow for an entire season!

Utilizing technology in breeding

Ultrasound is popular, especially as fewer large animal vet students graduate from our land-grant universities.   Those with good herdsmanship skills and larger herds may have acquired ultrasound equipment, but ultrasound services are available at most established veterinary practices.

As long as we remember some of the basics of mammalian reproduction (a lot of pregnancies start, not all make it to full term) and stay focused on the goal every cow we breed gets pregnant in time and delivers a live calf we can make decisions on how much (and when) modern technology applies, and when we should stick to traditionally successful husbandry techniques.

In the pursuit of ever-higher animal performance, it pays to keep our cow genetic selection in favor of natural fertility and maternal instinct, so that we do not lose ground on basic cow-calf economics:   “No calf, no income …”

 

MIch Livestock Service, Inc    “For the Best in Bulls”  and  “Better forages for efficient feeding”

Semen tank warranties and insuring risk of semen/embryo loss

 

The oldest working semen tank we have was built in 1965 by Linde/Union Carbide (a design derived from the original Mercury space capsules!).   It has an outer skin of stainless steel and inner shell of copper, takes 35 liters of nitrogen every month and weighs nearly 100 pounds when full.   In the 1970s in order to make tanks for efficient farm use, aluminum outer skins were developed and attained hold times of eight weeks, but as they were more fragile that only had three year warranties.   Some of you are still using these, approaching fifty years…   The newest tanks with Teflon paint coatings and more sophisticated neck and top protections offer five year warranties, use half the nitrogen of their ancestral versions, and are capable of holding twice as long (18-20 weeks working times).

The risk of tank failure actually increases from high vacuums pumped between the inner shell and outer wall to make longer holding times.   Transporting or knocking over modern tanks has more consequences than before, while the accumulation of moisture around and in them builds up the same risk of failure as always.

In earlier days AI systems offered insurance to protect against semen loss, as tank manufacturers only warranty the tank replacement, not any of your contents in use.    The AI insurance programs died out decades ago, failing to satisfy insurers.   But if you feel a need to insure against loss of semen (or embryos), ask your farm casualty agent for “scheduled inland marine” coverage; most offer it on request.    We will continue to do our best to monitor your tanks’ nitrogen consumption.

The AI industry is in a transition of its own making

 

After fifty years of telling you “all you need to do is use the highest index sires at random across your herd”, the industry is imploding of its own weight, merging into a handful of entities dependent on patented technologies that subsidize the heavy costs of IVF-ET and DNA testing to identify ranking Genomic young sires to breed your cows.   This has “commoditized” semen to the point where many of them cannot recover all the costs of serving you, after having trivialized genetics.

In our case, we work with independent AI studs, often owned by people with the experience of breeding their own herds, who still believe breeding selection is a “profit center” for dairying, where you do not have to settle for “above average” but can specifically select for the “exceptional” lifetime performance that drives dairy profitability.     Give these programs a try.     You will not be disappointed.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc   ***   “For the best in bulls”   ***    In your service since 1952.

Ph (989) 834-2661    fax  (989) 834-2914      email:  greg@michiganlivestock.com

How to read “Maternal” pedigree data on sires

 

For dairymen interested in breeding and mating selection, the trend among large AI systems in favor of Genomic [trait/index] data, eliminating ancestor and phenotypic information, becomes unpopular.  The Reliability of Genomic indexes (60% for production, 50% for linear type, 40% for “health” traits) is not mentioned.    Progeny evaluated sires are no longer emphasized (“the new youngsters are so much better”) so the high number that do not live up to Genomic expectation is not recognized.     IF your breeding goal is to make every mating count, minimizing the rate of herd turnover (so that an optimal percentage of the herd is milking at mature-cow levels) is not guaranteed from blindly following the latest technology breeding theories.

How do we select in favor of realizable mature production volume?

Biologists (whose observations often contradict data-driven geneticists) tell you the two most important attributes to longevity are  (1)  long-life parents, and  (2)  adaptable physiques.   Now that we recognize that linear selection favors dysfunctional extreme physical traits in so many physical characteristics (driven by that 1970s desire to feed more corn to ruminant species, so that by 1990s it also required oilseeds to meet cow’s energy demands) – how do we “balance” our matings so that lifetime function can be maintained?

The majority of AI systems we represent favor sire selection on consistency of maternal lines.   As a result, you still find multiple generation cow performance data behind the dams of each sire we offer.    Here is how to “read” that information:

5-00  2x  365d  50,710  3.7%  1860  3.0%  1502   (best lactation for dam of “Porsche” 566H1303)
5-00  means   “calving at the age of 5 years and 0 months”
  2x    means   “milked twice daily for this lactation”
365d means   “the first 365 days of that lactation”   
50,710  is   the actual pounds of milk yield given by this cow during that lactation
3.7%     is   the average percentage of butterfat content during that lactation
1860     is   the actual pounds of butterfat yield  [calculated as 50,710 pounds x 3.7%]
3.0%     is   the average percentage of protein content during that lactation
1502     is   the actual pounds of protein yield  [calculated as 50,710 pounds x 3.0%]

Lifetime:  2586d  215,353  5.1%  10,953  3.2%  6963   (dam of “Forrest” 525HO122)

Consider this:  the average commercial dairy cow in the USA only completes two lactations.   On average, lifetime production is only 820 days in milk and (Holsteins) 47,000 pounds.  Sire choices  who show exceptional productivity and longevity for a multiple of maternal generations help to improve the functional lifetime length and production yield per cow in your herd.

Zoetis says mature cows milk 30% more than heifers.    That is greater than any PTA Milk ever.

The history of linear trait comparisons

 CONCEPTIONS    Dairy route newsletter                  Nov-Dec 2023

Prior to “linear” each breed had its own classification system.   Holsteins had “descriptive type” (and it is instructive that the seminal ancestors of modern Holsteins developed from this era) so was most affected by the change to “uniform type traits appraisal” as designed by scientists for four land grant universities that had on campus research herds.

USDA had an agenda in funding research into type traits: they wished to transform dairy feeding into using the mounds of corn rotting away in Kansas parking lots as a result of the federal grain crop incentive programs.     “Linear” defined the physique of the cow who would transform corn into milk  (instead of into weight gain, the traditional use of corn for steers, hogs and poultry).

Never having paid attention to “type” before, the small group of scientists involved made some mistakes that more skilled purebred breeders noted, but the industry momentum  (coming at a time when regional AI cooperatives were merging to compete with private national firms)  was focused on breeding young sires to be sampled by AI studs,  not on breeding exceptional cows.  
“Linear” was an easily-learned language even if it never considered the entire cow physique or concerned itself with all desired cow functions.    Milk at younger ages from corn was the focus.

It takes several generations before weaknesses of anything new in breeding show up.   For the first two-three generations, switching to linear had the same heterosis effect (“hybrid vigor”) as is promoted for crossbreeding.    Newly ranked sires were “outcross” to the previously ranking sire lines.    It was only in later generations that breeders’ “best” cow lines were seen to decline in functionality.    Geneticists explained all such observations as “examples of genetic trend” not acknowledging any intergenerational declines,  all evaluation formats transformed into “intra- generational” deviations  (in which half of all animals evaluated would always be “plus”).    

But within twenty years, the once-discredited practice of dairy crossbreeding came back with a vengeance, primarily in two types of dairies:  (1) larger forage-feed-based expansion systems;  (2) dairymen switching to grazing.   Both found their current cows lacked overall function to be profitable in their chosen systems.    Which crosses were most successful initially?   Those which quickly added substance, width and sturdiness (“round” qualities) back into highly angular cows.

Like all genetic ranking systems used to-date since 1970 in the marketing of AI sires, selection on “linear” after three generations gravitates into “single trait selection”.     Single-trait selection in any form promoted so far, has always led to the random increase in “inbreeding depression” (a misunderstanding of what should be termed “selection depression”).     While AI sire lines have become more narrow in their pedigrees, it is the constant selection pressure in favor of “linear angularity” traits that causes the physical or reproductive failure of typically short herdlife cows.

More dairymen seem to be selecting some linear traits on the “negative” side of the scale, thus hoping to overcome overall breeding trends.  Here again, lower trait heritabilities slow changes.

Do you focus on linear trait information?

  CONCEPTIONS    Dairy route newsletter                  Nov-Dec 2023 

There seems to be three major ways most dairymen pick out sires.
  
Those who generally let the AI stud control their breeding choices are getting cows randomly bred to Genomic index selected young sires.    Those who like to pick their own mating sires generally base selections on linear trait data, pedigree/maternal cow line data, “aAa” breeding guide  (DMS is a derivative of early “aAa”)  or some combination of those three. 

A major reason many dairymen still only use progeny evaluated sires is a general mistrust of a selection method that is based totally on drawing eggs from pre-pubescent heifers and mixing semen massaged from equally young bulls, creating an embryo in a lab in a Petrie dish.    There is this recurrent theory of “accelerating generations” to create bulls two or three generations “newer” than any current “proven” (progeny evaluated and verified) sire.    Thus the data sets on such bulls are all imputed from their possession of desired “marker genes” in their DNA.

So does linear data come from “real” cows, compared to their dams?    NOPE.    Never was and never will be.    Again, the genetic theory is to find the best performers in the current generation of sires; therefore, linear is a comparison of “contemporaries” (when we had daughter proofs, it meant bull x compared to unrelated heifers in same herd same age).   There is NO biological link in this information to say that when a cow got bred to this bull, the following trait deviations are found between his daughters and their dams.    Now that we have Genomic linear estimations, it is primarily a combination of “parent average” trait deviations and gene markers associated to each linear trait (in some cases, only one or two genes involved).     The heritabilities of all this linear information, as a result, are often too low to be seen in your herd.

H A V E A D E F I N E D B R E E D I N G P R O G R AM - BEEF

 

CONCEPTIONS   Dairy Route Newsletter                Aug-Sept 2023

 

How do you pick sires for your herd?

Do you plan matings to produce female replacements?

Do you depend on crossbreeding for both feeding and breeding animals?

Do we recognize the bias in EPDs that builds in from supplement feeding?

 

Now that breeding for this season is finishing, and we begin to wean off this year’s calf crop, how do you evaluate the results of your total breeding efforts?

This is the time to begin a plan for next year’s breeding approach.

If we can help you with any of this, call (989) 834- 2661 and ask.
MIch Livestock Service, Inc ***      “For the Best in Bulls”  and   “High energy forage seeds”

AN OVERVIEW OF VARIOUS CATTLE BREEDING STRATEGIES

 

CONCEPTIONS   Dairy Route Newsletter                Aug-Sept 2023

 

The late Allan Nation as editor of Stockman Grass Farmer once did an article with some simple math comparing the Western range cattleman (grass-based farmers) to a Midwest feedlot (grain-based farmers) and where their basic attitudes came from, as they affected breeding and feeding selection.

The western range cattleman focused on grass production and overwintering with hay felt his ranch income depended on the fertility of his cattle (and, more recently, his soil).    Their goal was a 100% live calf crop, first.     They preferred a cow who could milk enough to wean a calf half or more her body weight, on primarily grass, second.     In summary, they bred for fertile, easy-calving, maternal instinct cows who would milk on grass long enough to wean their calf.
Allan did the math this way:   100 cows bred, weighing 1100 pounds, producing 100 live calves, weaning off 550 pounds of calf per cow, yielded 55,000 pounds of salable feeders.

By contrast, the midwestern grain farmer with corral cattle, by necessity being fed harvested feed year around, heavily invested in barns and machinery, impatient with fencing and pasture management, was only satisfied with a 700 pound weanling so tended to have 1400 lb. cows and did a lot of creep feeding to supplement momma’s milk supply.     Data on typical feedlot farms showed generally 10% of cows failed to conceive and 5% of the cows failed to birth live calves.   150 pounds of calf growth came from the creep feeding rather than momma’s milk.   You had an extra 300 pounds of cow to maintain all year long, pregnant or open, wet or dry.
Allan did the math this way:   100 cows exposed, weighing 1400 pounds, produced just 85 live calves, weaning off 700 pounds, a total yield of 59,500 pounds of salable feeders (but at higher cost due to added cow size, the creep feed offered calves, and the added facility investment).

Which model is at fault?    With so many midwestern land-grant universities and all their fellow associated feed, chemical, seed and machinery vendors all recommending seek the highest yield at the required higher input costs to insure the yield, it is no surprise that so many cattlemen are disdainful of the grass-based, low-input cow-calf system.     Certainly the focus on EPDs and DNA indexes in major breeds like Angus and Simmental to determine the “best” sires to use reinforce the mantra to maximize yields.
However, as in all commodity production systems, the highest margins of profit come from the most cost-effective optimization of inputs.     Profits in commodity production come not from the highest yields, but from the lowest costs of production per yield.      In the case of animal genetics, this means cow fertility, cow longevity and live calf births are the highest profit traits.
How do we identify better genetic sources for these primary breeding traits?    This is where we see a wide disparity in how cattlemen approach the choice of herd sire(s) both for AI use and for natural service in rangeland or AI “clean up”.

INDEXING

Do EPDs help identify the most fertile, maternal, longevity-capable cows?     Definitions of the summary traits predictably used in advertising:

EPD =  “Expected Progeny Difference” compares the bull to contemporary and historical sires.
CE = “calving ease”, the percent of unassisted births by comparison to other sires.
BW = “birth weight”, in pounds, progeny compared to other sires.
WW = “weaning weight”, standardized at 205 days of age, in pounds, compared to other sires.
YW = “yearling weight”, standardized to 365 days of age, in pounds, compared to other sires.
Mk =  the number of herds reporting progeny data on this sire to his breed association.
Marb =  “marbling score”, this is a combination of live visual estimation and carcass measure.
RE = “ribeye area” (square inches), of course, this is where the highest value meat cuts are.
$B =  “Beef dollar value”, terminal composite score, est. carcass value as graded at slaughter.
$C =  “Composite dollar value”, combines breeding replacement value and beef dollar value.

In other words, open cows, dead calves, services per pregnancy and calving intervals are not being compared for sires (although the data would be accessible from herd records).    EPDs are focused on income generation, NOT on cost control.

LINEBREEDING          (Inbreeding)
Does linebreeding aid us in producing more fertile, maternal, longevity-capable cows?
Linebreeding was integral to localized and regional breed formation, as prior to automobiles it was not practical for bulls to be shipped in numbers from one continent or country to another.  
England and Scotland alone produced a dozen distinct meat breeds as well as the more refined frame dairy breeds, generally named for their region of origin (ex, Devon, Galloway, Highlander, Aberdeen Angus, Durham, Hereford).     A bull used a couple seasons could in turn produce sons who got mated to their paternal half-sisters.   The best then would produce the next generation where “cousins” were interbred.    Desired genetic qualities in the foundation bulls and cows get reinforced over multiple generations of close breeding.
The most remarkable example of this process is the USDA “Line One” Hereford program in the western USA where a “closed breeding herd” has been maintained over 80 generations.
Therefore, if the original breeding animals possessed good fertility, maternal instinct, and will to live, these characteristics will generally be maintained or even reinforced by linebreeding.

CROSSBREEDING
Just how beneficial is the heterosis (“hybrid vigor”) response from crossbreeding?
At the terminal cross, it is generally acknowledged, for example, that a “black baldy” (Hereford x Angus cross) will outgrow (out yield) purebred Angus or Hereford calves from the same sires.   A crossbred steer is like hybrid seed corn, and the “triple cross” seems to be the peak of response.
Crossbreeding to produce cows, however, has diminishing returns.    You need a “base” breed to maintain maternal efficiency and fertility in your cow herd, otherwise randomness takes over.