Let’s face it; sometimes understanding bull proofs can be like reading a document in a foreign language.  With all the letters, numbers and acronyms on a proof sheet, it is enough to confuse even the most passionate dairy breeder. With the Bullvine has developed this cheat sheet to help you understand North American Genetic Evaluations easier.

Selection Indexes

Most genetic selection indexes are set by national organizations or breed associations. Genetic indexes help dairy producers focus on a total approach to genetic improvement, rather than limiting progress by single trait selection. It is important to remember that every farm is unique, with different management environments and situations and goals. With that in mind, it is important to understand what traits are included in each industry standard index. When you know what’s involved, you can more efficiently evaluate if the index indeed matches your farm’s goals.

TPI® = Total Performance Index

The primary selection index recommended by the Holstein Association USA is the Total Performance Index. TPI® is not necessarily aimed at breeding individual cows, but rather to advance the entire genetic pool.  TPI® it consists of the following emphasis:

• PRODUCTION TRAITS = 46%
  • 21% Pounds of protein
  • 17% Pounds of fat
  • 8% Feed efficiency
• HEALTH TRAITS = 28%
  • 13% Fertility index
  • -5% Somatic cell score
  • 4% Productive life
  • 3% Cow livability
  • 2% Daughter calving ease
  • 1% Daughter stillbirth
• TYPE TRAITS = 26%
  • 11% Udder composite
  • 8% PTA type
  • 6% Foot & leg composite
  • -1% Dairy form

LPI = Lifetime Profit Index

The Lifetime Profit Index (LPI) is the primary selection tool used within each dairy breed in Canada. The main goal of LPI in each breed is to define the combination of traits for which genetic progress is desired and the relative importance of each trait for achieving the overall breed improvement goals. The current Holstein LPI formula places the following emphasis on its three major components:

• 51% Production
• 34% Durability
• 15% Health & Fertility

Read more: (Everything You Need To Know About TPI and LPI)

NM$ = Net Merit Dollars

NM$ is a genetic index value calculated by the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB which estimates lifetime profitability of an animal; defined as the difference in expected lifetime profit of an animal, compared with the average genetic merit of cows within the breed born in the year of the genetic base. Like the TPI®, NM$ combines several production, type and health traits with weightings placed on their economic importance and the goals of the index. Trait weightings are updated approximately every five years and are currently:

• PRODUCTION TRAITS = 43%
  • 24% Pounds of fat
  • 18% Pounds of protein
  • -1% Pounds of milk
• HEALTH TRAITS = 41%
  • 13% Productive life
  • 7% Cow livability
  • 7% Daughter pregnancy rate
  • -6% Somatic cell score
  • 5% Calving ability
  • 2% Cow conception rate
  • 1% Heifer conception rate
• TYPE TRAITS = 16%
  • 7% Udder composite
  • 6% Body weight composite
  • 3% Foot & leg composite

CM$ = Cheese Merit Dollars

Lifetime Cheese Merit $ was designed for producers who sell milk in a cheese market. Protein has more value in the cheese market than it does in the standard component pricing market. Milk receives a negative economic weight in the Cheese Merit index. Calculated by the current CM$ index was adjusted in April 2017 and the following trait weights are:

• PRODUCTION = 50%
  • 22% Pounds of protein
  • 20% Pounds of fat
  • -8% Pounds of milk
• HEALTH = 37%
  • 12% Productive life
  • -7% Somatic cell score
  • 6% Cow livability
  • 6% Daughter pregnancy rate
  • 4% Calving ability
  • 1% Cow conception rate
  • 1% Heifer conception rate
• TYPE TRAITS = 13%
  • 6% Udder
  • 5% Body weight composite
  • 2% Foot & leg

Wellness Traits

Recently Zoetis introduced new health and wellness trait indexes with their Clarifide Plus Testing (Read more: The Complete Guide to Understanding Zoetis’ New Wellness Traits – CLARIFIDE® Plus).  The composite indexes that were introduced are:

• Wellness Trait Index™ (WT$™)
  WT$ focuses exclusively on six wellness traits (mastitis, lameness, metritis, retained placenta, displaced abomasum, and ketosis) and includes an economic value for Polled test results.
• Wellness Profit Index™ (DWP$™)
  DWP$ is a multi-trait selection index which includes production, fertility, type, longevity and the wellness traits, including Polled test results.

General Proof Terms

• CDCB: Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding
  CDCB calculates production and health trait information for all breeds in the USA
• CDN: Canadian Dairy Networks, calculates the genetic evaluations for all the major Dairy Breeds in Canada.
• NAAB: The National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB) maintains a database of marketing code numbers assigned to all bulls who enter AI.  The NAAB Uniform Code conveys three useful pieces of information:
  • A one to three digit numeric code indicating where the semen was processed (AI Unit)
  • A two letter alpha code designating the breed of the bull (HO = Holstein)
  • A one to five digit numeric code identifying the bull which produced the semen.
• MACE: Multiple-trait across country evaluation
  MACE combines information from each country using all known relationships between animals, both within and across populations.
• PTA: Predicted transmitting ability
  Predicted Transmitting Ability is the predicted difference between a parent animal’s offspring from average, due to the genes transmitted from that parent. Each PTA is given in the units used to measure the trait. The PTA for milk is reported in pounds or kilograms, the PTA for productive life is reported in months.
• EFI: Effective future inbreeding
  An estimate, based on pedigree, of the level of inbreeding that the progeny of a given animal will contribute in the population if mated at random (Read more: The Truth about Inbreeding)
• GFI: Genomic future inbreeding
  Similar to EFI, an animal’s GFI value predicts the level of inbreeding he/she will contribute to the population if mated at random. Yet, GFI provides a more accurate prediction. It takes into account genomic test results and the actual genes an animal has.
• aAa: aAa analysis defines a cow’s structure under six categories. It relies purely on the physical attributes of the animal; no genetic merit is taken into consideration. The analysis aims to strike a balance between enough “roundness” to live and enough “sharpness” to milk high yields.
• DMS: The Dairy Mating Service (DMS®) program is designed to be an efficient, totally independent system to help dairymen breed higher-producing and longer-living cattle.
  Similar to aAa DMS is a visual analysis of a dairy cow. Each cow is visually analyzed to determine strengths and weaknesses which may be passed on to offspring. When available it also considers each animal’s ancestry to find trends and patterns in the transmission of various genetic traits.

Production Trait Terms

• PTAM: PTA for milk production in pounds, reflecting the expected milk production of future mature daughters
• PTAP: PTA for protein production in pounds, comparing the expected production of future mature
• PTAP%: Indicates the genetic variance of a bull’s PTA for transmitting protein as being positive or negative
• PTAF: PTA for butterfat in pounds, reflecting the expected butterfat production of future mature daughters.
• PTAF%: Indicates the genetic variance of a bull’s PTA for transmitting fat as being positive or negative.
• PRel: the percent reliability of a sire’s production proof
• Daughter ME Averages: This number tells you what daughters of a bull are actually averaging for a given trait, in this case, what they average for milk production. These values are based on twice a day milking, 305-day lactation, on a Mature Equivalent (ME) basis. If a bull has an official MACE evaluation, the daughter production averages will be based on the bull’s domestic U.S. evaluation.
• Management Group ME Averages: This number allows you to contrast how daughters of a bull perform compared to herdmates of the same age, so you can evaluate whether they are, on average, superior or inferior to herdmates. Herdmates of the same age as Planet’s daughters are averaging 27,487 pounds of milk; on average, Planet daughters are producing 2,289 pounds of milk more in a 305-day lactation than their herdmates of the same age, on an ME basis.
• Management Group ME Averages: Herdmates of the same age as Planet’s daughters are averaging 1,011 pounds of fat; on average, Planet daughters are producing 75 pounds of fat more in a 305-day lactation than their herdmates of the same age, on an ME basis.
• Beta-Casein: Beta-Casein is a major casein protein making up 30% of the total milk protein. Studies have shown health benefits for diseases such as type 1 diabetes, IHD, schizophrenia and autism. (Read more: 12 Things You Need to Know About A2 Milk)
  • A2A2 – Most ideal test result
  • A1A2 – Median result – produces equal amounts of A1 and A2
  • A1A1 – Least ideal test result
• Kappa-Casein (cheese production)
  There are many forms of Kappa-Casein A, B and E associated with milk protein and quality. Variants are related to the processing of cheese. Studies show yield for cheese production is higher with BB milk versus AA milk.
  • BB – Preferred result for cheese production
  • AB + BE – Intermediate result for cheese production
  • AA + AE – Least favorable result for cheese production

Health & Fertility Trait Terms

• PL: Productive Life
  Productive life (PL) gives a measure of the amount of time a cow stays in the herd as a “productive” animal and represents how many months of additional (or fewer, if a negative number) lifetime you can expect from a bull’s daughters. Cows receive credit for each month of lactation, and the amount of credit corresponds to the shape of the lactation curve. The most credit is given to the months at the peak of lactation, and credit diminishes as the cow moves to the end of her lactation. First, lactations are given less credit than later lactations, in proportion to the difference in average production. PTAs for PL generally range from -7.0 to +7.0, with higher numbers being preferred. (Read more: Breeding for Longevity: Don’t believe the hype – It’s more than just high type)
• LIV: Cow livability)
  Measure of a cow’s ability to remain alive while in the milking herd. (Read more: Cow Livability: Breeding for Cows That Stay in the Herd)
• SCS: Somatic cell score
  The PTA for SCS is used to improve mastitis resistance. Bulls with low PTA for SCS (less than 3.0) are expected to have daughters with lower mastitis than bulls with high PTA for SCS (greater than 3.5). Health management has the biggest effect on SCS, but just like some people inherit a higher chance of getting ear infections, cows can inherit traits which cause higher Next to traits like milk or protein production, SCS has a low heritability.
• DPR: Daughter pregnancy rate
  Daughter Pregnancy Rate is defined as the percentage of non-pregnant cows that become pregnant during each 21-day period. DPR takes into account how quickly cows come back into heat after calving and conception rate when bred. A DPR of ‘1.0’ implies that daughters from this bull are 1% more likely to become pregnant during that estrus cycle than a bull with an evaluation of zero. DPR PTA values typically range from +3.0 to -3.0, with higher values being preferable.  Each increase of 1% in PTA DPR equals a decrease of 4 days in PTA days open. (Read more: Does Your Breeding Program Save You Labor?)
• HCR: Heifer conception rate
  A virgin heifer’s ability to conceive – defined as the percentage of inseminated heifers that become pregnant at each service. An HCR of 1.0 implies that daughters of this bull are 1% more likely to become pregnant as a heifer than daughters of a bull with an evaluation of 0.0. Services are only included if the heifer is at least 12 months old and less than 2.2 years.
• CCR: Cow conception rate
  A lactating cow’s ability to conceive – defined as the percentage of inseminated cows that become pregnant at each service. A bull’s CCR of 1.0 implies that daughters of this bull are 1% more likely to become pregnant during that lactation than daughters of a bull with an evaluation of 0.0. CCR simply looks at the daughter’s ability to conceive when inseminated.
• SCR: Sire Fertility
  Service Sire Conception Rate (SCR) is the difference of conception rate of sire expressed as a percent comparison. SCR is based on conception rate rather than non-return rate. SCR utilizes multiple services per lactation (up to 7), rather than first service only. A SCR of 1.2 means the bull is 1.2% above average.
• HRel: the reliability percentage for a sire’s health traits
• Body Condition Score (BCS)
  BCS is sourced from the Canadian Dairy Network (CDN). BCS reflects the animal’s energy balance status in which research has clearly shown an association with improved female fertility, longevity and disease resistance. BSC evaluations are expressed as relative breeding values with 100 being average. The scale of expression generally varies from 85 for bulls with daughters that generally have very low scores for body condition to 115 or higher for bulls with daughters that have high scores. Bulls rated over 100 are more desired.
• Mastitis Resistance (MR)
  MR is sourced from the CDN. MR combines both clinical and sub-clinical mastitis into a single genetic selection index. The MR index puts equal weighting on the three areas of clinical mastitis in first lactation cows, clinical mastitis in later lactations and somatic cell score across the first three lactations. MR is expressed as a relative breeding value where 100 is average.
• Milking Speed and Milking Temperament
  Data points come from the CDN. Milking Speed is evaluated in terms of the percentage of first lactation daughters evaluated as average or fast. Milking Temperament can be defined as milking behavior. Milking Temperament is expressed in terms of the expected percentage of future daughters evaluated as average, calm or very calm during their first lactation. A bull with a score of 100 for both traits indicates average.

Calving Trait Terms

• SCE: Sire calving ease
  The percentage of bull’s calves born that are considered difficult in first lactation animals. Difficult births include those coded as a score of 3, 4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5, with a 1 classified as “no problem”). The percent difficult births among first-calf Holstein cows is approximately 8 percent. In general, bulls with an SCE of 8% or less are considered “calving ease” bulls that are fine to use on heifers and smaller cows. Bulls with a high SCE percentage should be used with caution on heifers and smaller cows, as they have a higher percent chance of siring larger calves that may pose more of a problem at delivery.
• DCE: Daughter calving ease
  Like Sire Calving Ease (SCE), Daughter Calving Ease (DCE) is a measurement of the tendency of calves from a particular animal to be born more or less easily. DCE measures the ability of a particular cow (a daughter of a bull) to calve easily; daughters of bull’s with high DCE numbers would be expected to have a more difficult time giving birth than daughters of bulls with lower DCE numbers. DCE is evaluated on the same scale as SCE.
• SSB: Sire stillbirth
  The percentage of a bull’s offspring that are born dead to first lactation animals.
• DSB: Daughter stillbirth
  Measures the ability of a particular cow (daughter) to produce live calves. Stillbirth is expressed as percent stillbirths, where stillborn calves are those scored as dead at birth or born alive but died within 48 hours of birth.

Type / Conformation Trait Terms

 In the US 18 linear traits are expressed on a scale of Standard Transmitting Abilities (STAs) deviations, typically between -4.0 and +4.0.   For example, Rear, legs side view – an extreme negative value – a cow will have very posty, straight legs, while a extreme positive value will have sickle, curved rear legs.   In Canada there are 22 descriptive traits appraised using a 9-point linear
scale, with resulting breeding values typically between -20 to +20.  A rule of thumb we use to understand CDN proofs is divide by 5 and you will have their approx US scale for that trait.

• PTAT: Predicted transmitting for type
  PTA Type is an estimate of the genetic superiority for conformation that a bull will transmit to its offspring. This is directly correlated with the final score of the bull’s daughters, not the linear traits.
• UDC: Udder composite index
  Udder Composite is an index based on ability for udder improvement. Udder composite includes six linear traits, and the weighting for each trait’s contribution to higher udder scores. The traits and their weightings are:
  • 19% Rear udder height
  • 17% Udder depth
  • -17% Stature
  • 6% Rear udder width
  • 13% Fore udder attachment
  • 7% Udder Cleft
  • 4% Rear teat optimum
  • 4% Teat length optimum
  • 3% Front teat placement
• FLC: Foot and leg composite index
  FLC is a measure of a bull’s ability for foot and leg improvement. Weights for the four traits in the composite are:
  • 58% foot and leg classification score
  • 18% rear legs rear view
  • -17% stature
  • 8% foot angle
• Mammary System (Canada)
  • Udder Floor 4%
  • Udder Depth 12%
  • Udder Texture 14%
  • Median Suspensory 14%
  • Fore Attachment 18%
  • Front Teat Placement 5%
  • Rear Attachment Height 12%
  • Rear Attachment Width 10%
  • Rear Teat Placement 7%
  • Teat Length 4%
• Feet and Legs (Canada)
  • Foot Angle 9%
  • Heel Depth 22%
  • Bone Quality 10%
  • Rear Leg Side View 14%
  • Rear Legs-Rear View 31%
  • Thurl Placement 14%
• Dairy Strength (Canada)
  • Stature 12%
  • Height At Front End 3%
  • Chest Width 23%
  • Body Depth 17%
  • Angularity 28%
• Rump (Canada)
  • Rump Angle 23%
  • Pin Width 21%
  • Loin Strength 32%
  • Thurl Placement 24%
• TRel = the percent reliability for a sire’s conformation/type proof

Genetic Codes

• POLLED
  • PO: observed polled
  • PC: genomic tested as heterozygous polled; means 50% of offspring are expected to be observed as polled
  • PP: genomic tested as homozygous polled; means that 100% of offspring are expected to be observed as polled
• COAT COLOR
  • RC: carries the recessive gene for red coat color
  • DR: carries a dominant gene for red coat color
• RECESSIVES & HAPLOTYPES
  These codes, or symbols representing the code, will only show up on a proof sheet if an animal is a carrier or test positive for one of the following. The acronyms denoting that an animal is tested free of a recessive will only show up on its pedigree.
  • BY: Brachyspina
  • TY: Tested free of brachyspina
  • BL: BLADS, or Bovine leukocyte adhesion deficiency
  • TL: Tested free of BLADS
  • CV: CVM or Complex vertebral malformation
  • TV: Tested free of CVM
  • DP: DUMPS, or Deficiency of the uridine monophosphate synthase
  • TD: Tested free of DUMPS
  • MF: Mulefoot
  • TM: Tested free of mulefoot
  • HH1, HH2, HH3, HH4, HH5: Holstein haplotypes that negatively affect fertility
  • HCD: Holstein haplotype for cholesterol deficiency

The Bullvine Bottom Line

The letters, numbers, and acronyms on a proof sheet can be complicated.  We hope that this cheat sheet will help you better understand them the next time you go to make your mating decisions. It is important to remember not to try and correct everything with each mating, but instead pick the 2 to 3 traits that your animals need to be corrected most. 

For complete top genetic evaluation lists from around the world go to Sire Proof Central

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Quite often these days a new genetic index comes along that has been produced for breeders to use in their breeding plan. This month, August 2016, the new index is one that the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) is calling Cow Livability (C.LIV). For breeders wanting their cows to live for many lactations, this will be a trait of interest.

What is Cow Livability?

CDCB is defining Cow Livability (C.LIV) as a prediction of a cow’s transmitting ability (aka genetic index) to remain alive while in the milking herd.

Every extended day that a cow remains milking in the herd gives the opportunity for more herd profit from more milk revenue and lower replacement costs. Cows that can remain alive when exiting the herd generating breeding stock or beef revenue, instead of the cost associated with deadstock disposal.

Facts About the USA Dairy Herd

It is interesting to note that CDCB reports that USA cow mortality rate averages 7% each lactation and death claims 20% of the USA cows while in the milking herd. On an annual basis that death loss costs the U.S. dairy farms $800 million or approximately $90 per milking cow per year.

How is C.LIV Different than PL?

CDCB provides the following explanation. “In contrast (to C.LIV), PL predicts how long a cow is expected to remain in the milking herd before dying or being culled.”

Livability is one of the traits that make up Productive Life, and it is economically important that cows remain alive, productive and not requiring another cow to replace her.

For decades, cow termination codes have been captured from DHIA herds with 32 million cows in CDCB’s database. Based on that extensive amount of data, CDCB has calculated correlations between C.LIV and PL of 0.70. So they are, in fact, different traits and breeders can expect to see that some sires may be ranked differently for the two traits.

Other Useful Traits

Already available, for a considerable time now, for breeders to use in breeding long-lived trouble free cows have been traits like PL and SCS.  But they only partially cover the spectrum of what breeders want to know. For instance, SCS does report the expected SCC level, but it does not cover if in fact a cow is able to resist mastitis. Each mastitis flare up, even though not life threatening, costs $400 (lost revenue, treatment, added labor, lost future production, etc.)  To address that, CDN now produces a genetic index for Mastitis Resistance. It includes factors (Read more: MASTITIS RESISTANCE SELECTION: NOW A REALITY!) beyond SCC.  Furthermore, Zoetis has now developed a Dairy Wellness Profit Index (DWP$) that is a genetic estimate of a cow’s ability to avoid or resist health problems or disease. (Read More: THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ZOETIS’ NEW WELLNESS TRAITS – CLARIFIDE® PLUS)

CDN has recently reported a three-year release plan for health and fertility traits.  In December 2016 it will publish a metabolic disease (ketosis & displaced abomasum) resistance index, in 2017 an index for resistance to fertility disorders (metritis & retained placenta) and in 2018 a hoof health index.

Considerable research is currently under way, and it will be interesting to see if breeds and/or bloodlines within breeds have different genetic capabilities for these added indexes. Many breeders feel that they detect differences between cow families for these various auxiliary traits.

What Do the Numbers Show for C.LIV?

The following CDCB table shows the importance of having high genetic indexes for individual traits when it comes to a sire having a high NM$ index.  All traits are directly or indirectly included the NM$ except for C.LIV.  That makes the comparison of C.LIV to NM$ truly independent.

Table 1 Average Genetic Index for USA AI Bulls (born after 1999), Grouped by Percent Rank for NM$

Soures: CDCB Article ” Genetic Evaluation for Cow Livability”

It is estimated by D Norman, CDCD and J Wright and P VanRaden, AIPL-USDA that having cows at 2.1 C.LIV compared to -1.1 C.LIV would be worth an additional annual net income of $9,400 (or $38.50 per cow) in the average USA DHIA herd of 244 cows.

CDCB reports that at some time in the future that C.LIV will be included in the four NM$ indexes replacing some of the current emphasis on PL. When that change is made CDCB sees the possibility that the combination of PL (14%) and C.LIV (7%) will move from the current 19% emphasis on PL in NM$ to 21% for PL plus C.LIV

Will These Functionality Traits Be Used?

For breeders that follow the concept of breeding for type and feeding for production, these functional traits are often regarded as a ho-hum issue.

However, for breeders wanting herds of cows that cause few problems, have minimal added expenses, and that remain in the herd a lactation or two longer than cows have in the past, then these additional traits, including C.LIV, will be important, when selecting the sires to buy semen from.

It is highly unlikely that there will be even one sire that is a standout for all functional traits. In fact, that is impossible. However, knowing bull ratings for added functional traits will allow breeds to avoid using sires that are below average for the traits that breeders find relevant to their breeding plan.

 The Bullvine Bottom Line

C.LIV is the latest, but certainly not the last, genetic index that will be available for breeders to use to breed functional, commercially profitable cows. Time will tell if it is useful. But the fact remains breeders need to consider all traits for which there are genetic indexes and then make informed choices about which ones to include in their sire selection plan.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Have you asked yourself or a fellow breeder that question? Genetic or management indexes are created for at least one reason or purpose.  It seems like every AI unit has developed their own index for one purpose or another.  Here are some Bullvine thoughts on multi-trait genetic indexes that are designed to assist breeders in genetic improvement and marketing. These indexes are usually referred to as total merit indexes.

Others Use Indexes

Read any business article and you will not get far without reading about the Dow Jones or Consumer Price indexes. Both are designed for specific purposes. They are to reflect the price trends in a selected group of companies on the NY Stock Market, or prices consumers must pay for a selected basket of goods that they usually purchase. We regularly hear whether they are trending upwards in inflationary times or down when the economy is trending negative. However, indexes do not end with the economy. Think about it – personal health indexes, student performance indexes, and equipment performance indexes all part of what we have in our daily lexicon.

Why Total Merit Indexes?

In the 1980’s, dairy cattle marketers were claiming to have the #1 bull or #1 cow in their country or the world. #1 for type, #1 for milk, or #1 for fat % improvement. Even then total animal improvement focused breeders were asking which animals put the total package together. As opposed to being single trait wonders.

In response, breeds and genetic evaluation centres saw the need for indexes that combined, on an appropriately weighted basis, the traits in need of improvement. In the United States, combined indexes like TPI, NM$ and JPI were created, and they came into wide use by breeders in their selection and marketing. In Canada, the index, created by all organizations working together, was LPI. Other country total merit indexes included BW in New Zealand, RZG in Germany, ISU in France and NVI in the Netherlands.

The principle behind all these indexes is that dairy cows are not bred with only one or two traits in mind. Some breeders indicate that having breeding indexes makes breeding dairy cattle more complicated. However, from our exposure to breeders, The Bullvine hears that having total merit indexes assists breeders who want to breed for lifetime profit or to compare animals before buying semen or embryos.

Blindly following a total merit index is not a good practice. Breeders need to know the purpose for which a total merit index is designed. BW (New Zealand) is designed for year round grazing and low body mass. JPI (American Jersey) is designed with an emphasis on milk solids production.

Breeders need to have goals and a herd breeding plan to make maximum use of total merit indexes. Readers may wish to refer to previous Bullvine articles when establishing a herd breeding plan ( Read more: What’s the plan?, 4 Steps to Faster Genetic Improvement, 8 Steps to Choosing What Sires to Use).  Breeders need to look five years into the future to decide what will be the criteria they will judge their females by. It is entirely possible if a breeder plans to operate his dairy farm business differently in the future than they have in the past, it could be time to use a different total merit index than they have utilized in the past.

Have Genetic Indexes Been Useful?

Annually CDCB and CDN publish reports showing ever increasing rates of genetic advancement for NM$ and LPI, respectively. In fact, a recent CDN article states that half of the gain in Canada can be attributed to increased genetic merit.

In the barns around the world, individual breeders are seeing gains in their cows’ ability for production, type and now SCS. When a breeder makes extensive use of sexed semen, it can be expected that 80% of a herd’s improvement can be attributed to the sires that have been used. Definitely having total merit index rankings three times a year gives breeders the opportunity to find new top sires and to eliminate bulls that may be high for one or two individual traits but in total are not able to do a complete job. Since the introduction of TPI and LPI, one of the outcomes has been that high type sires, with inferior production ability, are used very infrequently on a population basis.

Current Reality in Genetic Indexes

With many total merit indexes and many many individual trait indexes routinely published, it can be both time consuming and confusing to keep up-to-date.

Yet the fact is that the number of indexes is increasing with every index run. For example, in the past year, there have been three new trait indexes for mastitis resistance, fertility and feed efficiency. In 2015 new added total merit indexes were Pro$ (CDN) and DWP$(TM) (Zoetis), the latter being an index produced by a private company (Read more: Can you breed a healthier cow?, The Complete Guide to Understanding Zoetis’ New Wellness Traits – CLARIFIDE® Plus, Will Genetic Evaluations Go Private?)

Tomorrow’s Indexes

Every year new indexes for important traits for varying herd management systems will continue to come into the world of dairy cattle breeding. The following questions may assist breeders in deciding upon which genetic indexes to consider:

• Is the new index designed for the way you plan to practice dairy farming?
• Why would you not take the opportunity to use new relevant information?
• Who can give you the most objective view of new genetic indexes?

One size does not fit all.  Not every new genetic index, total merit or individual trait, will assist a breeder in breeding an ever more profitable herd.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Are there too many indexes? Only if you don’t have a breeding plan, and you don’t make the right choice of a total merit index for your herd. It is not about the total number of genetic indexes. In the end, it’s about being selective and only using what’s best for you.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

In current genetic evaluations, we lump data together, nationally and internationally. It is combined into one data set where we carry out the various analyzes to arrive at genetic indexes for all animals. But is that combining correct? Are there, in fact, any genetics by environment interactions situations that need consideration when combining data?  Should genetic evaluations be run separately for grazing herds compared to barn fed and housed herds?

What Does Cow Sense Tell Us?

Cow people know that there are some sire daughter groups and some cow families that perform differently when placed in different environments.

How often have you heard knowledgeable cow persons say – “He sires good useful barn cows but not enough show ring worthy daughters to have a PTAT of 3.21.” Or. “That cow family is great provided you go to the effort of pampering them like babies.”

Some Examples Where Proofs Have Not Always Told the Story

I have seen situations where sires’ daughters do not uniformly perform according to their indexes across all environments.

Quality Ultimate sired strength and stature as well as average milk and good fat percent, but he got the knock for not being tie stall friendly and lacking in daughter mobility in Canada, where he was proven. Yet in Australia breeders have told me that his mobility was not a problem. Why? Well, in Canada in tie stall barns with little to no access to exercise for 60% of the year, Ultimate daughters did not get the exercise they needed and so his proof was accurate, he had a feet and legs limitation. But, in Australia where cattle are outside walking on the ground all year, his daughter’s feet and legs were not a problem. (Read more: Mobility – The Achilles Heel of Every Breeding Program)

Looking beyond Ultimate, each of us can think of other bulls that may not suit all breeders’ needs. I think of Roybrook Starlite whose daughters were high yielders, but they often needed some special care and close monitoring. That is not something most commercial milk producers were prepared to do. Starlite’s maternal line had been a line bred family from a herd that took superb care of their animals.

Love Them or Hate Them

Today breeders either love or hate show bull Goldwyn and the commercial breeder’s dream bull, Oman. (Read more: Why Braedale Goldwyn Wasn’t a Great Sire of Sons)

A bull’s proof is an estimate of his average daughter. In extreme situations or environments, a bull’s proof may not be an accurate prediction of his true worth. How can breeders know if a bull will work, as his proof predicts, on their farm? Very little gets a breeder more upset that having a bull not perform in accordance with his proof.

Goldwyn in large commercially run groups of cows and Oman in the show ring are not good fits for what their proofs said should have ben expected.

Cow Indexes Open To More Environmental Influence

Of course, when it comes to cow indexes there are numerous examples of cows and cow families where the indexes are not accurate in predicting how they will breed on. (Read more: Has Genomics Knocked Out Hot House Herds?)

Now with genomic information included in genetic evaluations, the accuracies of prediction for cow indexes have been doubled and, therefore, may not be quite as variable in accuracy as they were in the past. Discerning breeders know that some cow families work best in certain single environments.

Points To Ponder

When conducting genetic evaluations, assumptions are made. Most of these assumptions have been shown to enhance the resulting genetic indexes. However here are a few assumptions that may contribute to inaccuracies when the indexes are used across all dairy farming situations.

• Including Only Partial Herd Data
  Not including all contemporaries in type classification or herd recording data, when conducting BLUP genetic evaluations, violates the BLUP assumption that all animals are handled in a similar manner within a herd. Applying the results from selected data can lead to breeders questioning the daughters they get from a sire or cow family based on their genetic indexes.
• Combining International Data Sets
  Definition of traits, variances within the data and methods of farm operation are different country to country. Interbull includes data from many production environments from many countries when doing its index calculations. Breeders should carefully interpret the results of combined international indexes when applying them back to their own herd environment.
• Multiple Breeding Programs Within A Herd
  BLUP genetic evaluations assumes that only one breed program, one feeding program, and one management system exists in a single herd. If that assumption is violated then genetic evaluation results, especially cow indexes, can be less accurate than reported.
• Sires Proven on Early Release Semen
  Most breeding companies release their high genomic young sires to themselves or selected herds six to nine months before it is made available to all breeders. It is imperative that the genetic evaluation procedures used for evaluating early release sires accurately adjusts for the genetic merit of the sire’s mates and the herds where the daughters are found.
• Cows and Technology
  With many new technologies coming to market, breeders can expect to see genetic indexes for how cows adapt or perform within a technology. One such area is how cows work in single robotic milking farms. For example, breeders need to understand what is included when a bull’s daughters are called robot ready. Is that simply rear teat placement or does it include other factors as well (i.e. udder depth, milk let down, milking temperament, etc.)?
• Genomic Information Not Yet Universal
  Even though the global dairy cattle breeding industry is almost into the ninth year of using genomic information, the genomic information and method of including the genomic results in genetic evaluations are not universal country to country. Breeders using genomic indexes from other countries need to do their homework before buying semen or embryos from abroad.

Does This Topic Need Attention?

The short answer is YES. To constructively improve their dairy cattle, breeders need to trust the numbers they use when making breeding decisions. Differences, biases, and inaccuracies in the data must be accounted for when conducting genetic evaluations.  As milk products become more of the global diet and as dairy cow populations expand, especially into more tropical conditions, breeders will need to know which cow families and sire daughter groups will work best in which environments.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

The genetic evaluations of tomorrow need to make sure that biases and inaccuracies are not created but rather eliminated when data sets are combined. The saying “Horses For Courses” comes to mind when considering bloodlines that will work better in one environment than another.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

For the first time, dairy producers can genetically select heifers to build a healthier herd.  But with this new ability comes the challenge of understanding Zoetis’ New Wellness Traits marketed at CLARIFIDE® Plus (Read more:  ZOETIS LAUNCHES CLARIFIDE® PLUS and Can you breed a healthier cow?).  In order to help you understand the power of this new tool here are some useful resources to guide you in your understanding.

Key Points

• CLARIFIDE® Plus represents the first commercially available dairy genetic evaluation specifically designed for wellness traits in U.S. dairy cattle.
• CLARIFIDE Plus genomic predictions for wellness traits provide reliable assessments of genetic risk factors for economically relevant health challenges in Holstein cattle.
• The use of Dairy Wellness Profit Index (DWP$) would be expected to offer very similar selection emphasis to that achieved by Net Merit (NM$), making it a practical consideration for producers that have historically used NM$, but would like to apply additional selection emphasis on wellness traits.
• CLARIFIDE Plus provides an expanded suite of genetic selection tools that provide highly relevant information to dairy producers who seek to incrementally improve the health, productivity and profitability of the dairy cattle they care for.

Genetic evaluation and selection in dairy cattle has largely focused on production traits such as milk and protein production. Indirect predictors of health and fertility (e.g.,somatic cell score, productive life, daughter pregnancy rate) are available and there is evidence to support some genetic improvement for these traits. However, presumably as a result of genetic antagonisms between production and health traits as well as changes in management practices, data supports increased incidence of many common diseases in contemporary dairy production systems. Consequently, dairy cows are considered to be less ‘robust’ than previous generations, which has serious implications for the health and fertility of the modern day dairy cow.

Profitable dairy cows are fertile, productive and require minimal extraneous inputs to maintain their health through all phases of production. They generally require fewer veterinary treatments or interventions, without compromising the health, welfare or economic efficiency of the cow, and are less likely to be prematurely culled. Genetic improvement programs that incorporate knowledge regarding differences in risk of disease into selection and breeding strategies have the potential to improve profitability of dairy production through improved prevention and control of economically relevant diseases as well as enhanced animal productivity.

Improving health and fitness traits, commonly referred to as functional or wellness traits, through genetic selection presents a compelling opportunity for dairy producers to help manage disease incidence and improve profitability when coupled with sound management practices. To date, direct predictors for wellness traits related to common disease conditions in dairy production have not been readily available in the U.S. CLARIFIDE® Plus represents the first commercially available dairy genetic evaluation specifically designed for wellness traits in U.S. dairy cattle, providing predictions describing the risk for six common diseases. Routine dehorning of commercial dairy cattle is also of concern for the industry as it relates to animal well-being and costs associated with routine dehorning methods. The selection and breeding of polled stock has been proposed as a strategy for proactively managing these concerns, including use of direct tests for polledness in cattle as well as including the economic benefits within selection indexes. CLARIFIED Plus includes the Zoetis Polled genomic test prediction in the offering to accurately identify and differentiate homozygous vs. heterozygous polled Holstein animals.

Reporting of Wellness Traits in CLARIFIDE® Plus

CLARIFIDE® Plus predictions for wellness traits are expressed as genomic standardized transmitting abilities (STA), similar to how type traits are expressed. Values are centered at 100 with a standard deviation of 5. The reference population included 76,840 animals that had wellness predictions and CLARIFIDE results (Table 2). For all wellness trait predictions, a value of 100 represents average expected disease risk and values of greater than 100 reflect animals with lower expected average disease risk relative to herdmates with lower STA values. Higher values are more desirable for all traits, thus selecting for a high STA will apply selection pressure for reduced risk of disease.

CLARIFIDE Plus predictions for the Polled test will be reported as:

• Tested homozygous polled: The genotype demonstrates that the animal is homozygous polled and will always produce a polled animal regardless of the horned status of the other parent.(Coded PP)
• Polled carrier: The genotype reveals a heterozygous polled animal capable of producing a horned progeny. (Coded PC)
• Tested free of polled (i.e., horned): The genotype is consistent with an animal that is horned. (Coded TP)
• Indeterminate: The polled status of the animal cannot be definitively determined. (Coded I)

Two New Dairy Wellness Indexes

In addition to reporting of individual wellness traits, CLARIFIDE Plus also reports two economic selection indexes to inform selection decisions. Selection indexes are a critical component of many selection strategies as they provide a path for dairy producers to select for comprehensive genetic improvement across many economically important traits. The use of economic selection indexes helps to ensure that the distribution of selection pressure applied to component traits is appropriately balanced relative to the economic impact of the individual traits on dairy profitability. To support selection for reduced risk of disease in dairy females, two economic indexes were developed.

• Wellness Trait Index (WT$): This multi-trait selection index exclusively focuses solely on the wellness traits1 (Mastitis,Lameness, Metritis, Retained Placenta, Displaced Abomasum, Ketosis and Polled) and directly estimates potential profit contribution of the wellness trait for an individual animal that will be passed onto the next generation.
• Dairy Wellness Profit Index (DWP$): This multi-trait selection index includes production, fertility, type, longevity, calving ability, milk quality and the wellness traits, including Polled test results. By combining the wellness traits with those found in the current Net Merit (NM$) index, DWP$ directly estimates the potential profit contribution an individual animal will pass along to the next generation.

The economic indexes in CLARIFIDE Plus were derived using standard selection index theory. Economic assumptions were derived from those used in NM$ for the case of core traits, and from a review of peer-reviewed literature for wellness traits. Economic values for health traits that are considered in the derivation of NM$ were removed to avoid double-counting of the contributions of disease to dairy profitability. Economic values were then adjusted within the range of reported values based on the covariance among traits to achieve the final index weights.
To assess the extent to which use of CLARIFIDE Plus wellness trait indexes would alter selection emphasis relative to use of NM$, the expected response to selection per standard deviation of genetic improvement in the index was estimated. In examining the response of selection between DWP$ and NM$, it is clear that use of DWP$ will result  in greater genetic improvement in wellness traits and largely the same selection response for the rest of the traits. There is some decrease in selectionemphasis and expected genetic progress for production traits associated with the use of DWP$ (Table 3), which is consistent with our understanding of the relationship between increased production and disease risk. However, selection using DWP$ will increase milk, fat and protein production, just at a slightly lower genetic rate than would be achieved with alternative indexes that do not consider direct selection for wellness traits. Importantly, the use of DWP$ would be expected to offer very similar selection emphasis to that achieved by NM$, making it a practical consideration for producers who have historically used NM$ but would like to apply additional selection emphasis on wellness traits to achieve healthier, more profitable cows.

Table 4 defines the relative values for component traits in each of the two  wellness indexes. All indexes are expressed in a dollar value with higher positive numbers indicating the animal has the genetic potential to generate and transmit more profit over her lifetime.

CLARIFIDE® Plus Educational Videos 

•  Improving Dairy Health and Profitability With CLARIFIDE® Plus in Holsteins
  CLARIFIDE Plus represents the first commercially available dairy genetic evaluation specifically designed for wellness traits in U.S. dairy cattle. Dairy producers now can genomically select heifers for wellness traits at an early age to build a healthier herd. Cheryl Marti, associate director of genetics and reproduction with Zoetis, provides an overview of the technology and how it benefits Holstein dairy producers.
• Creating Wellness Trait Genomic Predictions
  Dr. Sue DeNise, executive director of VMRD genetics with Zoetis, describes the process and research that went into product development for the wellness traits associated with CLARIFIDE Plus.
• Understanding How CLARIFIDE Plus Wellness Traits Are Reported
  Dr. Dan Weigel, director of Outcomes Research at Zoetis, describes the wellness traits associated with CLARIFIDE Plus and how the genetic results for each wellness trait are reported.
• Exploring CLARIFIDE Plus Wellness Traits: Mastitis
  Mastitis is one of the most costly diseases on U.S. dairy herds. Dr. Gary Neubauer, senior manager of Dairy Technical Services, and Dr. Dan Weigel, director of Outcomes Research, discuss the genetic components of mastitis and how the wellness trait is reflected within CLARIFIDE Plus.
• Exploring CLARIFIDE Plus Wellness Traits: Lameness
  Lameness is a widespread disorder among the U.S. dairy cattle population and has a significant impact on health and productivity. Two Zoetis technical services personnel — Dr. Gary Neubauer, senior manager of Dairy Technical Services, and David Erf, a Dairy Technical Services geneticist — provide an overview of the genetic component of the lameness wellness trait.
• Exploring CLARIFIDE Plus Wellness Traits: Metritis and Retained Placenta
  Metritis and retained placenta are two significant disorders that impact fresh cows. Two Zoetis technical service personnel — Dr. Michael Lormore, director of Cattle and Equine Technical Services – Dairy, and Dr. Anthony McNeel, senior scientist with Global Genetics Technical Services — discuss the genetic components of these traits and how they are reflected within CLARIFIDE Plus outcomes.
• Exploring CLARIFIDE® Plus Wellness Traits: Ketosis and Displaced Abomasum
  Two Zoetis technical service personnel — Dr. Michael Lormore, director of Cattle and Equine Technical Services – Dairy, and David Erf, a Dairy Technical Services geneticist — explore two traits included within the CLARIFIDE Plus offering: ketosis and displaced abomasum. The presentation details the significance of the two disorders and the genetic components of each trait.
• The CLARIFIDE Plus Wellness Trait Index™ (WT$™)
  Brenda Reiter, a Global Genetics Technical Services scientist with Zoetis, provides an overview of the Wellness Trait Index (WT$). The index is a multitrait selection index that focuses specifically on genomic predictions for common health disorders of dairy cattle.
• The Power of the Dairy Wellness Profit Index™ (DWP$™)
  CLARIFIDE Plus is the only genomic test that allows producers to rank animals with the Dairy Wellness Profit Index (DWP$) based on important traits that affect health, performance and profit. Dr. Jason Osterstock, director of Global Genetics Strategic Marketing with Zoetis, describes how DWP$ was developed and how dairy producers can use DWP$ to make more informed heifer selection decisions.
• Strategies for Using the Dairy Wellness Profit Index™ (DWP$™)
  David Erf, a Dairy Technical Services geneticist with Zoetis, provides an overview of how to use the Dairy Wellness Profit Index (DWP$). The presentation outlines strategies dairy producers can use to implement DWP$ data to sort, select and mate Holstein dairy heifers.
• Achieving Faster Genetic Progress with DWP$
  In traditional breeding programs without genomics, it can be challenging to make significant progress within traits that have low heritability. Dr. Dan Weigel, director of Outcomes Research at Zoetis, describes how faster genetic progress can be made through genomic technology by using direct selection of the new wellness traits and using DWP$ within CLARIFIDE Plus.
• Achieving Dairy Wellness Outcomes with CLARIFIDE Plus
  Cheryl Marti, associate director of genetics and reproduction with Zoetis, provides an overview of the Zoetis Dairy Wellness outcomes approach and how CLARIFIDE Plus supports this process for healthy animals and healthy dairies

Dairy cattle breeders have come to rely on their genetic indexes being calculated on a national or international basis by governments or independent industry organizations. Here at The Bullvine, we often refer to CDCB, CDN, VIT, ADHIS, Breed Societies and Interbull without mentioning their credentials or neutrality because we have trust in the numbers they produce for breeders to use to genetically advance their cattle. CDCB (Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding) in the USA is the newest of these organizations, and it has grown out of the AIPL-USDA’s decision to discontinue the production trait genetic indexing service for the US dairy cattle industry.

However, on the horizon is a considerable amount of on-farm data that national evaluation centers are not using. As well there is the desire by (A.I.) breeding companies to have and use genetic indexes for traits for which there is data but which may be outside the data standards that the national centres require or for which the companies do not wish to pay the fees charged by national centers. Add to that, new national trait evaluations are very slow in their development and approval.

So The Bullvine asks “Will genetic evaluations go private?”.

Private Is Not New

Privately produced trait rating systems have been around since the early days of A.I.  Breeders wanted to know facts, so A.I. organizations produced ratings starting with sire semen fertility followed by numerous other characteristics of their bulls’ daughters. One difficulty with these organization based systems was that each had its unique method of expression. This meant that breeders had to understand and remember many rating systems. It did, however, allow A.I.’s to have something unique in their tool box.

Another alternative, though perhaps not entirely private, is the improvement industry in New Zealand where LIC captures the data, calculates the genetic indexes, samples the bulls and markets the bulls. Arms length decision making and lack of diversity in the breeding program are questioned by breeders who use NZ genetics.

Data Standards

To do national and international genetic evaluations, where large volumes of data are included, it is paramount that the data combined have commonalities in such things as number of days milked, milking frequency, lactation number and age at classification. With the requirement for standardization, it results in the process of developing new genetic indexes being a relatively long process. That does not work well in a time of rapidly changing breeder needs for additional traits or when breeding companies have unique marketing plans.

Standardization adds cost. It is only worth it if the benefits for the population exceed the costs.

What Data Is Not Standardized?

Today there is a rapidly growing volume of data uniquely collected by companies. In the past half decade, the increase in the number of automated data capture devices has been dramatic. Rumination rate, animal activity, milking frequency, milk per quarter, milk temperature, hormone levels…it is almost an endless list. (Read more: BETTER DECISION MAKING BY USING TECHNOLOGY) And the list only gets longer every month. An important note is that each company and device has its method of data capture and expressing the results.

Another factor that breeders find confusing is that, although similarly named, traits are different in the ways that they are calculated and reported. Some of these traits include feed efficiency, fertility, length of herd life, ability to transition from dry to milking and mobility. It all depends on the organization, national genetic evaluation centre, breed society, A.I. or service company, doing the evaluation.

What Additional Indexes Could There Be?

Here again, the list of genetic indexes that could be possible is endless. A few that the Bullvine has heard breeders considering or organizations planning to produce include:

• Milk let down and minutes to milk
• Ability of animals to adapt to equipment and systems
• Cow rejection rate in single unit robotic systems or cow visitation rate
• Animal fertility including ability to conceive, early embryonic death and abortion rate
• Animal behavior and social interaction
• Feed intake and feed conversion
• Animal mobility
• Calf growth, health, feed conversion, disease resistance, .., etc.
• Embryo production during embryo transfer
• Ability to produce show winning progeny

Yes, the genetically related list is long. And beyond genetic indexes breeders will want many management and business related details. I received a novel question a month ago when a breeder ask if it could be possible for him to separate A1A1 and A1A2 milk from A2A2 milk, at milking time, so he would be able to keep the A2A2 milk separate for sale at a higher price. That’s a business person thinking about opportunities.

What is Likely to Happen

It is very likely that private companies with on-farm data and breeding companies wanting to have additional or unique indexes will form alliances for the calculation of new genetic indexes. If they aren’t doing it already, it will happen soon. Definitely, breeding companies working with equipment and service providers would be able to use all the data from many countries.

In the absence of having industry approved indexes breeders will be faced with using various company indexes. Fully trained geneticists already work for all of the data capture, breeding, service, product and genomic evaluation companies. So it is not a matter of if, but when it will happen.

Time will tell if these new genetic indexes are accurate, useful and understood. One significant question is – “Once the move to private is started will it continue to also include the current national evaluations for production, type, health and fertility traits?”.

In short “the horse is out of the barn”, there will be widespread availability of privately calculated genetic indexes in the future.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Dairy cattle breeders can expect to see, read or hear sales reps promoting their sires based on new indexes. Is that good? The Bullvine predicts the answer is YES. Well, yes, provided that the indexes will assist breeders to improve the genetic merit of their cattle for lifetime profit.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Genotyping a single animal has direct advantages in terms of providing a genomic evaluation for genetic selection and mating as well as confirming its parentage for herdbook integrity. Accumulating thousands of genotypes for a population of animals in a breed has become an excellent source for identifying various genetic anomalies, which are usually undesirable. Although the discovery of an undesirable gene in a breed is initially viewed negatively, the new knowledge provides an opportunity to monitor the frequency over time and eventually eradicate it from the active population, especially among A.I. sires.

Haplotypes Impacting Fertility

Due to the growth of genotyping in North America since it began in 2008, the Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) database now includes over 800,000 Holstein genotypes and more than a million across all dairy breeds. This extensive database of DNA profiles allows scientists to follow the transmission of short sections of DNA strands, called haplotypes, from parent to progeny across generations. To date, given the number of genotyped animals in each breed, various “Haplotypes Impacting Fertility” have been identified including five in Holsteins (HH1 to
HH5), two in each of Jersey (JH1 and JH2) and Brown Swiss (BH1 and BH2) and one in Ayrshires (AH1). The impact of these haplotypes in each breed, which generally cause early embryonic death, depends on the frequency of the associated gene in the population and especially the percentage of active A.I. sires that are carriers. Any negative impact of these genetic anomalies can be eliminated by avoiding the mating of carrier sires to carrier heifers and cows, which is best achieved using computerised mating programs offered by A.I.

New Holstein Haplotype Discovered

Very recently, a group of research scientists in Germany discovered a new haplotype in the Holstein breed. Unlike the previously found “Haplotypes Impacting Fertility”, this particular genetic anomaly was found to be associated with calf survival in the first months of life. For calves that inherited the undesirable gene from both parents, it was found that they had an increased incidence of chronic/prolonged diarrhea that was untreatable, as well as other illnesses. Examination of blood samples from affected calves showed a cholesterol deficiency that prevented the normal deposition of fat in body tissues. Over the course of months after birth, the affected calves lost all body reserves and it appears that all eventually died.

In an attempt to identify the specific gene responsible for this newly identified genetic anomaly, the German scientists were successful in showing the inheritance pattern and the gene location being on chromosome 11. While the specific gene has not yet been located, a short series of SNPs, referred to as a haplotype, has been identified that is consistently present in the genotypes of carrier animals. Pedigree analysis of carriers has shown they all trace back to Maughlin Storm, born in 1991, as the oldest common genotyped sire. The popularity of Storm, as well as several of his outstanding sons and grandsons that are carriers, eventually spread the associated gene to many Holstein populations globally, which explains this discovery in Germany. Since the negative impact of this genetic anomaly, namely early calf death, only happens for calves that inherit the gene from both parents (i.e.: two descendants of Storm mated together), it takes multiple generations of breeding to discover.

A Complicating Factor

Unfortunately, without having an exact gene test for this genetic anomaly, determining the carrier status can be complicated for some animals. The haplotype identified in Storm and his carrier descendants also exists in Willowholme Mark Anthony (born in 1975) but he does not carry the specific undesirable gene. The presence of the common haplotype stems from the fact that Mark Anthony’s sire, Fairlea Royal Mark, is also the great maternal grandsire of Storm. It appears that somewhere in the transmission of genes from Fairlea Royal Mark down through the three generations to Storm a form of mutation occurred that caused this genetic anomaly. Without knowing the exact gene, the only tool available for identifying carriers is by using the defined haplotype. This means, however, that animals with both Storm and Mark Anthony in their pedigree may have the defined haplotype but could be falsely identified as a carrier of the responsible gene. Table 1 provides a list of the A.I. sires that are known carriers of this undesirable gene and have more that 5,000 registered daughters born in Canada to date. An animal with any of these sires in its pedigree may also be a carrier and genotyping such animals will help to clarify the carrier status.

Carrier Probability Values

Since the initial discovery of the first “Haplotypes Impacting Fertility” CDN has been calculating and publishing “Carrier Probability” values for every animal in the CDN database. Regardless of the breed, the haplotype Carrier Probability values are displayed on the “Pedigree” link from each animal’s “Genetic Evaluation Summary” page on the CDN web site (www.cdn.ca). A displayed probability of 99% identifies animals that are expected to be “Carrier” while a value of 1% indicates they have been identified as “Free” based on the haplotype analysis. Animals not genotyped receive an estimated Carrier Probability that can vary from 99% to 1% depending on the probability values for its parents and other relatives.

In North America, this newly discovered haplotype in Holsteins will be labelled as HCD, meaning “Haplotype associated with Cholesterol Deficiency”. CDN has developed methodology for assigning a Carrier Probability value for HCD based on existing genotypes as well as tracking the source of the undesirable haplotype through pedigree analysis. This strategy allows some genotyped animals that have both Storm and Mark Anthony in their pedigree to be properly identified as “Carrier” or “Free” but for other animals, where this distinction in not possible, a Carrier Probability between 99% and 1% will be published by CDN.

Summary

In addition to genomic evaluations and integrity of pedigrees, accumulating thousands of genotypes for a given breed results in the discovery of new genetic anomalies. Scientists in Germany recently discovered a new “Haplotype associated with Cholesterol Deficiency” (i.e.:HCD) in Holsteins, which traces back to Maughlin Storm as the oldest genotyped sire of origin. Without the presence of an exact gene test to identify carriers, the current haplotype analysis can result in some animals being falsely labelled as a carrier if they have both Storm and Willowholme Mark Anthony in their pedigree. The methodology used by CDN to calculate the HCD Carrier Probability values (varying from 99% for “Carrier” to 1% for “Free”), reduces this problem by combining the haplotype test with pedigree analysis. Now that this undesirable anomaly is known, an industry effort can easily be made to reduce the frequency that carrier animals are mated together, thereby lowering the frequency that homozygous calves are born and subsequently die within months. The discovery of this genetic condition also demonstrates the value and importance of producers reporting to DHI the date and reason for every animal leaving the herd, including young calves.

Dairy cattle farming has many numbers for breeders to review and weight as they go about their daily roles as manager, health care provider, bookkeeper, personnel manager, feed harvester, reproduction sequencer, animal selection or removal supervisor, ….. yes, the daily duty list is long. But in all cases, it is best to use a number when making a decision.

For this article, The Bullvine wishes to focus on the fact that science-based numbers (aka genetic indexes) are the best method to use when selecting the animals to produce the next generation.

Breeding – Is it Art or Science?

Dairy cattle breeders argue both sides of the answer to this question. Some breeders swear by a single observation, their impression or their experience (aka art) while others totally depend on science-based numbers. Let’s dig deeper.

What’s in the Number?

Breeders can use the number they can actually see, like lactation milk yield, or a cow’s milk genetic index that considers factors like age, herd mates, progeny, pedigree and now DNA analysis. The same applies to using a cow’s PTAT rather than her own classification.  It is best to consider all factors.

Can the Number be trusted?

Accuracy is paramount to success or failure in dairy cattle breeding. Making a breeding decision based a single individual observation is 20 to 25 percent accurate in predicting a cow’s progeny’s performance. Using a cow’s genetic index that includes pedigree, DNA analysis and performance will be sixty-five to seventy percent accurate.

Does the Number Mean Anything for You?

Every breeder needs to have a breeding plan (Read more: What’s the plan?) for their entire herd or an individual mating. In the plan, there needs to be the importance of individual traits. Not every trait, for which an index is available, is essential for every herd or mating. Indexes like gTPI and NM$ should be included in every plan.

Breed for Desired Outcome.

Higher Milk Revenue – Do you breed for protein yield or protein percent? Very definitely it is protein yield. It is the volume of protein that breeders are paid for. Higher protein percent is associated with less milk production.

Improving Herd Longevity – Do you select a genomic sire for his PL (Productive Life index) or how long his dam produced milk? Very definitely for his PL.  His dam’s length of life has many non-genetic factors and will have a very low heritability.

Improving Fertility – When mating a heifer do you consider her FI (Fertility Index) or the frequency with which her dam calved? Very definitely her FI.  Her dam’s calving interval has an extremely low heritability, almost zero.

Developing a High Type Herd – Do you select a sire based on PTAT or the number of show winners he produces? Very definitely his PTAT. Show herds do not use a wide spectrum of sires and do not randomly use sires, this results in potentially biased genetic evaluations on the sires they use.  Since many of the sires they are used on are not used in chimerical herds, the evaluations on these sires are biased.  When a “type” sire does cross into wide stream usage you start to see evaluations like Goldwyn’s.  Goldwyn is often noted as a great sire of show winners yet his PTAT of +1.81 and his PL of -0.5 reflects that used across the entire population he does not stand out as a significant improver.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Genetic improvement depends upon using science to improve accuracy and the completeness of decision making. The rate of genetic advancement has improved significantly over the past decade, and the pace will double again in the next decade. Breeding is about science.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Butlerview, Butler Feller Sales, Jetstream Genetics, Accelerated Genetics and Holstein World combined to put on an outstanding seminar on the current state of dairy cattle breeding.  Titled “Genetics in the Age of Genomics” and held at the beautiful Kierland Weston in Scottsdale Arizona, the seminar consisted of many of the top minds from around the world.  There where speakers from Research, A.I., and producers who combined managed over 30,000 milking cows.

1. Welcome – Jeff Butler -Butlerview
   

   Jeff Butler, of Butlerview and Butler Fellers sales welcomes everyone to the Genetics in the Age of Genomics Conference in Scottsdale Arizona. Jeff and his team have brought together some of the greatest minds from across North America to share there thoughts about where the state of the dairy cattle genetics marketplace. Jeff also shares that Ed Fellers a key member of the team is unable to attend.  It was Ed who first introduced Jeff to genomics, telling him that it is Genomics that was going to change the breed.  Then a few weeks later Ed called Jeff and said “You are not going to believe this, but I own part of this bull and he is going to be a great genomic bull”.  His name was Atwood.  Atwood had 5 brothers and he was the last one, everyone else had been in there and taken all the other ones.  But this thing called “genomics” said that Atwood was going to be the best one of them all. In fact Atwood was the first genomic sire the Butler used. And they had some of the first Atwood calves on the ground.  It just so happens that two of them are named Adrianna, and Abrianna.  So as a result of these two early success stories and how Atwood was doing, and how genomics impacted the decisions to use Atwood Jeff was convinced on genomics.  While the old way was working ok, this “new way” was doing away better.(Read more: BUTLERVIEW: The Goals are Simple. The Genetics are Exceptional. and Exciting Times for Butlerview)Listen to how Jeff explains how dairy cattle genetics will help the dairy industry feed the world.

2. Joao Durr – CEO of the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding – Update on U.S. Genetic Evaluations: What’s to come?

   Joao Durr shares with us how CDCB operates, some of the major initiatives that they have coming up and how the US genetic evaluation system works as far as an operational sense.  Joao Durr brings a truly international perspective to the world of genetic evaluations having a background that involves many of the top dairy breeding countries as well as working at INTERBUL.

3. Brian Van Doormal – GM Canadian Dairy Network – Profitable Genetics in Canada: What are your priorities?

   Brian Van Doormal has been the GM of the Canadian Dairy Network since its inception 20 years ago.  Brian highlights how CDN and other industry partners work together to help accelerate the Canadian dairy genetics industry.  Brian also shares with us some of the great work they have been doing to more accurately evaluate profitability, as well as identifying herd and daughter bias in genetics evaluations. (Read more: CANADIAN BULL PROOFS – You’ve Got to Prove It to Use It!)

4. Dr. Dan Weigel, Zoetis – Genomics and the Commercial Dairyman

   Dr Weigel shares just how genomic testing has changed, but then also how much genomic testing can help all type of dairy operations.  Dr Weigel is able to bring an interesting perspective to the science of genomic testing, but also is a breeder of dairy cattle and able to put the science in a language that all dairy breeders can understand.  One of the key areas the Dr Wiegel shares is just how much performance difference producers can expect, especially based on how well managed their herds are.  During his presentation also makes it interactive for those in attendance, polling the audience about many of the key questions. (Read more: Herd Health, Management, Genetics and Pilot Projects: A Closer Look at ZOETIS)

5. Breeder Panel Discussion – Our Options for the Future

   
   The panel consists of: John Andersen, Double A Dairy (JOHN ANDERSEN – COMMERCIAL and PEDIGREE – Building a Field of Dreams); Greg Andersen, Seagull Bay Dairy (“Breeding for Efficient Production and a Healthy Herd” with Greg Andersen from Seagull Bay – 2014 Holstein USA Distinguished Young Holstein Breeder); Greg Coyne, Coyne Farms; Don Bennink, North Florida Holsteins (NORTH FLORIDA HOLSTEINS. Aggressive, Progressive and Profitable!!). These 4 breeders represent over 30,000 milking cows, and all are invested in genetics and genomics.  This panel that is not afraid to share their thoughts about inbreeding, classification and the type of animals that commercial breeders are actually looking for.

6. Dr George Wiggans – Research Leader, AIPL/ARS/USDA – Genomics and Where it Can Take Us

   Dr Wigeons shares with everyone the latest stats around inbreeding and genetic advancement. Dr George Wiggans from USDA shared with the group at the Genetics in Age of Genomics Conference that if you look at the top 100 bulls from 2012 (Dec 2012 NM$ compared to Dec 2014 NM$) the results are 94% accurate.

7. AI Panel Discussion – Where Will the Bulls Come From?

   
   A great cross section of sire analysts from many of the top companies, including: Brian Carscadden – Semex Alliance; Paul Trapp – ABS Global; Lloyd Simon – Industry consultant; Ryan Weigal – Accelerated Genetics; Dan Bauer – Genex CRI & Jon Schefers – Alta Genetics. These gentlemen discuss inbreeding, polled, their selection process as well as where the industry is headed.

8. The International Perspective Panel Discussion

   
   To bring some international prospective to the discussion there is Jan DeVries – AI Total; Declan Patten – Australia; Paul Hunt – Alta Genetics.  These gentlemen represent not only many different countries but also many different roles in the industry.  From the COO of one of the largest AI companies, to a very successful entrepreneur to global dairy marketing expert.

9. Dr. Tom Lawlor – Executive Director of Research & Development Holstein Association USA

   Dr Lawler shares with everyone some of the latest developments at HUSA, as well as an in-depth look into the state of inbreeding, herd profitability, and GTPI’s ability to predict actual profitability.

    

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

For years there has been great debate between dairy breeders and producers about what type of cow is the most profitable.  There are sound arguments on both sides of this issue.  However, developments arising from new indexes and analysis highlight that it’s not always the prettiest cow that milks the most over her lifetime.  To paraphrase the popular song, these cows prove that “She ain’t pretty, she just milks that way!”

Are show cows great lifetime milk producers?

We are all guilty of it.  We see the cows that win at World Dairy Expo, The Royal, Swiss Expo, and IDW and are amazed at their extreme size, capacity, and dairy strength. We look at them as the epitome of what the ideal cow looks like.  And it’s fair to say that the production level of these animals has greatly improved over the past 30 years.  However ask any commercial producer in a large free stall environment and they would tell you that these winners would not be the ideal cow for their operation or to maximize their revenues.  The very characteristics that make them great in the showring (their massive size especially) would limit their efficiency for these producers.  (Side note: With dropping sale prices show cows and especially high index cows are not bringing the same resale value as they once did – Read more:  An Insider’s Guide to What Sells at the Big Dairy Cattle Auctions 2013).

Now here at the Bullvine we like to deal in facts not hearsay.  So we took the top 10 animals from the Mature Cow Class at the 2013 Royal and here is what we found.  They average an amazing 95 points with a couple even going Excellent multiple times.  The scarier part is that they only average 2.5 complete lactations each, out of a possible 4, and just over 50,000 kgs of lifetime production.  With the winner of the class, having out of three lactations started only completed 2 by 7 years of age and produced under 48,000 lifetime.  Now some would say, “Yes that is because all the big producers are in the Lifetime Production Class.”  So we decided to take a look at that class as well.  Surprisingly this class averaged a slightly lower 94 points, and just over 3.5 completed lactations each, out of a possible 5, and 61,647 kgs.  of lifetime production.  Not exactly extreme for a class that is supposed to be the epitome of the breed.  However there was one strong exception in the class, STARBRITE LYSTER LYNDSAY, who at EX-96-3E, with 5 completed lactations and 84,282 kgs (185,808 lbs.) of lifetime production, certainly is a testament to longevity.  That is probably why she is a perennial contender and a huge fan favorite.

STARBRITE LYSTER LYNDSAY EX-96-3E-CAN
84,282 kgs (185,808 lbs.) of lifetime production,

Are high scoring 2 year olds good lifetime producers?

Then of course there is type classification and the true type model.  Believing in full disclosure, we here at the Bullvine are big fans of the type classification system (Probably because my father ran the Canadian Type Classification and Breed Improvement Program, for 18 years in the 70’s and 80’s) and have written many articles about it (Read more: TOM BYERS: “THAT’S CLASSIFIED!” and Is Type Classification Still Important?). But more and more we are beginning to question some of the long standing beliefs that we have had relating to type classification and longevity.

There is no doubt that the goal of the type classification system is to produce a long lasting profitable cow.  What is becoming more apparent is that what we believed it took to achieve that may not have been functionally correct.

Now it would not be fair to make a blanket statement like that, nor would it be Bullvine style, if we did not back that up with cold hard numbers and examples.  I cannot think of a better example than, GILLETTE E SMURF, the world record holder for lifetime production at 242,303 kgs (534,181 lbs) in 11 lactations.  (Read more:  World Records Are Not Only Set at the Olympics).  As a two-year-old Smurf scored GP-83, with Dairy Strength (82) and Feet & Legs (80).  These two the traits kept her from going VG.  What makes this surprising is those are the two exact traits that many believe are the greatest indicators of longevity.  Yet the greatest producing cow in the world was deemed to be lacking in those areas.  In fact it was not until 10^th lactation and over 216,893 kgs of lifetime production that the classifier deemed that Smurf had enough strength (97) and sound enough legs (86) to make her an excellent cow.

GILLETTE E SMURF EX-91-2E-CAN 242303kgs (534181 lbs) of lifetime production

Now as we always say it is easy to find case by case examples.  But do the numbers hold up across multiple animals and larger groups?  We decided to look at all the VG-89-2yr olds from January 1^st 2007 to December 31^st 2010.  In that time there were 20 VG-89 1^st lactation cows that have remained in Canada.  60% of them have gone on to classify Excellent, with the group now averaging 91 points.  The alarming part is that, as a group, they have completed on average 2 lactations each out of a possible 4, with lifetime production averaging 42,262 kgs.  In fact only 30% of them have even completed a 3^rd lactation.  That percentage is even less than that of the mature cow class at this year’s Royal.  Achieving VG89 first lactation certainly is not a good predictor of lifetime production. In analyzing the US numbers we found similar results.

So what is a good predictor of lifetime production?

We all have in our mind what the ideal mature cow looks like.  For many pedigree breeders it’s a cow that looks like this. (Read more: The Perfect Holstein Cow)

In taking that one step further, we also did a composite of what the perfect classification 2 year old would look like.

But in reality, as we have mentioned earlier in this article, these cows are not the epitome of lifetime production animals.  In fact they are not even bull mothers.  Currently the typical ideal high genomic 2 year old/bull mother looks like this.

But in analyzing the numbers, especially productive life and herd life, the true ideal 2 year old should look something like this.

First, let’s make one thing clear.  Unlike indexes like TPI^TM and LPI that try to predict lifetime production based on hypothesis and our understanding of what we think it takes to make a long lived productive cow, productive life (USA), and herd life (CAN)  measure actual longevity.  They measure how many months the cow actually is a productive member of the herd compared to herd mates.

This means that our long-accepted theories that a cow needed to have a wide muzzle, deep chest, and deep sweeping open rib in order to be a high lifetime producer are actually incorrect.  As we pointed out in Breeding for Longevity:  Don’t believe the hype – It’s more than just high type, the top 25 productive life proven sires in the Dec’13 genetic evaluations actually average only 0.52 for Dairy Character and 0.47 for Body Composite.

This actually makes sense.  When you look at the top two reasons given for non-dairy purposes sales, infertility and mastitis, they account for almost double (26.9%) the number of animals culled for production or conformation reasons (18.5%).  Basically we learn that, when it comes to predicting longevity, there are many contributing beyond conformation.

That is why it’s not surprising when we interviewed Don Bennink of North Florida Holsteins, a very commercial production oriented breeding program, type and conformation where not even on his list of selection requirements.  (Read more:  NORTH FLORIDA HOLSTEINS. Aggressive, Progressive and Profitable!!).  In fact if you really want to break down the numbers into the nuts and bolts simplicity, you would only look at two things.  In the US that would be pounds of milk production (with some allowance for %F) and productive life.  In Canada that would be kilograms of milk production and herd life.

So here at the Bullvine we like to complete the steps for you.  We looked at all the proven sires who are over 1250 lbs of milk and 5 for productive life.  The results were very telling. There were 40 sires that made this list, with the top 6 reading like a who’s who of top selling sires, Bookem, Freddie, Robust, AltaMeteor, Shamrock, and Observer.  Also it is interesting to note that these sires average 2.77 SCS, 6 CE, 1.33 PTAT, 1.23 UDC, 1.23 FL&C and 2026 TPI.

Now for those of you who are wanting to push the genomic envelope, we did the same analysis, though factoring in the typical genomic over prediction of about 20% (Read more:  How Much Can You Trust Genomic Young Sires?).  Our requirements were 1,500 lbs of milk and 7.2 for productive life.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Any way you look at it, it’s hard to argue with the cold hard facts.  For years the show ring and type classification have tried to do the best job possible in predicting what it take to produce a long lived productive cow.  But just like the evolution of the computer, healthcare and science, as more information becomes available, we find that some of our previous beliefs are no longer accurate.  In no way am I saying that there is not value in programs like type classification, it is just time for those programs to evolve and do a more accurate job of predicting longevity.  (Read more:  What is the role of dairy cattle breed associations?) As the numbers show, today’s longed lived productive cow, may not look that pretty, but she sure milks that way.

Want to learn more about his? Andrew Hunt will be presenting at Canadian Dairy Expo on February 5th.

The Bullvine is often asked, by our readers, why we place so much, or any emphasis at all, on Health & Fertility traits in our sire recommendations ((Read more: Bullvine Performance Index and Mating Recommendations). We have decided to share with our readers some of our thoughts on breeding for traits that have low heritabilities which includes many traits in Health and Fertility.

Which Traits?

On an individual traits basis we are talking about traits like heel depth (heritability 8%), daughter fertility/daughter pregnancy rate (7%) and calving ability / calving ease (6%). On a composite trait basis this includes Feet & Legs (15%) and Herd Life / Productive Life (10%).

Heritability Hidden

Experienced breeders know that there are difference between cow families in how they transmit for these traits.  To date we have not been able to analyse the data and produce accurate genetic evaluations for these traits. It is all about how we collect the data or analyse it.  For instance when a classifier looks at heel depth he/she is to score it compared to the ideal. Yet we all know the significant effects that hoof trimming (or the lack thereof), bedding keepers and cows walking in slurry all the time can have on the scoring of heel depth by the classifier. Likewise effectiveness of routines, management, environment, nutrition and season have a significant influence pregnancy. The same can be said for calving ease. Many non-genetic factors interfere with identifying the true genetic differences between animals. Little wonder that with using our traditional data capture and genetic evaluation systems we ended up with low heritabilities.

Ignoring Was the Solution

In short the inaccuracy and lack of adjustment possible for the data we have used to evaluate these traits has meant that we have not accurately identified the best or the worst on a genetic basis. As a result the majority of breeders have ignored the genetic indexes for low heritability traits and have relied on managing around any problems their animals have had or their sire selections choices created.

So Much in Composites

With composite traits there are many individual traits combined into one overall number for FLC / Feet & Legs and PL / HL. The end result can be a high or low score for the overall but, unless we dig deeper and find out the ratings for the individual traits, we do not know the actual areas of genetic superiority or inferiority of animals. Classifiers combine many descriptive traits for feet and legs to come up with the overall score for Feet & Legs. Of course, for genetic evaluations for longevity we can not wait for a cow to complete her time in the herd. We therefore predict PL / HL by a calculation that is a combination of SCS, DPR/DF, Udder Depth and Milking Speed. These are all significant factors in how long a cow stays in a herd, but still are an estimate at best.

Genetic Evaluations

The data we have had available has not been complete enough, with enough related details, to calculate accurate genetic evaluations for these traits.  We therefore have called them low heritability traits. In fact it could well be that the extent of the data captured is not complete enough to produce accurate results.

Until about 1950 breeders used raw, unadjusted data to base their cow and bull selections on. Virtually zero progress was made in advancing the genetic merit of dairy cattle. Any advancement made was usually made at the herd level by owners that were more fortunate in the animals they owned. Evaluation techniques following that time have included dam-daughter comparisons, contemporary comparisons, BLUP (sire model) and then BLUP (animal model). These were each improvements on their predecessor yet even with the latter the accuracy of predicting a young bull or heifer’s true genetic merit for low heritability traits was only about 25-30% Reliable. The end result was that breeders paid little attention to the genetic indexes for these traits. They hoped that by breeding for the traits of high heritability, they would more often than not be lucky and make some improvement in traits like heel depth, fertility and calving ease. Over time A.I. organizations addressed the low accuracies for these traits by having at least one hundred daughters in sire type proofs and more than three hundred observations in conception, fertility and calving traits.

Progress Made

Over the past six decades, the genetic progress has gone from zero for all traits to rapid advancement for the most heritable traits (i.e. milk, fat & protein yields, stature, udder depth, teat placement, rump width, ..etc.). Over the past two decades calving ease has been a concern for breeders. With the move to hundreds of observation recorded and analysed some genetic progress appears to have been made. But not so with longevity, feet and female fertility.

Important traits

Breeders know and often state that they see these traits as being very important, in the future, to their herd’s profitability.  Labor and input expenses to treat problem animals, loss of production and animals too long in the dry pens can be robbing farms of ten to twenty-five percent of their profits. Yes, important but the means to improve genetically has not been available.

Along Comes Genomics

As our readers already know, The Bullvine strongly recommends the use of genomic indexes in making breeding decisions.  The primary reason for that is that the accuracies of the index predictions are almost double for all traits what they were with Parent Averages. For female fertility reliabilities have gone from 30% to 55% when genomic results were added in. That is huge.  It means that breeders no longer need to ignore or hope for the best with low heritability traits like they did in the past.

All A.I. sires are now genomically tested and therefore have 55 to 65% reliable indexes for longevity, fertility and calving ease when they are released for use. Breeders can now place much more trust in the genomic indexes for these traits than they could in the Parent Averages from the past. (Read more: ACCURATE GENETIC EVALUATIONS: Can We Hit the Bull’s-eye?)

Health & Fertility in Total Indexes

Health & Fertility make up 35% in NM$, 33% in the Bullvine’s BPI (Read more: Bullvine Performance Index), 29% in TPI™ and 15% in LPI of the emphasis in these total merit indexes.  The reason for that amount of emphasis is because of their importance to the profitability of operating a dairy farm.

What do Breeders Need to Do?

Breeders need to decide which total merit index best suits their needs.  Some will use only one index while others will use more than one index. No matter which index is used it is always best to corrective mate using the genetic, preferably genomic, index of both the bull and the cow.

For the female side this does require that the herd be milk recorded and type classified and that all females be genomically tested. The expense of recording is a very worthwhile investment to better decision making. Remember new information is continually coming available on genomic results for areas beyond genetic indexes. Parentage verification, heifer management and disease resistance are just the beginning.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Great forward strides have been made with genomic testing and it is no longer a matter of yes or no in using genetic indexes for Health and Fertility traits. Doubling index accuracy to 55 to 65% is a quantum leap. The future is very bright for enhanced genetic improvement and herd profitability for breeders that use all the tools.

Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.

Breeders like to have benchmark numbers that they can refer to when selecting bulls, buying embryos or selling animals. Numbers like 2000 TPI™ just a few years back were unattainable but now have been surpassed. Some breeders are saying that they cannot keep up with the fast pace while others are taking rapid breed advancement in their stride. The Bullvine decided to study and report on the genetic advancement that has been made over the past few years.

Continuous Turnover at the Top

Five to ten years ago TPI™ for the top USA proven sires remained the same in composition and value year after year.  Back then proven sires stayed current for three to five years. Well that has changed.  We have new norms on the rates of change and the length of time daughter proven bulls are used heavily. From April 2012 to April 2013 ten new bulls entered the top twenty TPI™ list and the average TPI™ of the top twenty increased by 44 points going from 2150 to 2194.  In Canada fourteen new sires were on the top twenty LPI list in 2013 compared to 2012 and the average LPI was 292 points higher. No longer can breeders pick a bull and expect him to remain a list topper for at least three years.

Expecting More of Young Sires

The rate of change is even more evident in the young unproven bulls. Table 1 contains the averages for the top twenty young sires by year of birth. The source for this information are the CDN files and reports as these were readily available for the young sires genomically tested and sampled or about to be sampled in North America.

Table 1: Average Young Sire Indexes

Note * Not all young sires born in 2012 have yet been released for sampling
All indexes listed are on a 2013 base

From the top twenty young sires born in 2009 to those born in 2012 their LPI  increased by 80 points per year. The 2012 crop are significantly higher for their type indexes with higher values also for Herd Life and Daughter Fertility.

The top twenty young bulls born in 2012 and that will be sampled are all by high genomic young sires with fifteen of them from dams whose sires are proven bulls.  The genetics industry continues to change at the rate that bulls are used and then replaced by other newer sires that are superior.

Heifers Rise Higher Too

Our study and analysis on heifers could only go back to 2011 as by 2013 they are milking and their own performance forms part of their indexes. However Table 2 shows that the top heifers have higher fat and protein yields and percentages and high indexes for Herd Life and Daughter Fertility. These are important changes for breeders that sell or buy embryos or heifers. Many of the points that the Bullvine has been recommending are being seen in the top heifers: – hold on to milk yield but increase fat and protein yields and percentages and pay more attention to productive life and fertility.

Table 2: Average Heifer Indexes

Note * Only includes heifers born January to April in 2013
All indexes listed are on a 2013 base

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Both breeders and marketers of dairy cattle genetics face the reality of faster rates of genetic advancement and animals remaining list toppers for shorter periods of time. The trends seen in heifers of holding the milk while increasing fat and protein and increased emphasis on longevity and fertility can be expected to continue.  Genomic evaluations have been a major contributor to these changes but so also has breeder acceptance of the need for long lived profitable dairy cows that are able to perform while requiring less labour. With each new index release run breeders can expect to see new list toppers. Use the best and move on from the rest.

Not sure what all this hype about genomics is all about?

Want to learn what it is and what it means to your breeding program?

Download this free guide.