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

From the Sept - Oct 2014 Conceptions Dairy Newsletter

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

Genetic Value in dairy within a matured genetics industry

Greg Palen

Do we see the market as it is or do we wish the market to see us differently than it does?

                Semen pricing realities

No one active within the dairy AI industry is going to have the full perspective of the market as it really exists in total.   Broad statistics will suggest that the industry is serving a matured market - the industry has done its job in optimizing its penetration with existing domestic customers but is making no headway with those not yet (or no longer) using AI.   Thus any growth in sales comes from foreign markets that only recently opened up to foreign trade, or from selling in advance of consumption.   With no change in the delivery technique for dairy genetics (cervical entry, rectal palpation guiding semen placement) or in the technology to keep germ plasm viable (cryogenic storage containers requiring periodic liquid nitrogen recharge) the basic AI technology is seen as fully matured.    Lack of industry emphasis on technique training and conception monitoring has meant the remaining non-users are not converted, thus promotional efforts based upon “genetic value” (neglecting its management value) merely reinforce status quo levels of dairy investment in the use of AI and tend to merely reinforce existing market shares.

The statistical evidence actually suggests that the majority of the market (dairy farmers using AI) perceive the product of the industry (semen) as a commodity.    Economists will tell you that you are marketing a “commodity” product when it is difficult to dislodge established market shares on any basis other than price concessions.   Relative disinterest in the marginal differences in product lines’ “genetic value” suggests the latest generation of dairymen, while college trained and thus more responsive to new technologies, are perceiving AI and genetic indexing as “old technology”.     Thus they do not allocate as much money toward marginal genetic value as they do to feeding equipment, milking equipment and manure management technologies.    There is more willingness to pay extra for genetic diversity and yield advances in forage and grain seeds as this can produce a more immediate profit gain than comes from generational changeover in the production cow herd.

The only aspects of AI that truly are “new” technologies are (a) Ov Synch protocols applied on a herdwise (rather than a therapeutic) basis, (b) sexed semen options, and (c) daily heat detection by pedometers linked to computerized production monitoring systems.     These three areas have helped to maintain use of the AI technology, which was really in danger of declining within large “expansion” herds in which one of the goals is a reduction of labor overhead per cow.   

In fact, I think a strong argument could be made that the only impact from “Genomics” (which is perceived as a revolutionary technology, yet in practice is merely an evolution of the established  reductionist methods for indexing “genetic value” in additive performance traits) has been that it has moved the attention of commercial dairyman away from the rapidly growing AI practice of dairy crossbreeding.     “Crossbred” is now the second most populous breed behind the Holstein, ahead of the equally fast growing Jersey breed penetration of commercial dairy operations.   But in both cases, as “XB” or “JE” replaces “HO” in so many operations, there is an undercurrent in this that is rejecting the basic philosophy of “genetic value” as necessary for dairy management to improve profitability by increasing commodity milk production from “genetic value”.

(page two)

To summarize, the perception that “genetic value” drives the bus - and thus is the source of all premium valuation for high genetic index rank animals, is being marginalized by the dairyman emphasis on creating a synergistic dairy operating unit.    Dairy AI has become very insular in its focus on the genetic value “horse race” and is not listening to feedback from its actual customers that is expressed in their pseudo-loyal brand buying behavior, lack of response to advertising, and unwillingness to increase the per straw price they will pay for semen that the industry has produced.   

After six years of Genomic sire offerings, has the market bought the technology?

First, let us actually admit that when it comes to Genomics, the dairyman has no choice.   There is no established AI system buying bulls on any other basis.    To access a “non genomic” sire, ie, a sire selected on any basis other than this most reductionist of all genetic approaches, you have to collect him yourself.     [ Note:  NAAB reports from CSS affiliated custom collection centers show double digit annual growth in units of custom collected dairy semen for the recent decade.   Genomics does not appear to have changed this trend.   In each herd wherein Genomics is perceived to have failed to produce good cows, this trend will accelerate. ]

The majority of dairymen are not interested in genetics to the level of doing their own selection, thus they accept what the AI industry offers them.    Their general approach is to follow “matrix selection” [in spite of decades of experts advising them to select on ranking indexes alone] thus they specify minimum combined levels of milk, fat (or fat%) and protein (or protein %), type as an emphasis on Udder and Foot & Leg composites, and more recently, health/fitness traits (SCC or PL and/or DPR).    Much of this will be determined by the milk market payment system they are in.   Competing AI salespeople will present the sires that meet or beat criteria and then prices are negotiated.   He who offers the best prices “wins” the sale.

In fact, those who select from index rankings are a minority comprised of purebred breeders who wish to compete in High-Genomic propogation and marketing, and those commercial dairymen who have less interest in genetics than the “matrix” selectors and thus just follow advice from some dairy management consultant (who is probably more interested in ration balancing).   

These dairymen tend to avoid actually milking their own cows and thus are not engaged in all the questions as to whether genetic selection and/or mating selection could produce new cows more “adaptable” to the cow environment and production process dictated by their facility designs.

If there is a design flaw in reductionist genetic value theory, it is the assumption of a “model” environment, thus an accumulated statistical ignorance of how differences in environments will affect the ability of the dairyman to “harvest” the genetic “value” they are utilizing.

In the 1970s-1980s, as the previous generation of dairymen transitioned from pedigree to index selection of mating sires, “genetic value” earned a premium in the cow market for anyone willing to utilize AI.    Thus, there was clear differentiation between perceived sire rank and his realized sales price ($5.00 for basic bulls, $10.00 for good bulls, $15.00 for premium bulls, $20 to $50 for “sires of sons”).      Purebred breeders competed for the best “progeny proven” sire semen.

 (page three)

Today there is no detectible genetic response in cow prices.    Any volume auctioneer or treaty seller of dairy cattle will tell you the biggest determinant of premium cow sales values are:  (1)  “fresh” stage of lactation, (2) younger age, first or second lactation (3) visual evidence of well-grown and healthy, (3a) clear premium for being “typy” in udder, frame, feet and legs; (4) prior reputation of the seller.    The floor value is set by beef salvage recovery at the time.   

There is really very minor movement of “pedigreed” cattle, wherein “index rank” may become a factor in price determination.     Supporting this is how often today, when groups of siblings who result from ET propogation of a Genomic based mating are offered, the one who has the highest imputed value sells for five figure prices—all the siblings bring four figure prices, some truly at the commercial market price level.    The market for high Genomics is thin because there is no one to buy their offspring other than an AI system with a MOET program or a breeder wishing to compete in that market, and a perception that the sales opportunity depends on IVF propogation and will be gone by the time the animal reaches “normal” lactation production.    

This “value” does not transmit to the commercial dairyman who is not pursuing genetic cattle sales.     Commercial dairymen purchase 95% of all semen produced.    The floor price for the semen they buy is established by competitive behavior among the AI marketers in their region.   The marginal premiums they will pay depend on their perceived ability to recover them, as a result of various factors:

(a)    Conception rates normally achieved

(b)    Success of calf raising and heifer reproduction program

(c)    Expected herdlife of each replacement entering the herd

(d)    Opportunity to market surplus cows, especially above costs of raising heifers

The promoters of Genomics have uniformly failed to establish how this technology benefits a dairyman.    It clearly benefits the index-marketing AI stud,  because it helps you avoid buying bulls who have lower probabilities of ranking high as progeny-tested sires.   However, the irony is that “unproven” young Genomic sires are replacing “proven” sires validated in the market by realized performance.     Forcing the validated sire to compete directly in the market against the theoretically imputed sire on the same genetic scale assumes an acceleration of genetic ability that the market has a long history in disproving.

The decline of purebred breed association activity, and the usurpation of traditional purebred methods for realizing cow value into the “sire stack” pedigree valuation on which indexes are based, has reduced the number of people benefiting from (d) as it relates to “genetics” even as it increases the number of people benefitting from (d) as it relates to use of newer technology such as sexed semen or improved health and fertility (producing more heifers per herd unit).

As for the purebred sector, there remains the market niche which values animals as much for the maternal line development as it does for the (increasingly similar) AI sire stack.   This will likely be the only salvation route for purebred associations, who must identify a way separate from the sire-based Genomic imputation, to produce a cow-based standard for premium market valuation.

(page four)

To summarize, marginal genetic index value has a declining effect on dairy herd equity and surplus cattle cash flow.     The majority of cattle sales are for herd expansion or replacement.

 As a result, semen prices no longer differentiate much, because most dairyman are not planning to harvest incremental sale value;  and the more hungry AI sales systems (driven by the market’s clear perception that there is a “surplus” of high genetic value semen) have created a perpetual price war at the farm gate to substitute for the growing inability to distinguish one sire program “brand” from another.

What do dairymen currently pay for the majority of semen used?

In the Michigan market, as an example of a “top ten” dairy production state, there are under 3000 dairy herds milking slightly over 300,000 cows (average 110 cows per herd).     100 dairies (at a size of 1000 to 5000 cows per location) produce over 50% of the Michigan dairy production.

All major AI systems—Select Sires, CRI Genex, ABS Global, Semex USA, Accelerated, Sexing Technologies (Taurus division), Alta Genetics, plus CRV Holland Genetics and LIC New Zealand– have employee or commission contract sales personnel based in Michigan.     There are in addition five major independent semen sales individuals or companies, buying at wholesale as resellers.   ABS and Select Sires, to a lesser extent Alta Genetics and CRI, have major “captive” insemination systems that have targeted larger herds, thus may have monopoly control over a third of Michigan semen sales.   

ABS’ large herd AI tech program offers semen in the cow at $14 per service, no matter the list price of the bull.    Their GMS computer mating program determines which sires are used.   If the dairyman buys “outside” semen it is put in the “third choice” column and rarely gets a cow bred.

Select’s large herd AI tech program charges $2 extra per service for use of “outside” semen.   In the Alta Advantage program, you basically get 50% off everything but must use 85% Alta semen and half of that usage will be “sampling” sires (Genomic selections).

  

Thus you have 300,000 dairy cows and 120,000 heifers to breed annually, 75% are bred AI thus 315,000 animals to AI, with an average of 2.5 straws used per animal (3x per cow, 2x per heifer) or a market potential of 787.500 straws annually.    One third of that is captive to established AI systems utilizing inseminators and/or computer mating programs.    That leaves 525.000 straws of semen sold among a dozen competing marketing systems utilizing a total of 50 sales people at the farm gate, or an average of 21,000 straws per salesperson per year.    The actual range may be 5,000 to 50,000 straws per salesperson annually (part time independent vs full time company subsidized employee).      

The average selling price of semen in Michigan is likely $12 per straw.     If 50% of the average selling price is allocated to the salesperson, this leaves $6 per straw for the wholesale recovery at the AI stud.     I know of individual dairies as small as 400 cows paying $8 per straw in exchange for an exclusive arrangement giving 100% of sales to Accelerated Genetics.      I know of a 1400 cow dairy that puts his annual semen requirements out for bid, and got $8.65 from Select Sires.

(page five)

What does it cost an independent to sell semen in Michigan?

Suppose you sold 20,000 straws annually and had a $6 average margin competing around this $12 selling average.     You would have $120,000 in gross margin, spread over 50 weeks that is $2400 per week cashflow margin.      You drive 1000 miles per week, get 15 mpg driving a van or pickup with a bulk nitrogen tank (without nitrogen you cannot gain exclusive customers).

You eat $20 daily and spend a couple nights per week in $60 motels.

You will end up with $150 per day out ($600/week) in gas/oil/tires, motel and meals.

You will have $150 per week in nitrogen acquisition expenses (filling your own and farm tanks)

You will have $500/month in payments on truck/van and any equipment utilized.

You will have $100/month in cell phone and other communication expenses.

You will have $150/month business (vehicle, liability, inventory) insurance.

You may have $250/month interest costs to finance inventory and customer charges.

Thus over a year, you spend $49500 on the above.   This leaves you $70500 in net margins, to cover these additional costs:

Any advertising you do locally, any 4H fair or breed club donations.

Any supplies needed for invoicing, postage for statements, promo flyers, etc.

Any shipping costs related to semen and AI supply inventories.

Any cost for garaging and warehousing, and/or office space.

The point is, you could be making $50,000 a year, but it would take 400 straws of sales per week to do that.   You would pay your own health insurance, beyond typical living expenses employed people experience.    You will not get rich, but if successful it will be a steady living.

As an independent in Michigan you will need a base of 200 farms (29500 cows and heifers) and capture one fourth their business (18,500 straws) to produce this level of sales.     It is typical of

dairymen not captive to a single AI organization to buy half from company A, then divide the other half among two other salespeople (keeps the main company “honest”).     Perhaps you will end up that key supplier in a quarter of those herds you visit regularly.

To average $12 per straw you will sell the bulk of your semen in a range from $ 8 to $20.    You could approximate this as:  $16-$20 first service, $10-$14 second service, $ 7-$8 third service.

All of these prices reflect conventional semen—if you can get half of your heifer sales converted to sexed semen, and the margins allow it, you may be able to fund a retirement.

Unless the salespeople make an adequate living and it does not require over 60 hours of weekly travel to accomplish the sales, the AI system will have to deal with a steady turnover of reps.

Family pressures build and unrealistic sales goals burn out the salespeople in many AI studs.

The low level of purebred activity with few breeders profiting from Genomic marketing means 85% of sales must fall within the competitive price range to keep the sales rep employed.    If there is not an established base of business, the AI stud must subsidize initial sales activity or else submit to the unproductive price wars others are using to “buy” market shares.

Is the entire market now driven by Genomics?

At this point, after six years, Genomic sires breed 45% of the cows in the Holstein and Jersey breeds, maybe 25% in Brown Swiss.    Genomic penetration has plateaued.

This means 55% of the cows are still being bred (by preference) to progeny evaluated sires.  

For this market share, the most aggressive pedigrees (young sire, unfreshened dam) have no appeal and expectations of marketability to this sector require the pedigree to “fill out” with realized phenotypic milk and type data to support premium marketing after progeny data is added to the Genomic data in their evaluations.

Reflecting this, you still see major AI systems—Select Sires (largest in USA) and Semex (the corrolary in Canada) – giving preferential presentation to high Rel% progeny-tested sires, and while actively marketing Genomic sires, still presenting them as “young/future” sires.

What does 45% penetration really mean, given 100% of new AI sires enter studs based on a Genomic imputation?

It means that the third of AI herds that are “captive” under contract insemination or computer mating services are not concerned over whether the stud is giving them G or PE sires.

It means that AI studs who force out progeny tested sires in favor of higher numbers on G sires are forcing higher Genomic sire use in their “loyal” herds (eg, CRI Genex).

Other bases of “value” reflecting various established (aAa) and emerging (polled) market niches will be an equal aid to any AI stud wishing to increase market penetration.

After six years of use, the market is getting more sophisticated, recognizing that the “top 1%” of Genomic imputed sires may be the most overestimated.    Thus the use of top 1% G sires at high prices will not grow beyond its current level of gambler breeder and AI mating utilization.    The AI stud that accepts more pedigree variety and development and works harder at providing aAa variety will find marketable sires below the 99 percentile level of Genomic value.

Additive genes are only one third of the total gene selection equation

 Quantitative (additive) genes-- that can be measured on a linear scale intergenerationally

                     (genetic evaluation)  traits that accumulate from specific selection

Qualitative (characteristic) genes—qualities that can be observed intragenerationally

                    (physical analyzation)  cobalancing between physique and performance

Interactive (eg, Epigenic) genes—traits and qualities that switch on or off                        .

                    (the result of environmental triggers) 

The best sire program would account for all three of the above, rather than focusing only on the additive gene competition of index ranking.    Dairymen need more than genetic potential, they need the ability to make synergistic matings that produce physique adaptability, allowing genetic potential to be expressed in the phenotype.    Index by itself is not a tangible “value”.

Jersey dairy cow six years after genetics ban

By Aly Balsom August 2014

Six years ago, a 250-year ban on importing cow genetics on to the island of Jersey came to an end. Aly Balsom speaks to two producers with varying views on introducing international genetics to the island breed

Choosing from many cow families across the world is something most breeders take for granted, yet until 2008, dairy producers on the island of Jersey were limited to using bulls produced on the island, which measures nine by five miles.

Ironically for the island that gave birth to the Jersey breed, a ban on imported genetics put in place in 1763 to protect trading, led to many farmers fearing for the future viability of the island’s Jersey cow population.

The ban had originally remained in place as farmers found their isolation created a unique selling point that was beneficial for export. However, the development of bull proving schemes around the world meant the Jersey island cow was quickly getting left behind, explains David Hambrook of Jersey Island Genetics.

“It was a numbers game. There just wasn’t the opportunity for large scale proving schemes on the island,” he says.

“The island did introduce a bull proving scheme, but it flat-lined in terms of genetic gain after 15 years. Around 2008, there was a group of farmers looking to invest in the next generation and they didn’t think there was a viable future without looking at global genetics.”

Yield in particular was a significant driver. In 2008, on average, the island Jersey breed was lagging behind the UK Jersey breed by 22% in terms of milk production. Many producers felt the island cow had hit a genetic “glass ceiling” and was unable to convert feed any more efficiently. Such a trait is particularly important on the island, considering feed has to be imported across The Channel, making feed costs for Jersey farmers one of the highest in the world.

Following several failed attempts over the decades to get the policy overturned, in 2008 the ban on genetic imports came to an end. Most dairy herds immediately took advantage of the new world of genetics available to them. However, two of the island’s 24 herds have chosen to continue just using island genetics.

The Perchard Family - Embracing imported genetics

Tom Perchard believes imported genetics have helped secure a future for the family business at La Ferme, St Martin, by driving yield increases and efficiencies.

Having been one of the first farms on the island to import genetics in 2008, the Perchard family has since witnessed a 650 litre a cow a year increase from similar feed inputs.

Improvements in cow conformation and commercial production traits have also opened a new export market and it is hoped this will help create an additional income stream for the business.

“We are on target to produce 6,000 litres a cow a year and I am 100% sure we wouldn’t have been able to do that without imported genetics,” says Mr Perchard, who runs the 280-cow Ansom Herd with his father Rob.

“When we just had access to island genetics, herd production seemed to be capped at 5,000 litres. We found it difficult to improve cow conformation to take us to the next level as there just wasn’t the consistency in Jersey island cows.”

As soon as the doors opened to imported semen, the Perchards implemented an aggressive culling policy to turn the herd over quickly. They have chosen to select for higher type sires from North America, Canada and Denmark. By choosing bulls that will produce deep, opened-framed animals with good udder support and more angularity to the island cow, they have consequently seen production benefits.

Mr Perchard says genetic improvement has not only driven a yield increase to 5,650 litres at 5.4% fat and 3.8% protein, but also promoted better feed conversion efficiency.

“We’re feeding pretty much the same diet of maize, grass and a protein supplement with a feed rate of 0.33kg/litre of cake, but we are finding that cows are responding better. The only difference is some addition of sugar beet pulp,” he says.

Cows are served two to three times with imported semen, then if they fail to conceive they are either served naturally or artifically inseminated to local island Jersey semen. These calves are then sold on at two to three days old. The farm has also started breeding their own bulls using their best island cows crossed with imported semen.

Mr Perchard says improvements in herd genetics means they plan to make the most of the new demand for animals from the island and export to the UK.

“Before, UK farmers had limited interested in the Jersey island cow as commercial yield figures weren’t good enough. Now we’re on a more level playing field to the rest of the world and we can produce an animal that people in the UK want to buy,” he says.

Barry Raven - Committed to using island genetics alone

Herd manager Barry Raven believes careful selection of Jersey island sires and improved feeding can help push cow performance without the use of international genetics.

By selecting the best of island genetics Mr Raven has already improved heifer classification and increased production. The 95-cow Blanc Pignon herd now averages 4,900 litres a cow a year at 5.18% fat and 3.74% protein. The aim is to continue to improve yields to 5,000 litres or more.

“The RJA (Royal Jersey Agriculture) has an abundance of semen to use and there’s a lot of bull families on the island,” says Mr Raven, who manages the herd for Mrs VC Le Cras.

“We’re proving the island cow can be improved without imported genetics. I’ve been able to breed better type animals which has been reflected by classification.”

The last batch of 15 heifers classified above average with two classifying VG. The herd also has about 10 Ex, with a cow recently classifying Ex94, which is the highest the herd has ever had.

“Our herd has good feet, legs and udders and I want to carry this on and also improve milk yields. I want a good-bodied animal with good length and width and I want a good-sized animal able to eat,” explains Mr Raven.

Mr Raven uses corrective breeding, primarily through the use of AI. He generally uses three to four Blanc Pignon bulls and one or two other bulls every year. “I realise I’ve got to be careful I’m not inbreeding. I do a lot of bookwork and sit down and look at different bulls.”

In recent years Mr Raven has decided to increase the number of home-bred bulls he keeps for breeding. “I select six cows a year to keep a bull out of. I used to keep one bull a year but I kept all three last year. That helps when you’re just keeping with the island breed,” he says.

However, Mr Raven believes improved feeding will also help drive herd improvements. He has already sought nutritional advice to help improve ration balance and has developed a feeding plan so bought in feeds to complement forage.

“We’ve also reseeded all of our own ground over the last seven years with high sugar grasses and clover. That’s helping to improve milk yields and intakes,” he explains.

Despite this, Mr Raven believes there is a limit to the amount of quality forage they can grow on the island due to location and because land availability for dairy is restricted by the potato industry. This means dairy farmers get land back after the potato harvest. This is one of the main reasons Mr Raven is against using imported genetics.

“I think you need to put better quality feed into imported cows otherwise you get fertility problems. That quality feed comes from the mainland so you are having to buy in more (which is costly),” he explains.

JERSEY ISLAND FACTS

The industry:

·       24 dairy farmers ranging in size from three to 280 cows

·       23 dairy farms supply milk to Jersey Dairies – a farmer-owned co operative

·       Jersey Dairies only takes milk produced by pedigree Jerseys

·       Jersey Dairies has recently called for more milk to be produced due to an expanding export market

·       Land availability for dairy farms is largely controlled by potato growers with the two industries involved in land swaps

·       All first lactation heifers on the island have to undergo compulsory classification scoring by HUK (Holstein UK)

Performance changes in the Jersey Island herd since introduction of international genetics:

·       A three-point increase in overall type score between 2011 and 2013 (77 to 80)

·       The greatest improvement has been in dairy strength and udder traits

·       A 15 to 20% increase in yields across first cross heifers

·       2008 average production was about 5,000 litres a cow a year, now rapidly increasing to 6,000 litres

·       Improvement in butterfat

·       A 33% improvement in somatic cell counts on Danish-sired Jerseys

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.

Genetic [index] rankings reflects "one size fits all" milk marketing

Genetic indexing is based in the commodity definition of milk value, not in specialized genotypes that optimize our ability to capitalize on premium milk markets.    This needs to be recognized by dairymen, as soon as they pursue specialty milk markets that increasingly include specialized land, feeding, animal, and processing protocols.         

Thus, while Genomics has been all about condensing the selection mechanisms to a reductionist scan of the DNA for marker genes specific to commodity value production and only imputes index estimates for the AI sire selection process, dairymen increasingly are seeking information that goes beyond the basics of additive trait statistics.

Dairymen have tried crossbreeding as well as linebreeding.     They have limited their sire selection to sources with similar farm management (as in graziers only using New Zealand grassland bred sires).  These are all a reaction to the inefficiency of the selection (“ranking”) index to produce the cows needed to meet your goals.     Over time, all indexes have this weakness, mating “likes” to “like”.

    

There may be a specific gene, as with polled heads or A2 Beta Casein or specific selection traits, as with plus butterfat% and protein% deviations or plus Productive Life that become absolute requirements.    In each of these cases, there is a relationship to the milk market and to farm management parameters that dictates these genes as more important than the composite index the AI industry uses to “keep score”.

Matrix selection makes more sense (than index rank) for any specialized management or market.

A “matrix” is basically a list of “absolute” traits and qualities you wish each mating sire to possess.   If it is a longer list, you may settle for sires who possess 75% of the desired characteristics.    But the point is that rather than trust a composite index that “averages” the good with the bad to create a ranking biased by an external view of what is important, you work with bulls who avoid faults you wish to eliminate from your herd while providing the traits you need for your market and future market.

If you are seeking to participate in any direct milk marketing or specialty milk classification, genetic ranking as we currently practice it no longer applies to your situation.        

Why do we continue to produce “frail” heifers in spite of culling “frail” cows ?

This is another aspect of index dependence.     The more generations you follow a single index, the more “inbred to the index” your herd becomes.    In the case of TPI, LPI and $NM, it is in physical aspects of the animals that we create limitations for health and productivity even as the indexes are formulated to include trait measurements in favor of health and herd survival.      

The conclusion of many of us is quite simple: the heritability of qualitative physical characteristics is clearly greater than the heritability of trait measures for health, fertility and herdlife.    While you are adding up pedigrees full of PL, you are raising physiques that are too fine boned, shallow and narrow to function as they reach maturity.   Thus we continue to cull more cows in third lactation than we did in first and second lactations, leaving so many of us needing every heifer we raise to maintain herd size.

“aAa” will better explain why matings to highly ranked sires do not produce longer herdlife cows.

Are you ready for what could come your way in the milk market?

First it was component pricing, which made selection for +bf% and pr% more important.

Recently it was a lowered SCC standard, which makes selection on SCS more important.

Next, to be proactive in the face of consumer activism, but more importantly for impacts on calf growth and labor efficiency, selection for polled heads has become important.

What is next?    It could be A2 Beta Casein.    Just as was true for the earlier evolutions in dairy breeding, we are prepared with knowledge to advise on this potential premium milk market.    The desired trait can be found in a useful cross section of the major dairy breeds already, thus the usual arguments “but this interferes with genetic progress” will be as meaningless as they were for all prior issues that changed the direction of mating selection.

Our breeding program has two focuses:  (1)  mate cows for more adaptable replacements, (2)  select on traits that enhance current profitability and future marketability.    Thus it is NOT a commodity “one size fits all” breeding philosophy or sire list.

Mich Livestock Service, Inc      “For the Best in Bulls”      Since 1952 your independent AI source

Physical  character  of  “frail”  (short herdlife)  cows

Every herdsman has a personal definition of the ‘frail” cow—half of it is behavioral and half of it visual.    Frail cows are culled every day, but keep reappearing in the heifers we raise to replace them.    To avoid producing new “frail” cows, we need to understand how they get “mated” in the first place.

The limitations of the physique define the potential behavior of frailty

What does the “frail” cow look like?     Usually she is the cow who looks like she is working hard.    In other words, she has a lighter boned frame and very spare muscling, with lower body condition scores.  

She may have a shallow body; she may have a narrow frame from head to rump.    Her respiration will be more rapid as breaths will be shallow.    As she matures, the pace of aging appears rapid, with udder deepening and movement stiffening.    The cow may be slower about cycling and rebreeding after each calving.     She literally “milks herself to death”, if not lost to injury from clumsiness or repro failure from lack of body conditioning.      Note: her “genotype” has given her this “phenotype”.

The above describes the “all sharp weight” ( aAa  qualities  1+2+3 ) dairy cow physique

The qualities of the skeleton (bone) and the soft tissue (muscle, cartilage, tendons, nerves) are heritable on a very basic “qualitative” gene level, alongside the glandular functions that influence both skeletal and soft tissue development.    These underlie the more surface expressions of individual linear traits on the “quantitative” gene level, on which geneticists (and sire analysts) focus for their relationship to the productivity of the animal.

In “aAa” observation, the “sharp” qualities of (1) dairy, (2) tall, and (3) open produce more refined bone and feminine spread of the pelvis; a faster growth rate for long bones, resulting in lean muscle mass; and a minimal, elastic connective tissue between the bones.    The dairy metabolism is oriented to more will to milk, the tall metabolism is oriented to faster maturity, and the open skeletal structure is oriented to more persistent production during pregnancy.      Thus, in comparative genetic evaluation, the “sharp” qualities provide advantages in responding to feed energy density, a faster physical maturity, and sustained milk yield after rebreeding, that translate into bigger “plus” PTA yield volumes, especially at immature lactation ages.

Performance physiques require supporting “substance” qualities to stay healthy and live

These same qualities, when intensified by multiple generations of selection in their favor, reduce the  adequacy of “round” qualities that provide substance, stamina and fluid mobility.      Thus, the size and ability of the heart, the rumen, the liver, the uterus, ie, all internal organs, to meet their functions, as is being dictated by the genotype’s production gene possession, is dependent on maintaining a level of “round weight” ( aAa qualities 4+5+6 ) to support and sustain the drain of nutrients from the physique of these “sharp weight” quantitative gene actions.

Lacking one or more of the “round” qualities of (4) strong, (5) smooth, and (6) style, sets a cow up to have more troubles with circulation, flushing toxins from udders, swelling of joints, poor respiration, hyperventilating on hot or humid days, sturdiness of stance, uneven wearing or growth of hooves and related lameness, maintaining body condition, the fluidity of leg motion, getting up and down in stalls.