Yes, we stock “portable” semen tanks

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

Select bulls from long-life naturally productive cows

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

How do we select for optimal reproduction genetics?

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

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

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

The evolution of pregnancy confirmation in cattle

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

1970s feeding research into using more corn in dairy rations

 

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

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

Breeding for ever more butterfat to keep up with consumer demand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genetic selection for flatter, more persistent lactation curves

 

Genetic selection for flatter, more persistent lactation curves.

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

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

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

 

 

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

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