Dairy Herd Management

Style_Bullvine: Style_Bullvine
Slide 8: Slide 8
Slide 5: Slide 5
Slide 7: Slide 7

Archive for Dairy Herd Management

August 2024 Genetic Evaluations: Key Updates and Innovations from CDCB and USDA AGIL

Friday, July 12th, 2024

Discover the latest updates in genetic evaluations from CDCB and USDA AGIL. How will the new 305-AA yield measurement and Constructed IDs impact your herd?

CDCB and USDA Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory (AGIL) implemented essential changes to improve genetic assessment accuracy on August 13, 2024. This paper underlines these critical developments and their advantages for the dairy sector. Supported by USDA AGIL’s innovative genomics research, CDCB is well-known for its exact genetic assessments. Among other improvements, the adoption of Constructed IDs and 305-AA standardized yield measurement highlights their dedication to precision and innovation, increasing the dairy industry’s output and sustainability.

CDCB and USDA AGIL Introduce the New Standardized Yield Measurement Known as 305-AA

In a step meant to transform dairy genetics, the USDA AGIL and CDCB have unveiled the new standardized yield measurement known as 305-AA. This much-awaited change departs significantly from the mature equivalent (ME) standard, effective since 1935. Standardized yield records now benchmark the average age of 36 months or 305-AA. Inspired by current studies, this adjustment marks a methodological turn to reflect a more contemporary dairy environment.

The new 305-AA yield assessment replaces changes relied upon over the last 30 years and incorporates updated age, parity, and season parameters. The recalibrated changes seek to permit fair phenotypic comparisons among cows of various ages, sexes, and calving seasons. The main objective is to evaluate dairy performance under many settings and management strategies.

One significant modification is adjusting herd averages to approach real yields. Under the former ME method, breed-specific yield projections varied by around 10 percent higher than actual yields. Effective June 12, 2024, the estimates of the 305-AA yield become available via CDCB’s WebConnect for animal and data searches. Moreover, the officially adopted, on August 13, 2024, new 305-AA changes are entirely included in the CDCB genetic examinations.

Table 1. The ratio of mature equivalent to 36-month equivalent milk, fat, and protein yields from 1994 or recent data

Breed	1994 Factor	ME / 36-month SD ratio in recent data
		Milk	Fat	Protein
Ayrshire	1.10	1.092	1.076	1.067
Brown Swiss	1.15	1.156	1.150	1.142
Guernsey	1.05	1.043	1.009	1.013
Holstein	1.10	1.082	1.081	1.059
Jersey	1.10	1.079	1.063	1.064
Milking Shorthorn	1.15	1.110	1.100	1.090

This move from 305-ME to 305-AA offers a perceptive analogy. Recent data shows that standardized yields calculated from the 1994 ME factors are routinely more significant than those adjusted to the 36-month equivalent. This change marks a reassessment of yield projections to more closely reflect the contemporary dairy environment and current dairy animal performance.

A vital component of this shift is the modification in standard deviation (SD) “ME / 36-month” ratios, usually seen to be somewhat greater in earlier data than in recent changes. These little variations indicate calibrating output estimations to fit modern dairy production methods and genetic developments.

For predicted transmitting abilities (PTAs), these changes have significant ramifications. Updated ratios closer to 1.08 for Holsteins (HO) and Jerseys (JE) and generally more tiny numbers for fat and protein point to a minor scaling or base adjustment in PTA values. These changes assist representative assessments of dairy cow genetics, improving the validity and applicability of these measures according to contemporary industry requirements. Thus, a sophisticated, data-driven approach to genetic studies helps the dairy industry by promoting informed breeding and management choices.

Enhancing Precision: Modern Dairy Environments and Refined Seasonal Adjustments

Recent data analysis has improved seasonal adjustments to reflect the effect on lactation yields of the changing dairy environment. Modern architecture and construction methods have lessened the seasonal impact on yields, hence stressing improvements in dairy settings. The revised approach reveals minor variations by estimating seasonal impacts within five separate climatic zones defined by average state climate scores. This change emphasizes the advantages of better dairy conditions, lessening the need for significant seasonal changes and more accurate genetic tests. This method guarantees lactation yields are assessed in a framework that fairly represents current environmental and management circumstances using region-specific modifications, enabling more precise and fair comparisons of dairy output.

Robust Validation: Testing New Factors Across Decades of Lactation Records

The new parameters were tested rigorously using 101.5 million milk, 100.5 million fat, and 81.2 million protein lactation data from 1960 to 2022. The validation focused on the relationships of Predicted Transmitting Ability (PTAs) for proven bulls born after 2000. Results were rather good, with correlations of 0.999 for Holsteins, above 0.99 for Jerseys and Guernseys, and somewhat lower, ranging from 0.981 to 0.984, for Brown Swiss and Milking Shorthorns. These strong connections underscore the dependability of the new elements. The study also observed minor changes in genetic trends: a decline for Brown Swiss and Jerseys and a rise for Guernseys. These revelations help us better evaluate our genes, guaranteeing justice and ongoing development.

Revolutionizing Genetics: The Full Integration of Constructed IDs into the CDCB Database

When fully adopted by August 2024, Constructed IDs represent a significant turning point for CDCB. Targeting partial pedigrees, particularly for animals without maternal ancestry information, this invention launched in mid-2023 and ends in July 2024. Constructed IDs link approximately 3.2 million animals in the National Cooperator Database to newly discovered relatives, developed by significant research by USDA AGIL using over a decade of genetic technology experience.

This improvement increases the dependability and accuracy of genetic tests. The worldwide influence is significant given these complex interactions across the closely linked U.S. dairy community. More precise breeding choices help directly impacted and related animals to improve their genetic quality and raise U.S. assessments. Designed IDs strengthen the genetic bases for further development by filling critical pedigree gaps.

Refined Criteria and Data Integration: Elevating Heifer Livability Evaluations for Improved Genetic Precision

Recent improvements in heifer liability (HLV) show how committed the USDA AGIL and CDCB are to accuracy and dependability in genetic assessments. Fundamental changes exclude recent heifer fatalities from 2022–24 and rectify previously missed data resulting from changes in cow termination codes. These wholly integrated reports improve HLV assessments immediately. Improving the speed and depth of evaluations is a crucial modification that calls for a minimum of 1 percent mortality loss annually for the data of a herd to be legitimate. Faster adaptability to evolving reporting methods made possible by this change from cumulative to yearly criteria guarantees current herd health dynamics are faithfully captured. These improvements have generally resulted in a significant increase in the dependability of HLV assessments, particularly for bulls with daughters in the most recent data sets, generating more robust genetic predictions for offspring and informed breeding choices.

Pioneering Genetic Insights: Brown Swiss Rear Teat Placement (RTP) Evaluation

A significant turning point in dairy cow breeding is the introduction of the conventional and genomic assessment for Brown Swiss Rear Teat Placement (RTP). Using about 15,000 assessments from January 2024, CDCB and USDA AGIL accurately calculated the RTP parameters. On the 50-point linear scale, about 80 percent of the evaluations lie between 25 and 35 points. Heritability for RTP is 0.21, somewhat similar to front teat placement at 0.22; repeatability is 0.33.

Ranges for Rear Teat Placement in Brown Swiss

	Predicted Transmitting Abilities (PTA)	Reliabilities
Males	-2.4 to 3.1	0 to 98%
Females	-3.7 to 2.9	0 to 79%

For bulls with reliabilities between 0 and 98% and for women between 0 and 79%, the PTA values for RTP in Brown Swiss are -2.4 to 3.1 and -3.7 to 2.9, respectively. This assessment uses exact measures and rigorous statistical techniques and emphasizes genetic heterogeneity within the breed.

Breeding choices depend on this thorough assessment, which helps farmers choose ideal RTP characteristics, enhancing herd quality and production. Driven by reliable, data-based conclusions, the August 2024 release of these assessments marks a new chapter in Brown Swiss genetics.

Refined Precision: Streamlining Genetic Markers for Enhanced Genomic Predictions

Effective August 2024, the genetic marker update improved the SNPs used in genomic predictions, lowering the list from 78,964 to 69,200. This exact choosing approach removed low call rates, poor genotyping quality, minor allele frequencies, and markers with minimal effects. The X chromosome’s length allowed all SNPs to be maintained there. This update improved efficiency by helping to reduce processing time and storage usage by 12%. About 74% of the deleted SNPs originated from high-density chips.

Five other gene tests—HH7 and Slick, among others—were also included in the update. Confirming the low effect on trait averages and standard deviations, preliminary studies revealed a roughly 99.6% correlation between genomic predictions from the old and new SNP lists. For animals with less dense genotypes or partial pedigrees, this recalibration improves the accuracy of genetic assessments.

Incorporating Genomic Advancements: Annual Breed Base Representation (BBR) Updates

Accurate genetic evaluations depend on annual Breed Base Representation (BBR) revisions. This update, set for August, guarantees that the most relevant genetic markers are included in BBR calculations. Consistent with past upgrades, a test run based on February 2024 data confirmed the stability and strength of the new SNP set. The CDCB maintains BBR calculations at the forefront of genetic assessment by including this improved SNP set, giving dairy farmers the most reliable data for informed breeding choices.

Integrating Cutting-Edge Gene Test Data: Enhancing Haplotype Calculations for Holstein HH6 and Jersey JNS

A significant step forward in genetic assessments is combining Holstein Haplotypes 6 (HH6) and Jersey Neuropathy with Splayed Forelimbs (JNS) direct gene test data into haplotype calculations. By providing thorough gene test results to CDCB, Neogen and the American Jersey Cattle Association (AJCA) have been instrumental in this process. More exact haplotype estimations have come from including these direct gene tests in imputation procedures. Test runs greatly increase performance, Particularly for animals with gene test results and their offspring. This integration improves genetic prediction accuracy and emphasizes the need for cooperation in enhancing dairy cow genes.

The Bottom Line

Incorporating innovative modifications to maximize yield metrics, genetic evaluations, and pedigree correctness, the August 2024 genetic assessments signal a turning point in dairy herd management. These advances improve the dependability and accuracy of tests. While improved seasonal and parity corrections reflect current conditions, the new 305-AA standardizes yield measures for fair comparisons. We designed IDs to decrease pedigree gaps, improving assessments and criteria for Heifer Livability (HLV) and rear teat placement for Brown Swiss. Simplified genetic markers and combined genomic advances such as HH6 and JNS gene testing further improve assessment accuracy. These developments provide consistent data for farmers, enhancing the general health and output of dairy cows. Supported by a thorough study, the August 2024 assessments mark a significant breakthrough and inspire manufacturers to use these innovative approaches for more sustainability and efficiency.

Key Takeaways:

The 305-AA standardized yield records, adjusted to 36 months, replace the previous mature equivalent (ME) adjustments.
Implemented new factors enable fairer phenotypic comparisons across cows of different ages, parities, and seasons.
Seasonal adjustments are now estimated within regional climate zones, reflecting improved management and housing reducing environmental impact on yields.
Implementation of Constructed IDs enhances pedigree completeness and genetic evaluation accuracy.
Heifer Livability (HLV) evaluations refined through revised modeling and data integrations, particularly focusing on recent years’ reports.
Brown Swiss Rear Teat Placement (RTP) evaluations introduced, offering significant genetic insights with traditional and genomic evaluations.
Reduction of SNPs from 78,964 to 69,200 for streamlined genomic predictions, enhancing processing time and accuracy.
Annual BBR updates incorporate the new set of SNP markers, ensuring consistency and precision in breed representation.
Direct gene tests for Holstein HH6 and Jersey JNS now included in haplotype calculations, improving prediction accuracy.

Summary:

The CDCB and USDA Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory (AGIL) have introduced a new standardized yield measurement, 305-AA, on August 13, 2024. This change allows fair comparisons among cows of various ages, sexes, and calving seasons. The revised approach estimates seasonal impacts within five separate climatic zones. Robust validation of the new parameters was conducted using 101.5 million milk, 100.5 million fat, and 81.2 million protein lactation data from 1960 to 2022. Results showed good correlations for Holsteins, Jerseys, Guernseys, Brown Swiss, and Milking Shorthorns. The August 2024 genetic assessments represent a significant turning point in dairy herd management, enhancing the dependability and accuracy of genetic tests. Constructed IDs link approximately 3.2 million animals in the National Cooperator Database to newly discovered relatives, improving genetic quality and raising U.S. assessments.

Learn more:

Categories : Genetic Evaluation System

Dairy Cattle Management: LOST in Transition

· Comments (0)

Tuesday, March 4th, 2014

If you were going on a driving holiday … It’s unlikely that you would wait to see your aunt’s holiday album or your sibling’s gas receipts at the end of the trip, before planning your best route. Trying to plan by waiting for information that hasn`t yet happened or that isn’t yet available to you, is ineffective to say the least. And yet when we’re trying to get cows from A-Z on the dairy journey, we use information like peak milk and butter fat tests that have little or no value for immediate decision making. Even worse – we let culling rates be the measure of our success. In our travel analogy, that would be like using number of speeding tickets to determine your destination. While the information is related to the issue and cautionary, it does little to help determine the details of where you are going.

The Transition Cow Journey Needs Clear Signposts

We all know what a transition cow is but do we know what to provide her with in that pre- and post- calving period that is so crucial to her productive and reproductive success? A survey by Dairy Australia provides thought-provoking statistics. The survey found that only 65% of farmers use transition cow management and, of those ones using it, only 50% have a management plan in place that meets the cow’s nutritional needs. In other words, only 1/3 of the cows are getting the right treatment. Furthermore, it means that staff is spending too much time and energy dealing with sick cows. Not only is this a negative situation from the cow health viewpoint, but it also means that attention is being sidetracked from the needs of the whole herd.

The Transition Journey Needs A Planned Road Trip

There are important questions that must be answered:

Do you know where you`re going?
Do you have the information to get there?
Are you willing to follow directions?

Five mis-used and over-rated sources of Transition Management:

Check off the ones you are using on your herd as action items.

Peak Milk Yield
Herd Production Level
First Test Day Percent Butter Fat
First Test Day Linear SCC
Calving Interval

If you’re using any of these you are definitely driving in the wrong direction. Yes you have information. But it cannot be used in a timely and effective way!

Are You Ready to Put the Pedal to the Transition Metal?

On the one hand, using the wrong tools is a problem. On the other hand, not taking action is an even bigger problem. The above tests cannot be used to initiate actions. The solution of using information for culling purposes does not solve problems such as milk fever, displaced abomasums and low dry matter intake or raise the level of health. The other problem is timing. Identifying a problem is great but getting it solved quickly is the priority.

Too Little. Too Late.

The lag time of most of the previously listed monitors is far too long and late. If you don`t take the proper early steps to get your cows through the transition period, you may not have the chance later. Rather than getting rid of cows, get rid of transition monitors that aren`t working. By the time you`ve decided to cull a cow, the outcome has been decided. What is needed are tools that give you the chance to take action, before you have lost time, money and milk production.

Peak Milk has Shortcomings

As a monitor of fresh cow performance, peak milk has at least 5 shortcomings.

It is not the true peak milk. The reported number is the highest milk produced on any given test day so far during the current lactation. The odds that the test day will coincide with the actual peak milk day for a particular cow are slim. Furthermore Age at freshening, Lactation number, Calving season, Breed of cow, area of country and herd production level all have impact on peak milk. It is impossible to make these adjustments mentally.
It`s too slow. Can you really afford to wait somewhere between 50-90 DIM to learn what a particular cow’s peak milk is? This lag between the information and the time to take action is far too long. Prompt decisions are needed from all perspectives: cow health; production management and profitability.
It`s simply an average. Averages are often considered useful as benchmarks to measure progress. However an average that does not indicate the range of values has little of no use in managing the transition of individual animals. You want to be able to take action regarding the cows that are at the low end. The high end has particular needs as well that an average doesn`t identify.
It includes more than recently fresh animals. Again it is the breadth of the information that limits its effectiveness in transition cow management. Peak milk measurements often include more than the recently fresh animals thus clouding the information for use in actionable decision making.
It is biased because of cows that have been culled. To earn a peak milk record, a cow must survive in the herd past a second or third test. Thus cows that left the herd prior to peak milk or ones that are currently in first test are excluded and thus the results are biased.

First Test-Day Percent Butter Fat has Limited Value

Whether higher or lower than normal butterfat tests do not accurately identify the state of the cow’s health. Butter fat tests can be a moving and therefore a single test day doesn`t identify the direction of the trend.

Higher than “normal” butterfats in individual cows is often a sign of metabolic difficulties. These cows usually are in a state of extremely rapid weight loss. They often have a history of metabolic problems such as ketosis, fatty liver, and/or displaced abomasum.
Lower than “normal” butterfats in individual cows is often a sign of past metabolic difficulties, low body condition score, acidosis, or some combination of the three. These cows usually are very thin. In many cases, these cows are 20-30 days in milk at first test. It is possible that many of these cows would have been quite high if tested at day 8-15, but now are low since essentially no more body fat is available to be lost into the milk.

This likely under-reports problems in cows that are dropping from a “high” to a “low” test as they would not be distinguishable from “normal” cows.

First Test-Day Linear SCC May be Too Late

Unpublished data currently being evaluated suggest animals starting with a higher linear SCC (>4.0) produce 1,000-1,500 pounds less in the coming lactation when compared to cows freshening with lower linear SCC. In addition, recent reports suggest that cows with mastitis in early lactation have lower reproductive performance. A cow culled in the first month of lactation is a far more expensive economic event than a cow that is replaced at the end of lactation.

Some estimate that the cow value drops about $3 per day after freshening for cows that do not become pregnant. Waiting for a year to see how many cows died from mastitis is a poor way to monitor either clinical or sub-clinical mastitis. Relevant action to take regarding high SCC starts at the drying off period of a previous lactation or at calving for heifers.

So, if those DON’T work, what OPTION is left??

It is easy to find numerous superior tools for monitoring a problem on a dairy. The first test of the monitor should be that it either highlights another question or leads directly to a required management action. The herd manager’s interest isn’t in the animals already identified for culling but rather to find those animals where some positive steps can be taken to achieve a positive outcome. The goal is to move from useless information to useful actions. Once you have identified the problem you can find the solution.

First Test-Day Mature Equivalent 305-day Projected Milk

Using the first Test Day Mature Equivalent is much faster than the limited monitoring methods previously discussed. The first projection is possible after 8 days in milk. Typically, cows are around 15-20 days in milk at first test. Admittedly, this projection is not 100% accurate in predicting the final 305 completed lactation total milk, but it is a good tool nevertheless. A cow starting with a low projection at first test is not likely to finish with an excellent total at the end of 305 days and is much more likely to be culled.

All DHIs and most on-farm herd management software offers projections of the expected lactation total 305 day milk production. A mature equivalent (ME) projection or Breed Class Average (BCA) further refines this prediction by adjusting all cows to the same age to allow comparison between cows in different lactations.

The ADVANTAGES of 305 day ME Projections

Compared to peak milk, the first test-day 305 day ME projection offers these advantages:

Measurement can be made starting at day 8, gaining 45-60 days on lag time.
Bias due to culled cow exclusion, although still present, is less.
Effect of different test-day days-in-milk is removed.
Cows freshening at different ages can be compared one to another.
Cows in different lactation numbers can be compared.
Cows freshening in different seasons can be compared.
Cows freshening in different areas of the country can be compared.
Different breeds can be compared.
Adjustment is made for herd productivity.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Getting the right information is the absolute first step if you’re going to properly manage your cattle through the pre-transition and post-transition periods. It’s crucial for cow health and dairy profitability to be proactive. If you are not using information that can clearly define what actions to take, you’re program and your profits and your cows will be lost in transition. It’s time to take a YOU-TURN and map out where you are and where you’re going. Don’t let stop signs determine your destination.

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

EXIT HERE! It`s Your Cull

· Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013

Even though we write from Canada where Supply Management supports against extreme variation in milk prices, there are more and more of our fellow producers in from Canada and the US quietly exiting from the dairy industry. For the time being, total production is maintained by the increased herd size. Whether it`s exiting from the business entirely, or deciding which cattle are not pulling their freight (Read more: Why You Should Get Rid of the Bottom 10%), the decisions you make about the future of each cow directly affect your dairy farming future.

The Numbers are Up

In the US after dropping from high levels in January to a more-normal range in February, slaughter of cull dairy cows crept back up in March. According to the “Livestock Slaughter” report by the USDA on Thursday, April 26th 274,000 dairy cows were slaughtered under federal inspection in March. — up 15,000 head from February, but down 4,000 head from March 2012. In January, the number of slaughtered dairy cows reached 297,000 — the highest monthly slaughter figure since 1986. This high cull rate came as no surprise, since many farms have had to deal with high feed cost and low profitability.

Tough Call! Tough Cull!

When you`re already facing mounting costs on every front, it`s seems disloyal to put any of the blame at the feet (or udders) of the cows you love working with every day. For many, although necessary, it isn`t as easy as firing the bottom 10% (Read more: Why You Should Get Rid of the Bottom 10%). The question involves a full range of variables including the financial, the emotional and all the other “when, why and how” questions.

Say “When!”

Quite often when serving family and friends a beverage we automatically offer the choice, “Say when!” Unfortunately, when the glass of dairy life is filling with the hard issues of debt and sustainability, deciding when enough is enough is much more difficult and definitely not hospitable.

At a basic level the decision to cull less-productive cows is made on how much room is available for housing and/or how many are needed to fill quota. At the financial level, bankers and lenders have definite opinions on keeping the barn full for cash-flow reasons. Ironically, lenders should be the first ones who see the value in pencilling out all the numbers. In an article entitled, “Rewriting Culling Decision with Changing Marketing Decisions” Dr. Jeffrey Brewley of the University of Kentucky urges dairy breeders to consider 4 steps:

Calculate the breakeven production level necessary to cover feed costs.
Each cow, at a minimum, should produce enough milk to cover the costs of the feed she is eating.
Cows below the minimum level must be culled from the herd. As feed prices increase or milk prices decrease, the breakeven production level increases.
Although difficult to consider, if the majority of the herd falls below the breakeven level it is time to seriously consider exiting the dairy industry.

Leaving by Example

The very informative Brewley article provides statistical examples and tables of production costs

Table 1. Breakeven milk production levels (pounds per cow) needed to cover daily feed costs for varying daily feed costs and milk prices.

“For example, when milk prices are high ($25 per cwt) and feed prices are low ($4 per cow per day), breakeven milk production level to cover just feed costs is only 16 pounds per cow per day.
On the other hand, when feed costs are high ($10 per cow per day) and milk prices are low ($12 per cwt), breakeven milk production level is 83 pounds per cow per day. With today’s feed costs for many herds in the $8- to $10-per-cow range with milk prices around $20 per cwt, breakeven milk production levels range from 40 to 50 pounds. As feed and milk prices change, dairy producers need to re-evaluate when cows should be culled.” Jeffrey Brewley goes on to say,” This method for calculating when to cull dairy cows only accounts for feed costs. Feed costs account for the largest percent of total costs (50 to 75 percent) but do not account for all costs.
Thus, the true breakeven milk production level will be a few pounds higher and will vary considerably from farm to farm.”

Beyond the Milk

Unfortunately, culling decisions are seldom based on a single factor. For a cow beyond mid-lactation the most important issue is whether or not she is pregnant. Cows pregnant in later lactation and producing below daily feed costs can be dried off early. Of course, the future for these cows depends on other factors such as the feed costs during her dry period, the length of the dry period and the projection of whether she will be able to produce enough to pay for the next lactation. Finally, the availability of a replacement for her must be factored in.

“Show Me the Money!”

The constant repetition of the demand for the sports agent in the movie Jerry McGuire to “Show Me the Money” was humorous but not entirely without a reasonable basis for sustaining a profitable dairy business. The actual calculations for this “money showing” retention pay-off are fairly complex. Dr. David Galligan from the University of Pennsylvania has an excellent dashboard to calculate the retention pay-off for an individual cow in your herd (Click here to view this dashboard). The concept is also useful when deciding what cows to cull. It comes down to weighing of the future income potential compared to the income potential of the replacement heifer brought into the herd. Culling is recommended when numbers show that the future heifer will outperform the present cow.

How Old is Too Old?

Experts, such as Dr. Greg Bethard of G&R Dairy Consulting Inc., caution that the bottom line on culling decisions is also affected by the age of the animals involved and the decisions are different for younger cows than they are for older ones. “The future income potential of an older cow is limited. The future income potential of a pregnant cow in late gestation is much higher than that of an open cow. The future income potential of a non-lame, low SCC cow is higher than a lame, chronically high SCC cow.” The list of cull reasons for your particular situation could be much longer than the ones mentioned here. The basic points to consider are:

Every milking cow needs to cover the cost of the feed she consumes. No debate.
Pencil in the realistic amount earned by the current animal compared to the potential income from her replacement. Do the math.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Business minded breeders are finding that culling is key. With such important decisions affecting success on the dairy farm, your knowledge of your own herd, your cows and your marketplace is the key to your survival. It’s your cull.

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

Search

Archive for Dairy Herd Management

August 2024 Genetic Evaluations: Key Updates and Innovations from CDCB and USDA AGIL

Discover the latest updates in genetic evaluations from CDCB and USDA AGIL. How will the new 305-AA yield measurement and Constructed IDs impact your herd?

CDCB and USDA AGIL Introduce the New Standardized Yield Measurement Known as 305-AA

Enhancing Precision: Modern Dairy Environments and Refined Seasonal Adjustments

Robust Validation: Testing New Factors Across Decades of Lactation Records

Revolutionizing Genetics: The Full Integration of Constructed IDs into the CDCB Database

Refined Criteria and Data Integration: Elevating Heifer Livability Evaluations for Improved Genetic Precision

Pioneering Genetic Insights: Brown Swiss Rear Teat Placement (RTP) Evaluation

Refined Precision: Streamlining Genetic Markers for Enhanced Genomic Predictions

Incorporating Genomic Advancements: Annual Breed Base Representation (BBR) Updates

Integrating Cutting-Edge Gene Test Data: Enhancing Haplotype Calculations for Holstein HH6 and Jersey JNS

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

Summary:

Learn more:

Dairy Cattle Management: LOST in Transition

The Transition Cow Journey Needs Clear Signposts

The Transition Journey Needs A Planned Road Trip

Five mis-used and over-rated sources of Transition Management:

Are You Ready to Put the Pedal to the Transition Metal?

Too Little. Too Late.

Peak Milk has Shortcomings

First Test-Day Percent Butter Fat has Limited Value

First Test-Day Linear SCC May be Too Late

So, if those DON’T work, what OPTION is left??

First Test-Day Mature Equivalent 305-day Projected Milk

The ADVANTAGES of 305 day ME Projections

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Other posts you might like:

EXIT HERE! It`s Your Cull

The Numbers are Up

Tough Call! Tough Cull!

Say “When!”

Leaving by Example

Beyond the Milk

“Show Me the Money!”

How Old is Too Old?

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Other posts you might like:

News

Recent Posts

Tags

Recent Articles

News