A breeding tool I have found useful is aAa

 

“A breeding tool I have found useful is aAa.   I would encourage all of you to consider how this could help you to breed better cattle for your operation.”

                                                 John Mark Weaver, Fredericksburg Ohio
                                                 Panel discussion 2020 Ohio Winter Grazing Conf.

 

Thank you, John Mark, for this endorsement.   If you do not know him already, he is breeding purebred registered Holsteins, and is an accomplished grass dairyman.  
His success grazing pedigree Holsteins has astounded many, but so has Amos Nolt (the first “no grain” grass dairyman with whom I have worked, also a supporter of using “aAa”) with his polled Red Holstein breeding focus.

 

The general thought among graziers, influenced by advice from New Zealand and University experts, has been “if you are going to graze, get rid of your Holsteins.”    Various advisors (and commercial AI marketers) have promoted crossbreeding or smaller cow breeds or New Zealand and Australian genetic sources, all with the idea their choice is essential to grazing success.    And—initially (two or three cow generations) – the advice of all these “experts” has worked for most who tried it.

 

The problem with all advice (including mine??!!) is that it has been influenced in some way, either by a short-term PhD. research designed to support a foregone conclusion, or by an opinion that what you are already doing has anything wrong with it.     The grazing industry is recognizing that mainstream genetic evaluation is focused on the economic results for high-input, TMR, confinement dairy (and draws the majority of its data from those environments).    Thus it is seeking its own way, making the grass-dairy industry subject to confusion over breeding.

Everything can be made to look logical and useful when we are collectively unsure of the basis of mating and genetic selection in cattle to begin with…

 

What is the Truth?     “facts” tend to be limited by time.    They are “true” at the time they appeared evident.     (example: “hybrid vigor from crossbreeding gives 7% more milk, better fertility, more health, than straight breeding.”)   They work for one, maybe two, possibly three generations—then no longer work.    In some cases, the solution promoted to fix one issue just starts to create a new problem than becomes evident (again, in that third generation, when every “one size fits all” solution starts to cause “inbreeding depression”).

The biggest problem even with “research-driven” conclusions is that we do not see a need for “research” until we have already bred a herd (or a breed) into that problem.     We saw this fifteen years ago in the Jersey world, where comparative breed statistics showed Jerseys as #1 for health, fertility, and Productive Life  -- but by pedigree, were the most “inbred” of all major dairy breeds and thus feared “inbreeding depression”  {more puzzling, the breed with the lowest inbreeding coefficient at that same time was the breed with the worst health, fertility and Productive Life statistics!}.     However, the Universities paid to do this research (all of whom had Jersey herds) could document “inbreeding depression” at high levels in their herds, in spite of their use of the “best” bulls in the recommended way.      Their conclusion?    We must create some new outcross bloodlines, after years of recommending no Jersey breeder should use Danish, Canadian, any show type or local private-owner (eg, Ohio Northcoast polled) bulls, or “aAa” mating.   

Once the research concluded that the Jersey breed was actually less “inbred” than in a period of time before index ranking of sires, but had better health, fertility and longevity data in that era of linebreeding and on-farm herdsires, the entire discussion was dropped.    But do problems go away if we no longer choose to pay attention to them?     This is the mental state of dairy genetics and breeding, and the context in which breeding theories and fads arise and thrive.   

 

As a student of breeding history, I adhere to the mantra of all historians, “Those who deny or ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”    Thus my goal is to offer you a useful tool, that has helped dairymen all through the history of AI, and is applicable to every style of cow management, with a simple premise:  Breed a cow to be adaptable to any environment, and she will succeed in spite of change to that environment.    Then make it continue to work in multiple generations.

How to optimize your gains from genetic selection

 

CONCEPTIONS            Dairy route newsletter                       June-July 2020

 

The late Paul Harvey would say to this, “now for the REST of the story.”     All you hear in print and from semen salesmen is “genetic value [which implies high rank on a trait index].    This is the visible half of the story, because the money it has generated purebred breeders and AI bull studs has driven the industry’s selection focus for decades.

When you breed each cow, you want to see improvement from matings in future replacements.    Just staying “the same” means less future income to meet inflation in our future expenses.   The biggest reason for herd expansion in each generation is the need to increase income per farm if the net profit per cow in real spending power has not increased.    

The genetic evaluations and especially the Genomic data is NOT a calculation of what changed from one generation to the next (“intergenerational change”) but is a history of how the known progeny set compared to same generation “contemporaries” (same age herdmates) which they call “intragenerational deviation”.    Back in the 1960s, geneticists could not figure out how to compare daughters to dams in an era when herd averages were rising from newer equipment and better feeding, so they quit trying.   Since then the main factor added has been pedigree (“parent average”) which has compounded over generations to where “sire stack” now drives the Genomic bus (at 40% of the published values).

What is the true influence of “pedigree” on animal performance?

Last I checked, a pedigree starts with a sire and a dam (the bull you use on the cow you have).    ALL genes contributing to the resulting calf come only from those two mates.     Extending that pedigree out to grandparents, great-grandparents, et al may be more intellectual exercise than biologically determinant, but within Genomics, the extended “sire stack” is all weighted in to the calculated result.     The individual differences of the cow side of that ancestry are ignored.   Yet they have contributed 50% of the total genes passing down to your new heifers.    A strong maternal line (either in cows or bulls) can definitely change the result from the predictions of a sire stack, and we work with that variation in our herds every day – until we go to breed them.

Is there any usable system for managing “intergenerational change” in our favor?

I KNOW you get tired of me talking about the benefits of the “aAa” Breeding Guide, but this is exactly what the system does for you – (1) identifies the qualities your cows possess that will influence 50% of each mating you make; (2) identifies the qualities of bulls who will match up to her in a complementary way, so that (3) you harvest genetic potential that is only a prediction of average historical results in the data which genetic evaluation present you.

Simply put, “aAa” fills a void that genetic indexes were not designed to do – predict results from any individual mating.    This is why scientists call it “population genetics” and focus on progeny from bulls, rather than cows  ( “A cow doesn’t produce enough data for statistical accuracy”… )

What is the chief gain of using “aAa” breeding guide alongside sire selection concepts?

Genomics and genetic evaluation give “values” that depend on cows achieving “normal” length Productive Life.    The majority of GPTA- PL values are imputed from theoretical models because the bulls being marketed are not old enough to have tested progeny (or if they have any, their lives are still in progress, not completed for accurate measurement).     So again, historical data, pedigree sires, and a lot of other biased assumptions go into those calculations that may not fit your herd or the cow environment you have developed.

Users of “aAa” claim many benefits, but one of the most commonly mentioned is “aAa cows just last longer” [have less physical injury, less trouble calving, breed back well, stay healthy].     Zoetis has put out a lot of recent data to show that cows who remain functional at maturity produce 30% more milk than first-calf heifers – that is a benefit greater than even the highest GPTA Milk rated sires can produce.      You can benefit financially from a more mature herd.     

Looking at one of the first herds I ever analyzed, who still uses aAa, started with 80 cows at a 16,000 pound 3.2% bf herd average (ECM 14,000 pounds) 25 years ago.    Today there are 350 cows at a 25,000 pound 4.0% bf herd average [ECM 28,000 pounds] and a 13.5 month calving interval.    They had a cow reach 234,000 pounds lifetime from a first-generation aAa mating!     In 25 years they only ever bought 12 heifers and 1 cow when flirting with going registered … so this performance gain and expansion has all come from homebred natural increase.  

What proof can you offer that any of what you say here is true?

Toward the end of his life, Mr Weeks (founder of “aAa”) obtained data from Holstein USA to see how his concepts affected the results of dominant population genetics theories.    Looking at every Holstein heifer registered born in 1980 (nearly 250,000) they found 70% of these had production records that could be compared to their dams also on test.    On the average, these Holsteins of 1980 represented 41% “aAa use” (ie, how compatible on “aAa” was the sire vs the maternal grandsire?).     Sire selection preferences in the herds only using indexes were clearly the reason for only a 40% “match” (the industry loves breeding “likes to likes” which is where inbreeding depression starts).      

1980 cows that represented an 80% aAa match averaged 2500 pounds MORE than Momma did per lactation.  ( An 80% “percent use” average on aAa is the goal we use in herds that analyze. )

1980 cows that represented a 20% match averaged 4000 pounds LESS than Momma did in her lactations.     Most such cows had much fewer reported lactations than those at 80% match, and who her sire was (ie, how famous, how highly ranked) was no help to changing this data.

This simply demonstrates that making a complementary mating is as essential as using bulls who have genetic value according to your expected economic opportunities and production management system in place.     The “mating” side of the equation brings forward the prior adaptability of your cows to your environment.   The “genetic selection” side requires you to find bulls with the traits that can prepare for the financial value of your production.

Why do we recommend aAa (Weeks) Analysis over linear-based mating ?

 

CONCEPTIONS   Dairy Route Newsletter                Summer 2019

“aAa” is a universal language, by which you can directly compare sires from all over the world (USA and Canada studs analyze 3x yearly, European studs 2x, and Oceania [New Zealand and Australia] 1x yearly.)     While linear data profiles are designed to compare bulls against each other in the current generation, only “aAa” is designed to manage what changes from this generation to the next generation—how genotypes combine to produce a new phenotype.   

My personal “aAa” testimony

 

We started dairy farming on a shoestring on a 120 acre farm that had a bank barn, basement stable with 28 cow stalls, hay mows overhead and one 14x40 cement stave silo.    The stable was originally built for Jerseys around 1910: this was 1979 and we were filling it with purebred Holstein cows assembled one at a time through private purchase and local club sales.   We had to remove the stancions and put in a tie rail to keep cows from standing in the gutters.

We bought “bridesmaid” cows mostly, when the bidding got too high on our first choices we bought the second or third choice cows.   We had a simple breeding goal:  breed the highest protein % herd we could, while depending on “aAa” to improve the type of our herd (lots of bulls we used were unfamiliar to mainstream popular Holsteins of that time).

Feeding was dry hay all year long, pasture in season, corn silage in the winter, and a purchased feed mix from a local elevator.    We raised our heifers at my Dad’s farm lacking room here.

We generally sold half our heifers through club sales, in order to pay back the cow purchases.   We found the cows who came from balanced “aAa” matings lasted longer, so we needed fewer of them to keep the barn full.    We also had an open door for anyone who needed a 4H show calf for their children.     We milked this way from 1979 through 1986, when we transitioned to Jerseys, then moved to a 44 cow tie stall barn where we had half Jersey, half Holstein.

Of these heifers we sold, surplus to our needs, I am aware of eight that produced 200,000 lb + lifetimes in the herds of their buyers.    Looking back at those eight, six of them were sired by young sires (unproven at time of mating) thus selected on the longevity of their maternal line and used according to their aAa numbers.    The highest had 275,000 lbs lifetime milk when a cow in heat stepped on her udder—the owner was expecting her to reach 300,000 lbs.  

It is instructive to me that none of these six young sires were returned to service as proven sires, because their first “proofs” said “not enough milk”.    So how did these often amazing heifers happen?    The selection of mating sires was consistent, above average protein % (our genetic goal) from dams who had maternal lines consistent for longevity.    Then in choosing matings, matching each individual cow to an individual sire, we followed “aAa” closely—for the reasons (a) we wanted to correct the worst faults of momma, so we would not see them in daughters; (b) we wanted to develop cows with the capacities to express the latent gene potential, (c) we wanted a physique that remained functional into mature production levels.

What did we accomplish with the cows we kept?    From a type standpoint, the original cows had 100.7% BAA.     We reached 106.8% BAA with “aAa” heifers.    The original cows averaged 3.20% protein.    We reached 3.45% protein.    For a brief time we had one five generation cow family milking in that little barn.     The best of all the heifers we freshened made 20,071 pounds milk with 5% fat 1004 pounds butterfat and with 3.6% protein 722 pounds protein, she was two generations up from a grandmother who only tested 3.3% fat and 3.2% protein.     Keep in mind we only bred Holsteins from 1979 to 1987, half and half 1988 through 1994, all Jerseys since.

Why would a grazier use “aAa” Breeding Guide (Weeks Analysis) ?

 

When “aAa” (Animal Analysis Associates) began in 1950, AI was in its infancy with fresh semen, and the vast majority of dairy (and beef) cattle were eating grass in pastures.    Some got baled hay and corn stover; a few got corn silage, the rest got forage beets and maybe a coffee can of dry grain mix at milking.     The average dairy milked 18 cows, and milk was shipped in cans.

“aAa” began ten years before frozen semen made the genetics horse-race possible, as a system that was based in Bill Weeks’ observations of how physical traits pass between generations. Bill’s genius was to translate biology into a method any cattleman could follow with guidance.  

The obvious success of “aAa” led to breed associations and AI marketing developing their own “mating” services, based on the linear type traits developed for computers in the early 1970s.   Now with herd sizes averaging 50 cows, we all had less time to make these decisions ourselves.    “aAa” held its own against all the new linear and genetic mating, because it still worked.

Ironically, scientific study of the results of linear trait mating could not prove any improvement in dairy herds beyond the differences in sires.   Evaluation is good at telling us the “results” of a mating, but it failed as a “predictor” of how to breed a better herd—in part because measuring the extent of a trait does not recognize the cause of the defective trait expression.     

The industry view is simple.    Whether indexing or crossbreeding, we tend to choose “one size fits all” solutions, as if cows reproduced by cloning.    We forget that two genotypes (cow and bull) combine at each conception, and a unique new genotype will result… Thus no matter how sires are ranked, depending on those numbers alone leads to “single trait selection”, proven as the cause of inbreeding “depression”.     Selection and Mating prove to be separate functions.   

When it comes to grazing and grass dairy, when the cow environment changes daily, that need for physical uniformity requires matings that produce a highly adaptable physique, able to deal with daily and seasonal changes over each cow’s lifetime.    The more physically extreme cows being bred today through “one size fits all” sire indexes do not have that adaptability;  they are designed for a high input, fed TMR in place, year-round barn environment.    For grazing, we go a different direction, adding dimensions that corn-bred TMR cows increasingly lack.

“aAa” Breeding Guide (Weeks Analysis, in Europe) provides the control you need to breed the cow you want, specific to your environment and market opportunities.   Using “aAa” principles today will produce efficient-size cows with optimum forage capacity tomorrow.    It has proven sustainability over multiple generations, avoiding inbreeding depression, as you would expect for a program that thrives (without industry subsidy) 70 years after it was first introduced.

Don’t take my word for it.   Ask around the conference – see what aAa users think.   Then make your own decision.   You may find breeding improvement is easier to manage than you thought.

by Greg Palen                  “aAa” customer since 1978, “aAa” associate/analyzer since 1994.

MOBILITY: The dairy industry’s biggest current issue

A recent issue of Holstein International had an article discussing the industry trend toward an ever- straighter hind legs and the decline in quality of mobility leading to higher young cow culling rates.

The trend in Holsteins has alarmed Holstein USA to announce an entirely new formula for “Foot and Leg Composite” (FLC), removing linear scores for “rear legs side view” and adding linear scores for stature in its place.   

Linear scoring has very little to say about legs and feet, basically ignoring front legs and feet, putting emphasis on foot angle, then measuring the degree of “set” to the hock from side and rear views.   We are now looking at the fourth version of “FLC” since linear scoring was introduced in 1972.   Across four decades, the expert recommendation on set of hind leg has failed to reduce foot and leg problems.

So what does “stature” have to do with Foot and Leg structure?    It appears that the young cows that leave our herds with stiff, straight hind legs also are quite tall.    Ironically, “stature” not only has been highly correlated with positive type values, it is increasingly associated with superior milk yields.  The current sources of the straightest legs are also among the elite Genomic levels for GTPI and GNM$.  

(Of course, a couple generations of “sires of sons” have yet to show progeny production data.)   On the data graphed by Holstein International the generational trend for “straight” was unmistakable.

Will this latest FLC solve everyone’s problems?    I have watched the trends in “indexing” for forty years and expect nothing will change, especially as a majority of sires already selected for AI show in their own physiques the potential for siring legs too straight, joints too stiff, feet not standing sturdy.

Not including “leg set side view” in FLC means straighter-legged examples can persist in the mating population due to selection for udder, milk yield, fat and protein and somatic cell levels in the indexes.

Solving the mobility problem

Which cows exhibit the best mobility?    Cows who stand comfortably on four feet.    “Sturdy” cows with “central” thurls have proper weight bearing on their feet both front and rear.    They have supple, flexible hock joints and springy pasterns (demonstrating an equal distribution of shock absorption from walking).    They do not stand on toes nor shuffle their heels—their weight bearing is at the center of the hoof.    They are not pigeon toed—their weight bearing is even from inner to outer toe.

Have you ever tried to stand up on your toes for any period of time?   How about walking with extended toes?    It is painful, from your ankles up into your calves.    Yet in preferring “steep” foot angle we have asked our cows to walk like ballerinas, in spite of slippery concrete.    This foolishness continues in the latest FLC.    If you look up the greatest progenitors of Productive Life (eg,Rudolph and Ramos) you are likely to find sires criticized for “low” foot angle (based on herdmate deviation).   

Our fixation on extreme linears (reinforced by typical linear mating system formulas) keeps us breeding extreme physical character in our young cows.    We never stop with “good enough”, we keep seeking a “gooder than good” mating combination that produces more extreme frame expressions.    Feet and legs are the extremities furthest from the body core and thus tend to show the results of extreme mating first.

Linear theories of the physique were focused on defining the traits that correlated with a faster maturity of production volume.    For 45 years we have followed these, and have culled millions of failures

Consider the “aAa” solution

The “aAa” Breeding Guide (Weeks Analysis) preceded linear type traits by 20 years.   Scientists who developed linear measurement thought their new program would make “aAa” obsolete.    Instead we find “aAa” still going strong around the dairy world, after 45 years of linear confusion.    How does a program that thrives without breed association (classification) or AI stud (Genomic) support or subsidy persist?    Because it understands physical heritability  and  it solves problems of physical function.

Specific to Legs and Feet:    Quality of mobility in “aAa” methods is analyzed as an integrated whole rather than the average of a few individual parts.   The entire skeletal structure is considered;  muscling activating the skeleton is considered; cartilage and tendon structures in all joints are considered.    Both front and rear legs and feet are analyzed, as a functional unit and as they are attached to the body core.

A crucial defect in modern high-genetic cows is the “square” thurl position.    When the thurl is back from center in the pelvic structure, angling hind legs out towards the rear, you find it thrusting pins up and shifting rear end weight onto the loin (a structure which is not designed to carry added weight).

In an attempt to be sturdy, feet are thrust forward (on legs with “set” hocks) or posty backwards (on legs with tight hocks) and cows then walk “flat footed” and ‘spread toed”—all in an attempt to redistribute weight.    As cows age, loins flatten out and stiffness in the back impedes mobility.

Another defect in modern high-genetic cows is the confusion of “dairyness” with angularity leading to narrowing of the chest.   This narrowing brings the forelegs closer together.   Again, with all the front end weight to support, on a narrowing pedestal, cows learn to turn their feet out in an attempt for more stability.    Weight is then carried on the inside toe, leaving the outer toe to grow and curl.   Again, the quality of mobility is impeded.    Chronic lameness can result, no hoof trimming can fix this.  

 “Narrowing” of the frame is a side effect of the selection in favor of more stature (such heifers show more angularity from longer bones and stretched muscling across the skeletal extension).   If the loin is narrow, the entire body will be narrow (ribs will lose the ability to “spring” as rumen and abomasums try to fill with feed).   The difficulty classifiers have with cows lacking stature is “they just don’t look dairy enough to score higher”.    Showring judges have the same visualization problems.   Yet loss of body capacity will result in loss of productive ability – a “loss of dairy function”.

Think about the combination of square thurls and narrow front ends.   Take it a generation further and lose the depth and spring of rib.    Put that narrow, anorexic heifer up on her toes by stiffening all her joints.    In each generation you have a highly-ranked sire, but you are losing function and producing young-age culls.    You have to adopt a breeding guide that protects you from going too far so that all this genetic “potential” on which you have been selecting mating sires can still be harvested in fully functioning physiques.     This is why “aAa” Breeding Guide (Weeks Analysis) thrives.

  

Conclusion:  selecting on index rank and mating on linear traits is doubling your emphasis on data that leads to limitations of the physique.    Loss of mobility is just one of the many limitations that are causing too many promising young cows to have short herd life.     Consider adding a mating method that understands transmission of physical qualities and experience the freedom from agonizing over genetic theories that promise much but deliver little sustainable improvement.

Linear traits help you sort which bulls to use, but have proven ineffective in telling you which cow fits which bull.   “aAa” matches cows to bulls for improved function.    It can fix your mobility problems.

Fixing  problems  with  feet and legs  by  mating  selection

If a problem persists long enough, with all efforts to fix it basically unsuccessful, it is easy to assume (as some geneticists feel) that foot and leg problems are “normal” to the high production dairy herd—at least for Holsteins, which is 90% of all milk cows.

Why then do a handful of cows remain highly productive into teen ages, while more seem to fail at younger ages?    Nothing seems to have more impact on early culling today than “failure of mobility”.    These are definably genetic differences, NOT the fault of facility or herd management.    Our methods of genetic selection are not consistently producing cows that are adaptable to the physical environment where they must walk every day.

There is a mating system that is focused on quality of mobility as part of overall physical adaptability to the cow environment you have.    This program does not require you to change AI studs or give up on your genetic goals.   It just answers the question that your current breeding approach does not address.     Check it out inside this newsletter.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc.          PO Box 661   Ovid,  MI  48866            ph (989) 834-2661

Why should you even consider “aAa” given today’s new technologies?

“Type” is a controversial subject in breeding, primarily because the industry has never agreed on one definition of “best type”.    Earlier type classification was oversold as a way to insure healthier cows (primarily because cows with poor udders and crooked legs got lower type scores).     Linear type was designed around characteristics of the fast maturing thus higher milk yield heifers, but within a decade the loss of fertility, rising cell counts and shorter productive herdlife became noticeable enough to create new indices (SCS, PL, DPR, CCR, CE and SB) documenting heritability of health and fertility traits.    

The following remains true:   

(1)   Functional type trait deficiencies correlate with shorter productive herdlife.

(2)   Lower Somatic Cell score indexes correlate with more sustainable mature productivity.

(3)   Calving ease, stillbirth rates, and Daughter Pregnancy rates correlate with will to live.

(4)   Productive Life results from a balance of underlying qualities, is not a direct selection trait.  

Genomics procedures are a further level of “reductionist” science from our prior objective scoring.  In type classification and linear scoring, a list of nine to sixteen traits is used to define the physical quality of each cow; sires receive PTA values by comparing these scores against parity age herdmates.  After 40 years of linear scoring, we now have a Holstein that only averages 29 months lifetime production (2.25 lactations).   In spite of health/fitness/fertility traits added 20 years ago, the average commercial lifetime is not gaining any length.    With Genomics, a few preferred linear traits are being linked to a handful of marker genes associated with good trait scores in the reference population, and this is projected back into the linear type profiles and PTA estimates being published.

You can go too far with reductionist procedures to predict anything as complex as a living organism.

Ultimately, Genomics alone cannot control whether you get frail, narrow cows, beefy infertile cows, or any other dysfunctional variation.     It predicts bundles of traits, at differing levels of accuracy (Rel%).   It adds nothing to the need we have to produce “complete, highly adaptable cows”.

New DNA products (such as “Immunity Plus”) focus on individual pieces of the cow function puzzle, but the link between physique and performance is still mostly ignored—linear traits could not define it 40 years ago, and Genomics has not completed the puzzle today.

“aAa” redefines the focus of “type” so that form matches function.   This is important because:

The best feed cannot nourish a cow who lacks capacity to eat enough for both production and repro.

The best foot trimming cannot heal a lame cow whose bones lack durability to stand on concrete.

The best calving ease sire cannot save a heifer who lacks openness in thurls and pins at calving time.

The best probiotics and antibiotics cannot cure a cow who lacks strength to maintain immunity.

SPECIFICS TO TRAINING IN “aAa” PROCEDURES

(1)     Decision to use “aAa”

My grandfather and father used the early “aAa” method in their dairy herd from 1955 to 1963.    I observed the last analyzation visit as a nine year old in 1963 on 33 cows.

My father worked for Curtiss Breeding Service first as an inseminator then as distributor to other inseminators.      I got to ride along on annual bus tours to the Curtiss bull barns, and demonstrations of the “aAa” procedure were a usual part of the open house program.

Many of his customers utilized this service and as I often rode with him I could generally observe they had the better herds of cows in their neighborhood.

Four different “aAa” approved analyzers worked in my personal herd after we started our own dairy in 1980:  George Reed, Albert Bingham, Ted Krueger, and Byron Bryant.   All of these four were trained in the method by “aAa” founder William A Weeks of Vermont.

All had backgrounds either in farm and herd management and artificial insemination (in the case of Ted and Byron, as sire analysts for the Curtiss and Carnation companies).

     (2)   Decision to learn “aAa”

Because I knew from our business activity the location of most dairy farms in Michigan, I was allowed to ride with Ted and later Byron in their calls around the state,  observe first-hand and ask questions pertinent to the procedure.  

This typically meant a commitment of one week every other month, to maintain schedule against the calving of new cows into their breeding herds.    Between visits I would study our cows at home to see if I could arrive at the same results as given by my mentors.

Both Mr Krueger (who passed away after two years of our travel together) and Mr Bryant (who followed him in Michigan) informed Mr Weeks I was ready to be tested for  “aAa” competency.    I was sent materials from Ed Hubbell, the “aAa” manager, including three photo characteristic tests, on which I scored 72%, 64% and 80%  (60% was the minimum for initial approval).     I then became an “approved” analyzer.   This was 1995.

(2)     Qualification for “aAa” bull committee

My years in active roles for marketing within major AI organizations brought me into the regular observation of the bulls being marketed in these organizations.    Thus my lack of a formal agricultural education was replaced by immersion in the hands-on application of both genetic evaluation and qualitative analyzation methods.     My name is known

I had my first AI bull schedule in 2005 and have been on regular schedules since 2010.

DVD (CD) available that explains the “aAa” concepts visually

Thanks to Tracey Zimmerman of Tanaraka, New Zealand (newly trained “aAa” analyzer in 2015) we now have a 13-minute video that demonstrates the six “aAa” qualities matching physique to function on real cows, regardless of breed, on the other side of the dairy world.

If you are curious why so many dairymen are using “aAa”, just call and ask for your free copy of this video.    Play it with your employees and friends when convenient and draw your own conclusions as to why “aAa” provides breeding advice you cannot get from any other mating system.

 greg@michiganlivestock.com 

Logical Type: when "form" follows "function"

By Greg Palen

“Type” has always had an impact on genetic selection, going all the way back to the “Guernon” system (prior to milk testing and show judging) which studied the patterns of hair over the rear udder in the 1800s.     As the milk industry evolved, “type” was to discern “dairy” quality from “beef’ quality.    The breeds then developed the judging scorecard to visualize the superior cow in show ring comparisons, followed by the “descriptive type” classification era which defined traits with the longest lifetime potential.     In the 1970s, defining “type” was turned over to the university geneticists, who designed linear traits appraisal to identify faster production maturity in cows at an early age.      As you can see, views of type continually evolved, at least until the breeds let reductionist scientists take over.

Type can be viewed broadly or narrowly

In the Beef breeding world, two standards of “type” exist—the characteristics of the fast growth “performance” animal, and the easy calving “maternal” animal.    Basically, the beef breeder is painting cattle physiques with a broader brush, not ranking animals on individual structural parts but on the blended result of the whole, selecting animals for breeding according to their purpose (wide and deep type to produce momma cows, long and tall types to hang steer carcasses).

In the Dairy world we have spent a lot of effort measuring individual parts, first deciding if they relate to production, and usually at the expense of assembling them into an integrated physique.   We will, for example, castigate an otherwise useful bull for siring “low foot angle”, when no one has ever culled a cow on the basis of foot angle.    We argue over whether “posty” hocks or “set” (curved) hocks are better, when neither one answers the question in comparative function (again, cows leave herds too early possessing either trait, cows live long lifetimes possessing the same).

The conceptual basis of type will control the success of the result

If there is one overriding concept within “linear type” it is that angularity trumps all.    If a dairy cow possesses visible substance (good body condition, heavy bones or muscles, more wide than tall, more long than deep) she tends to go down the scale in linear scoring.    The high production heifers of the 1970s were the most “angular”, therefore 45 years later (when cows are no longer hand fed in stanchions, but muscle into feed bunks, when they must walk wet concrete alleys and sleep in free stalls) we still insist on the same angularity while expecting 50% more milk per day than we accepted in the 1970s.

If we were to challenge this concept of “type” we could point out 45 years is 10 to 15 elapsed cow generations (“Cows have changed since Hoover was President”).    The highest producing heifers today are better grown, taller and bigger  than their 1970 counterparts, while the longest production life cows are more “dimensional” (wider, deeper, longer) than their ancestors’ 1970 contemporaries.     But all along this continuum of type measurement concepts, it is our lack of grasp of the multiple functions of the cow physique that create the limitations of type’s utility.

What do we expect of the cow?    (1)  We expect her to grow efficiently from calf to breeding heifer to freshened cow.    (2)  We expect her to calve easily and then get up to care for her calf.   (3)  We expect her to adapt quickly to each new life event, including being milked.   (4)  We of course expect her to milk in quantity when fresh and maintain a persistent volume of milk once rebred.     (5)  We expect her to maintain enough body condition and intake enough feed that she will rebreed in an efficient interval of time.    (6)  We expect her to walk on concrete, lay in free stalls, seek the feed bunk and stand there until full, be sure enough on her feet to mount and be mounted for visual heat detection, avoid injuries to teats and udder tissue when getting up and down.    (7)  We expect her to stay healthy no matter the climate (cold, heat, humidity).    

Careful review of these suggests that all are closely related to (if not dependent on) qualities of the physique.    Thus, “type” is important, but the method of defining “good type” more relevant to producing and replicating adaptable and profitable cows.

“aAa” Breeding Guide—the comprehensive relationship of “form” to “function”

Bill Weeks, first as a herdsman, then as a classifier, ultimately as a purebred Holstein breeder, dedicated his life thought to studying the mammalian structure, in the relationship of body parts to the organic living whole, and the interrelationships of body form to biological and economic functions.      His first epiphany was to blend “sharp” (skeletal qualities) with “round” (soft tissue qualities) to produce an “expansive” rather than a “restricted” physique.     His second epiphany  was to connect “behavior” to the physical qualities present or absent.      His third epiphany as a result of observing the “blended qualities” in “aAa” client herds was to identify causality in trait problems with the absence of one of the six “aAa” qualities defined from sharp and round in the front end, body or rear end of animals.   

Thus today, for the dairyman (or cattleman) who wishes to consistently produce functional and adaptable replacement stock, “aAa” defines “type” in a way relevant to daily herd management.  

The six broad physical qualities defined by “aAa” have impacts on all levels of function:

(1)   Production,   (2)  Reproduction,   (3)  Health maintenance,   (4)  Adaptation to the physical environment,   (5)   Efficient use of feed,   (6)   Vigor, mobility, trainability.

You can manage the heritability of physical structure

You may already have observed “frail” cows, leading to early age death or culling from the production herd.   If you track calf ID to their dams, you may wonder how successful cows can produce “frail” daughters, and it is as logical to blame that failure on her sire as it is to lay it at the door of feeding, vaccinating, housing and the stress of higher production.    You may not have realized that “good” genetics can produce such “frail” animals, as a result of any mating that did not recognize the advantages in “balancing” the qualities between cows and their mates.  

However, if you ask any user of “aAa” if frail cows are caused by mating decisions based on the  popular theories of “likes to likes” breeding (milk on milk) (selection index), they will tell you Yes—after using “aAa”, the “frail” heifers no longer show up in their herds.

A bull mated to A cow aAa demo

A bull                                                             mated to                                  A cow

(Unique individual)                                                                                    (Unique individual)

                                                           Produces an offspring:

 A unique, individual phenotypic expression resulting from the genotype determined at conception and the impacts from the host environment(s) as the stages of growth, maturity and aging occur 

This “genetic makeup” is a result of gene pairings at conception for:

(I I I)     Quantitative genes                   additive traits                                 Pedigree information  

                                                                                                                          Phenotype evaluation 

                                                  ( linearly measurable )                                 PTA estimation

                                                  ( rankable intragenerationally )                 Genomic imputation

Plus

( I I )      Qualitative genes                    adaptive qualities                           “aAa” breeding guide*

                                                                                                                          “DMS” mating service

                                                  ( causal interrelationships )                         dominant/ recessive

                                                  ( co-balancing, non-accumulative )             B and K Caseins

                                                  ( identifiable intergenerationally )               B lactoglobulin

Plus

( I )       Interactive genes                     environmentally triggered              Full DNA mapping

                                                                                                                          epigenetic research

·       

(1)     Quantitative genes are estimated from statistical regression of phenotypic data

(2)     Qualitative genes are determined from visual observation and analyzation

(3)     Mating selection can include both forms of information

Provided by Dr Royce Thornton, Instructor in Dairy Science

Agricultural Technical Institute, Ohio State University                             (2008)

“aAa”  was originally  “rounds”  and  “sharps”                (Greg Palen 2007)

Sharp:   physical characteristics related to production of milk over beef

              “Dairy”   [S front end]   will to milk, fast letdown, refined size

              “Tall”      [S body/udder]    fast growth, earlier maturity, high udder carriage

              “Open”   [S rear end]    room for udder, adds calving ease, persistency

Round:  physical characteristics related to sustaining production of milk

             “Strong”  [R front end]   circulatory system, muscularity, more size

             “Smooth” [R body/udder]   appetite, body conditioning, less (extremity) injuries

             “Style”     [R rear end]    blending of parts, cushioned joints, better mobility

You need cows ‘sharp” enough to milk but “round” enough to last

The overall balance of round to sharp elements in the physique has a significant impact on all physical functions—production, reproduction, health maintenance, adaptation to any changes in the environment, avoiding injury, sustaining physical vigor.

The analyzer’s challenge:

To be able to accurately analyze the differing levels or “sharp” to “round” so as to guide the owner/herdsperson in making a more accurate mating among sire choices.    More “sharp” cows can have a “round” element harder to detect, just as more “round” cows can have a sharp element harder to detect.     Few are all “sharp” and fewer all “round” today.

Heterosis vigor is maintained [in spite of increasing efi% of ranking sires] by accurately identifying both the actual round/sharp possession as well as the relative level of overall possession, and mating so as to avoid intensifying any qualities to the degree where the exclusion of other needed qualities begins.     This helps avoid inbreeding effects.

All six of the “aAa” qualities are necessary aspects of a functioning animal.    Matings that persistently prefer one level of qualities over another [which is what happens when we follow “single trait” selection methods] will over generations produce a progressive loss in function(s) related to the quality(ies) suppressed.