Sunday, August 31, 2014

Looking at “type” in relationship to a cow’s productive functions


Both AI stud mating evaluators and Holstein USA type classifiers use the linear trait methodology to categorize the functional structure of the modern cow.    Often times, they do not agree on what that “perfect” cow should be physically, with the AI stud view (joined by Genomic scientists) being that our modern Holstein cow is “too tall” for commercial environments, while the Holstein classifier and farmer breeder view is that they see too many fine-boned, deep-uddered young cows they would not expect to live a full productive lifetime.  

Scientists, who first developed the linear type methodology in the 1970s and joined with AI studs to coerce the purebred breed associations to adopt it for official breed type classification, now tend to blame type classifiers for the cow faults in execution of the linear concept.     Meanwhile, breeders are sticking with the idea that the higher scored “Very Good” and “Excellent” cows will be the longer life producers, and object to the Genomic assumption that “Good Plus” is the best type for commercial use.

Then there is the “aAa” view


The Weeks’ “aAa” Breeding Guide is used in both commercial and purebred settings, but has never been officially endorsed by either side of the argument—thus tends to function “under the radar” to help its users avoid being trapped in the fads and fancies from theoretical science and traditional breeders that periodically disrupt functional cow structure in popularly mated herds (using computer mating systems or personal AI consultant mating).     

In the Weeks method, the qualities of the cow physique are assembled in an additive way, rather than in a preference for linear extremes in a handful of target traits.    Over my now twenty years as an approved    
“aAa” analyzer I would say that our current type issue is the prevalence for “narrow” physiques, which comes in part from the linear evaluation (by AI stud or breed classifer) preference for “angular” cows.

How a lack of “width” translates into a lack of “functional cow”


You can start right with the fore part of the cow, that linear concepts of the 1970s decided had no value:
the head.       100% of the air she breathes, the water she drinks, and the feed she eats has to enter the cow through the dimensions of her head.     If the head has a wide muzzle, big round nostrils, and a wide sinus structure, she has a chance of high performance.    If she has a wide forehead, there is room for the eyes to swivel in the skull and the brain to work inside the skull.     If the head is proportionate in size to the body behind it, you will find that all the body parts have more substance and function cohesively.

By contrast, too many linearly-selected heifers today have narrow heads, small muzzles, weak jaws, slits for nostrils, and spend too much time panting around the water tank any time heat or humidity rises.   In any stress situation, the narrow skull squeezes the brain and limits the range of her eyesight, producing a nervous cow.     Cows with narrow heads have less inherent balance when on the move.

Correlations between narrow heads and narrow chests, slabby ribs, stiff legged stances


Stand in front of any narrow headed heifer.   Do you see any front end capacity behind that?    Keep in mind that the heart sits in the center of the chest with the lungs aligned on either side.    The lifeblood in the cow is circulated out to muscles by the heart, and the oxygenating of the returned blood is performed by the lungs.    Both need chest room to fully function, the extension and contraction of both takes room.

Why narrow cows have more D/As early lactation and lose persistency late lactation


The first issue with a narrow body will be the narrow front leg stance and foot shape.    Without width or depth in the chest, the fore legs will be positioned close to each other.     This produces “imbalance” in the cow’s front end, whether standing or walking.     A “sturdy” cow will have legs far enough apart to stand “square” in front, with her feet pointing straight ahead and the distribution of weight to hooves will be even “side to side”.    A “narrow” cow will spindle her foreleg, stand with feet toeing out, and you will see the front toes wear unevenly, representing the unequal distribution of weight at the toes.

The next issue with a narrow body is the slabby (vertically flat) rib shape, which starts from a narrow (more vertical than horizontal) chine structure behind the shoulder.    As the rumen fills inside the body, it will quickly come in contact with the slabby rib, and this will constrict appetite.     Production genes selected on high early-lactation peaks in the 1970s genetic preferences used a faster metabolism as the means to increase production from higher levels of grain concentrates, because the narrow body was a restriction to efficient use of bulky, high forage content rations.     Such cows, however, lose more body condition as a result of persistent negative energy states, and this leads to more ketosis and displaced abomasums.

Having more “spring” and “openness” of rib (two different qualities, which linear confuses into one) creates an expansive body cavity that allows the rumen full room to “stretch and roll” and thus such a cow will have a more consistent appetite, less likely to fall into an unhealthy negative energy state.

Where is the abomasum?


The “abomasum” (fourth stomach, final nutrient absorption) sits underneath the rear of the rumen, thus in the flank and rear rib region of the cow.     For a cow to be persistent in yield in later lactation, she is going to need both “depth” of rear rib and depth and spread of the “flank” region—because the fetus is developing into a calf in the same interior space of the cow.     If the calf is competing for room with the abomasum, the calf will usually win—at the expense of the yield of milk.
   
While today the leading edge of Genomics is studying “feed efficiency”, the role of the rumen in feed digestion (and the cow physique that can optimize rumen function) has been overlooked by geneticists who focused only on milk volume (preferring bigger, taller cows), rather than on the efficiency of milk synthesis on a given volume of feed (preferring smaller, wider cows with traditional “dairy” character). 

Wide rear ends—house the udder better, birth the calf easier


Any time you sense the hind leg is too close to the rear udder, you are milking a “narrow” rear end cow.    This increases risk of leg or hoof injury to the udder or teats, and risks hiplock during any calving.   As the udder matures, without proper pelvic dimensions, the udder can only grow “deeper” and thus even the life and health of the udder (seemingly unrelated to body in linear trait theory) is jeopardized.

Think about it.    How many of your cows are you losing as a result of problems that can be linked to a lack of functional “width” in the heifers you are breeding?      If in doubt of a solution, consider this:
The best fix to the solution you are seeking will be the concepts that explain the cause of the problem.

You just read an “aAa” method explanation of why so many cows die too young.    Maybe using “aAa” instead of reductionist linear trait thinking could solve some problems that are costing you money.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

MSU Ag Expo, look for the Byron Seeds exhibit

Gerry Davis, regional fieldman, will be on hand all week.    I (Greg Palen) may not be, due to commitment as a senior “aAa” Breeding Guide analyzer to review bulls in Canadian AI studs that same week.   Dean  Wittenbach or Gene Van Rhee, however, may be there one of the days in my place. Get your seed questions answered here.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Can we still buy good old “vernal” alfalfa?



“Vernal” and “cheap” have become almost synonymous terms for the basic, commodity alfalfa seed that could be bought at a lower price from your local elevator and seemed to survive more seasons than newer higher yielding varieties.

However, “Vernal” was in fact a specific variety, one of the four or five improved alfalfa varieties that developed from the first land-grant plant breeding experiments.

“Vernal” as a variety was developed by University of Wisconsin in the 1950s and became very popular in the upper Midwest because Wisconsin’s climate (including winter) and its glacial soil varieties were so similar to lots of midwestern states, including Michigan.

The name came from the “vernal equinox”, as an alfalfa that went fully dormant at a time in the late fall and did not awaken again until well past the first cool thawing spring days.

This was a meaningful characteristic, as alfalfa is originally from temperate, arid parts of the world that never experienced a Wisconsin (or Michigan) winter.    The original plant scientists had to find plants that would go dormant for winter and keep the root alive to regrow next spring.    Thus, “vernal” we could grow north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Our grandfathers all asked for “vernal” seed, and because it was cheaper than the newer patented cultivars that came into focus in the 1970s and after (once it became possible to patent a plant variety), we developed the idea that “vernal” meant “generic”.

This is “patently” untrue.    Basically, “vernal” was a variety developed before patenting, and given gratis to the alfalfa breeding world by University of Wisconsin.    In fact, there are still many seed companies (primarily in Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa) who are active in Vernal Alfalfa propogation, and tend to sell seed direct to the farmers seeking it.  (You can find them easily by searching for “Vernal Alfalfa” on any internet Search Engine.)

The biggest surprise is – the price

In spite of being a non-patented variety, and in spite of the higher annual production from the many newer patented varieties of alfalfa, “vernal” alfalfa now sells for a minimum of $3.00 per pound of seed, at the grower’s farm warehouse.

Thus, when your local seed source quotes improved varieties of patented higher yield and disease resistant alfalfa, and no longer handles a “cheap vernal”, the real reason is – if I cannot sell it cheaper, why not sell something that will yield better and test higher?

Most improved patented varieties will sell for $4.00 to $6.00 per pound, with the newest (the first true “hybrid” alfalfas) bringing $7.00 per pound.   (I have no idea what Roundup Ready alfalfa costs, because unlike Monsanto, I do not believe “grass is a weed” and find the highest feed testing and yielding hay and haylage is made from mixed seedings: grass and alfalfa, maybe a bit of clover thrown in as well.)  
Thus, if you are paying over $3.00 per pound plus freight to buy “vernal” alfalfa, and get 20% less protein and up to 30% less yield per acre than you would get from new varieties that seeding better last twice as long in order to break even against the cost of standouts like Kingfisher 444… which, by the way, has a branch rooted character making it more able to deal with wet feet than those first “improved” varieties Grandpa rejected.

Why do alfalfa stands have such shorter lives today?

We have accepted a generalization that was based on our inability to adapt our practices to the requirements of a higher yielding crop variety.

If you milk cows, you know that the higher genetic potential cows have to be fed more to produce more, and have to be fed a balanced ration to stay healthy while sustaining yield through more calvings for a longer lifetime.    Likewise, if you feed steers, you know that the higher growth potential steer also needs to be fed more and what you feed needs to be higher energy for the growth to occur in a shorter period of feeding time.

Consistent with all nature, higher yield alfalfas are just like the animals that eat it—need to be “fed” more and the soil has to stay in elemental “balance”.

Most of us grew up with advice that to grow lots of alfalfa, you keep your pHs in a range close to 6.8-7.0, and then all you need are Phosphorus and Potassium (Potash).     This was true as far as it went, but everyone overlooked the primary element nearly all plants take up is Calcium.      For animal farms growing alfalfa, using manure as a fertilizer, the problems became particular to a simple fact:    Calcium and Phosphorus taken off fields by cows (or harvested and fed to cows) leaves the soil as milk and bones, while Potash and Magnesium used by their organs returns in the urine and manure to the soil.   Over time, while the sum total of these mineral elements keeps the pH fairly constant, Calcium and to a lesser extent Phosphorus are slowly depleted.     Even when Ca and P levels are present, an excess of the Potassium and Magnesium elements will “chelate” (bind) to the remaining Calcium and Phosphorus, making it less available for the plant growth.

Thus, Vernal, which had a more moderate production yield profile, used to persist longer, but today is no more likely than a high potential alfalfa to persist if we are not replacing soil Calcium (and protecting elements like Phosphorus as well as Sulfur, which keeps the energy density higher in the plant tissue).    For those using animal manure as fertilizer a cheap way to do this is to buy “Gypsum Lime” (a higher sulfur content powdered lime) and put some on any time you have tilled up a residue field to establish a new seeding.
      
The other aspect that is shortening stand life is our tendency to take added cuttings.   The high yield oriented farmer will cut early, cut every 28 days, and cut late in the fall (after the “hessian fly” date) with a goal of five cuttings per season.    Grandpa was always in a good mood if we made three good cuttings, and his stands lasted longer (but a lot of feed was left in the fields each fall, as “bait” for all the wild game species hunted in winter).
Alfalfa roots need to have a high reserve of stored energy to be vigorous in the spring.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

Are you prepared for the “local” beef market premium?



The National Restaurant Association recently surveyed 1400 chefs.     The following are the three top trends for 2014:           Locally sourced meat  (and seafood, dependent on location)
                                    Locally grown produce  (the CSA concept is getting larger)
                                   Environmental sustainability  (how raised, how cooked, how served)
You will note nothing in here overtly says “certified organic”.    Clearly, beyond those consumers who are environmental activists, most are just interested in knowing their food has not traveled the world for weeks or months before landing on their plate, and it is not overtly irradiated or chemicalized as a result of its long distance origins.

Can we capitalize on these trends?

Those of you who came up in the 4H world know that the post-show livestock auction has proven to be a great way to demonstrate local support for local livestock production.    Beyond those agri business owners you see bidding at their local fair, you discover others who may remember hanging out at their grandfather’s farm and grew up with respect for the hard working local farmer.

There is a concept out there in the consumer world that farming has become the captive of international corporations who are gobbling up the land once owned by family farmers.    The truth is that most farm land remains in private family-unit ownerships, just not as many total farmers as before—farm sizes are larger than before, in part because planting and harvesting is more mechanized and has larger capacity than the equipment Grandpa used.

The key difference today is that the diversity of animal species you see at the county fair can no longer be found on most farms.   Outside of “organic” or “4H” or “CSA” (community supported agriculture) farms, most of us are pretty monocultural, at most two species of animals (eg, beef and poultry) are on the farm in economic numbers.

The auction market system exists because most of us do not believe the local community has the processing capacity and consumption demand to “swallow” our volume of yields.
In the case of beef, however, when as recently as 2005 the national cow herd only averaged 18 cows per farm (usually the second focus of the farm rather than the first), our perception does not fit reality.

Is the commercial market system for meat animals doing its job?
Americans are the world’s greatest carnivores.    Annual meat consumption is 270 pounds per person, only tiny Luxembourg in central Europe eats more meat than we do annually.     Cattle were integral to the economic expansion across the American continents, with first sheep, then dairy, then beef adding up to major industries alongside the more traditional hog and poultry production that came from those early European ancestors’ traditions and never developed volume farm production until after WW II. 

Cattle could use land that needed to stay in grass (land that row crops would-- and did-- erode into the mighty Mississippi and other rivers that drained the continent).    Thus our commercial scale ranching devolved into the south and the west, away from the cities, the areas where soils were deep and fertile enough to be desirable to the cash crop, vegetable and dairy industries who wanted more return per acre and had a more intensively managed production system than cattle ranching requires.

(Is the commercial market system doing its job?   Page two)

Then the commercial beef market grew into a major user and promoter of the uniquely American corn grain crop, and over time this moved momma cows off ranges and into drylots, and their feeder calves into feedlots, leading to higher cost commercial beef production.    Cattle grading (to establish premium price scales) developed on the basis of how a “corn finished carcass” looked.    If not for the “fast food” industry’s capitalization on ground beef and hot dogs, which brought the surplus dairy cow population into a significant share of the meat eater’s diet, today the quality cuts beef case in any meat market is a place that only restauranteurs and higher income people shop.    

Beef consumption plateaued for three reasons:   (1) changing consumer attitudes toward “fat” consumption;  (2) promotion of different meat species outside of their ethnic roots;  (3) rising prices for premium cuts, defined on the production rather than the consumption side of the table, reducing their frequency of consumption.    

This means a committed Beef producer must question whether the established patterns and channels in beef marketing may be working against us, for example, grading and pricing the leaner, breed specific beef that still has good flavor and eating character lower than the white fat laden corn-fed “prime” and “choice” cuts from feedlot Holsteins that require mechanical tenderization to be edible.

Let’s be clear on this.    It is the consumer that is deciding what beef it will buy – not the commercial packer and the industrial scale market chain, that has turned beef into a commodity based industry, in which there is more concern for carcass size (“I want the biggest steers hanging on our hooks”) than there is for food quality (“I want the steer who was fed in the way that makes the best beef, regardless of size or age”).

Integrate your farming and your beef production


The cattleman who is willing to analyze every step of his farm operation and evaluate how the product he produces will be received by a knowledgeable consumer (who knows, for example, that digestible fiber in grass produces a different fatty acid structure than digestible starch in grain, and one proves to be healthier than the other once the cattle feed product reaches the table as human food) will find the option of producing beef for a direct-purchase local market a potential income booster. 

The trick in this chain of decisions is (a) can I produce cow-calf feed cheaper per acre than I do now, (b) will my reproduction be sounder if I change the mix of feeds away from all high-input sources, (c) is it possible that the right choices in boosting feed production will also boost beef harvest quality, (d) am I working with the right breed or bloodline genetics to optimize beef quality on the local market standard?

We have a national Cow-calf herd that is no larger than we had in 1954—sixty years ago.    Yet we are producing food for 100 million more Americans than lived here sixty years ago.     At the national level of meat consumption, this tells us there has been a great shift in favor of “white meat” and “ethnic link” meat species.     However, the corn dependency of the evolved white meat (pork and poultry) species is eliminating the price advantage these used to have against beef.     Thus it is time for beef producers to challenge the beef industry status quo and produce some new beef options for consumers that will also prove profitable to raise on the farm, and help maintain the fertility of our land while retaining the rural landscape in beef production that appeals to the consumer willing to pay a premium price for “local”. 

We sell beef genetics at both ends (what the cow eats) (what people want)

Not only do we provide access to the bulls that meet your cows’ fancy, we provide access to the forage seeds that are revolutionizing the variety and quality of beef that reaches the consumers’ table.   

The majority of beef breeds have genetic encoding for grazing.   Improving our pastures, lowering the acidity of our stored feeds (less dependency on grain silage or high moisture grain) all have an impact on reproduction as well as quality of beef.

Keeping it straight in our head that some of our matings need to produce “maternal line” replacements (not breeding 100% of the cows to steer maker bulls) can return some vigor to your reproduction and live calf production as well.

Mich Livestock Service Inc         “For the best in bulls”        “For the best in forages”

Phone TOLL FREE (800) 359-1693    or any of the representative listed inside with cell phone numbers


The Genetics of culling rates and cow turnover

Recently published USDA data from 2012 DHIA herd reports indicates that high culling rates continue to plague the dairy farmer’s income and equity statements.     While culling dairy cows when beef price is higher than normal is an aid to cash flow, the cost of raising heifers depends on feed costs (which are high enough to inhibit growth in the beef cow sector).     The simple math is, every time you turn a cow  into a cull and have to replace her, your equity takes a $1000 “hit” (the market difference between culls and replacements today).

Turns out that Holsteins have replaced Guernseys as the breed with the shortest “Productive Life”.   On 2012 data, this is how each major dairy breed “ranks”:

Breed            Cull rate                Breed             Cull rate               Breed              Cull rate                           

Holstein             32.7%                 Brown Swiss       29.8%               3x crossbred        26.9%                                                                                                                Red & White     32.0%                 M Shorthorn        28.6%               2x crossbred        26.1% 
Guernsey           30.8%                 Ayrshire              27.7%                Jersey                  24.9%
                 
Is crossbreeding the answer to improving cow turnover?     The data seems to suggest it, IF you ignore the obvious:    (a)  Jerseys are still better for herdlife than crossbreds;   (b)   crossbreeding beyond three generations is usually accompanied by a loss in milk volume;   (c)   Heterosis response [hybrid vigor] is greatest in the first generation, but declines with each added generation in which the same trait index is used (regardless of breeds added).      Thus crossbreeding alone does not replace gene trait selection IF your goal is to improve herdlife while maintaining or gaining on per-cow production.

Does selection on “health and fitness traits” work?

According to a recent article in Holstein International the low point in Holstein fertility levels was hit in 2005.    Since then, the average DPR (“daughter pregnancy rate”) of AI preferred sires has risen.   But so far, on the 2012 data above, Holstein cows still leave herds 30+% faster than Jerseys.    

How much of the Holstein disadvantage is due to lower fertility rates?

Keep in mind the commercial breed average for crossbreds as well as purebreds in any breed still show the “average” cow and “average” herds only get three lactations per cow.    Dairy profit margin over the cost of replacements would increase by 25% just by getting one more lactation per cow.    Longevity is a heritable characteristic, thus a breeding program seeking longevity will pay dividends in profitability.

The most important trait in selecting for longevity is clearly fertility.    Cows that do not rebreed do not stay in our herds.     Biological research in many different species clearly shows that fertility and a will to live are strongly correlated.    Thus selecting for better fertility will contribute to lower stillbirth rates and is linked to general health qualities in your herd.

How much of the Jersey advantage over all other Breeds is due to inbreeding?

What you really want to know is, “will this computer mating program that adjusts for inbreeding save me from shorter Holstein herdlife?” – and the answer is clearly NO.     In fact, the Jersey breed is the most “pedigree inbred” of all major dairy breeds, yet it remains the longest productive life breed.
Holsteins as a whole are 25% lower in average pedigree inbreeding (ibc%) than purebred Jerseys.  
(continued—how much is due to inbreeding?)

No computer sorting program leading you to the lowest “efi%” matings has ever been proven by any University study to work.    “Avoiding Inbreeding” when all AI sires in every Genomic breed are fast becoming closer related than ever before is a marketing ploy rather than an aid to herd improvement.  

This is why we continue to urge you to give the “aAa” Breeding Guide a try.    The proven solution to avoiding “inbreeding effects” is to recognize that a stronger, well-balanced physique avoids expressing “inbreeding depression”.     Trait selection on health and fertility traits associated with the problems of inbreeding will then synergize with the “aAa” mating to avoid producing “inbred” animals.

How much of Holstein herdlife is due to size?

Not as much as all the dialogue criticizing registered Holsteins would suggest.    Holstein USA studies are showing that the purebred Holstein has been gaining size at the rate of 25 pounds per generation.
If your facilities were built in the 1970s and you have not changed anything, today’s cow is likely 240 pounds bigger than the assumptions of your cow facilities (10 generations x 24 pounds/ generation).   
But if you built fairly recently, your building design would handle the larger cows of modern breeding.

USA type data is hampered in that it only measures “stature”.    Canadian type data measures both size (weight) and stature (height) and their trend lines may reveal the real problem:

1991 to 2001 birth dates:  average stature of first calf cows gained 5 cm (approx 2 inches)        
                                           average weight of first calf cows lost 7 kg (approx 15 pounds)
1996 to 2001 birth dates:  average stature of first calf cows was virtually unchanged; however
                                           average weight of first calf cows lost 21 kg (approx 46 pounds)

Basically, the near-universal preference in classification for a more angular frame (more tall than wide, more lean than fleshy) is producing new cows that are actually lighter in mass, are less sturdy on their front legs, have less muscle control over rear legs, have softer feet, than the sort of physique that gave their maternal ancestors a full productive lifetime.     

Again, the real causative problem is a lack of “balance” in genetic selection.   On the trait selection side, AI studs always preferred milk volume over component density, alongside earlier maturity of the production capability, with the result bigger heifers make the most milk.    Selection sets these trends.
 
It is disingenuous to blame breed type classifiers for problems that started from index rank selections.
The system they are using (linear trait scoring) was a product of the 1970s University view of “type” based on what sort of first-lactation cow produced the most milk volume.    This was a radical change from the breeder-developed type descriptions that were focused on cow longevity under forage feeding.    

Tell me how to rise from “average” to “exceptional”


If you wish to produce cows that have balance between “tall” enough and “wide” enough, use “aAa”.
If you wish to produce cows that have balance between “strength” and “dairyness”, also use “aAa”.
If you have herd issues with SCCs, fertility or component% levels, the PTA trait data is there to help.
Keep in mind that PTAs for Productive Life contain assumptions that may not fit your environment.
Thus while “PL” may help you avoid short herdlife cows, you need more information to gain herdlife.
Look for evidence of longevity in the maternal lines behind bulls you are considering.


It seems like every “expert” today is picking on the Holstein.

However, it remains true that 88% of the dairy cows in North America are “Holsteins”.
Only 5% are crossbreds, 5% are Jerseys, and 2% represent other traditional breeds.

Thus the productivity and profitability of the Holstein cow remains essential to dairy industry survival.     Holstein breeding must provide the genes to turn around negative trends that have led the Holstein to the shortest average herdlife in breed history.

Inside this newsletter you will find some recent facts and figures that we hope will add to your perspective of your opportunities and exposures in Holstein breeding.    

You might also ponder this idea:  you can create “outcross” hybrid vigor within any breed if in the next generation you pick your sires in a different way.    Different trait patterns require different DNA genotypes—and crossing different genotypes is how we stimulate a “heterosis” response to improve all “vigor” traits.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc  ** For the Best in Bulls ** ph “toll free” 1 (800) 359-1693