For years there has been debate about whether show type is relevant to the commercial producer. But more recently the deeper question is coming up that asks if type itself in any form matters anymore.
This issue was further highlighted by our extremely popular interview with Don Bennink (Read more: North Florida Holsteins: Aggressive, Progressive and Profitable!!) where he made the following comments:
“Don feels that the current philosophy of the Holstein Association is very contrary to (profitability).” He gives three main targets that he seeks out as profitable. “High production with health traits and feed efficiency are our bywords. The present classification and type evaluation system are 180 degrees away from cattle that pay the bills. Bigger, taller, sharper doesn’t cut it. The latest correlation of final type score with stature is .77. Worse yet, the correlation of udder composite with stature is .59. That means if you breed 100% for udder composite, you will increase stature at more than half the rate that you would if you bred for stature alone.” There is only one conclusion for this dairy farmer. “The current 88 and 89 point 2 year olds are dysfunctional for the guy making milk for a living.”
Don also highlights:
“With the current correlation of .59 between udder composite and stature, it is not unusual to see the same udder scored good on a short or medium sized heifer that is very good on a tall heifer. No study including the ones done by Holstein show any real correlation of foot and leg composite with foot health or herd life. Bulls with +3.00 and +4.00 type proofs have daughters that are too big and too sharp for commercial dairymen. For this reason gTPI or TPI are essentially ignored in bull or female selection. Net Merit $ has some value.”
The question really becomes why do we evaluate type?
The ultimate reason for evaluating type is to predict longevity. In the Canadian LPI formula type is actually called durability. In the US TPITM formula type elements are used to calculate longevity. But then I ask why are we creating a composite index of other elements to help predict longevity when we actually have the data in Herd Life (CDN) and Productive Life (US)? This makes me ask what is the more accurate index? An index we have created based on evaluation of many subjective parts? Or is it more accurate when derived from the actual herd data on longevity? That data would show exactly how long a bull’s daughters last in a herd.
When you look at the current top twenty Productive Life sires over 95% reliability in the US, you notice that only 2 sires have a PTAT over 2 points (DE-SU OBSERVER and SILDAHL JETT AIR) and as a group they average 0.65 for PTAT. Even more alarming is that as a group they average 0.86 for UDC and 1.02 for F&L composite, two traits that are typically key in predicting longevity. On the other hand, relating directly to longevity they all have relatively high net merit scores, low somatic cell scores and, for the most part, are calving ease sires. Why the disconnect?
Name Lbs. Milk PL SCS CE NM$ PTAT UDC F&L C TPI
DE-SU OBSERVER-ET 1602 7.2 2.76 6 792 2.7 3.02 0.89 2332
HONEYCREST BOMBAY NIFTY-ET 236 7.2 2.62 7 553 -0.46 -0.13 0.97 1810
POTTERS-FIELD KP LOOT-ET 1004 7.2 2.68 7 650 0.08 1.71 -0.24 1954
KELLERCREST BRET LANDSCAPE 81 7.1 2.36 8 506 0.65 1.27 1.16 1838
WHITMAN O MAN AWESOME ANDY 202 6.9 2.55 5 754 0.32 -0.17 1.21 2063
ZIMMERVIEW BRITT VARSITY-ET 410 6.8 2.62 6 668 0.71 -0.47 1.55 2013
CLEAR-ECHO NIFTY TWIST-ET 942 6.8 2.62 8 748 -0.32 -0.42 1.17 2039
KED OUTSIDE JEEVES-ET 355 6.8 2.83 10 515 1.37 0.97 1.74 1913
ENSENADA TABOO PLANET-ET 2216 6.7 2.98 6 721 1.93 1.44 -0.47 2176
GOLDEN-OAKS GUTHRIE-ET 1078 6.7 2.78 6 535 -1.15 -1.24 0.36 1728
DALE-PRIDE MANFRED ALFIE 519 6.6 2.96 6 461 -0.63 -0.36 -0.01 1702
LAESCHWAY JET BOWSER 2-ETN 200 6.5 2.84 7 455 1.62 2.03 1.83 1940
ELKENDALE DIE-CAST-ET -872 6.5 2.72 6 370 0.68 1.85 1.99 1718
LAESCHWAY JET BOWSER-ET 200 6.5 2.84 7 455 1.62 2.03 1.83 1940
BADGER-BLUFF FANNY FREDDIE 1236 6.4 2.7 5 779 1.57 1.6 2.87 2292
CABHI AUSTIN POTTER-ET 151 6.4 2.81 6 520 0.05 0.41 0.02 1766
CABHI MOOSE-ET 45 6.4 2.64 6 373 0.18 0.3 1.11 1625
SILDAHL JETT AIR-ET 1118 6.3 2.64 6 644 2.88 2.26 2.91 2168
SPRING-RUN CAMDEN -67 6.2 2.91 7 433 0.57 1.79 0.6 1762
KERNDT MAXIE GOLDSTAR-ET 199 6.2 2.57 6 449 -1.28 -0.61 -0.96 1631
The Canadian story is not that much different. When you look at the top 35 sires with CDN proofs, only 3 sires (CRACKHOLM FEVER, TRAMILDA-N ESCALADE and SILDAHL JETT AIR-ET) are over 10 for Conformation and all have relatively low SCS. In fact NORZ-HILL FORM WIZARD who is tied for the top proven Herd Life sire in Canada is -3 for conformation, -4 for feet and legs and -10 for dairy strength. And as a group the sires average only +3 for conformation, +4 for Mammary System, +3 for Feet and Legs and -2 for dairy strength.
Name LPI Milk Conf MS F&L DS HL SCS
CRACKHOLM FEVER 2797 620 15 13 13 7 117 2.63
NORZ-HILL FORM WIZARD-ET 1914 521 -3 0 -4 -10 117 2.57
TRAMILDA-N ESCALADE-ET 2595 693 13 7 12 6 115 2.69
RAMOS 2396 201 3 5 4 -4 115 2.52
DUDOC BACCULUM 1630 -527 0 9 -1 -10 115 2.95
SILDAHL JETT AIR-ET 2824 1292 12 10 11 7 114 2.64
BADGER-BLUFF FANNY FREDDIE 2985 1717 5 8 5 -5 113 2.74
WESSELCREST BAXTER ASHER 2487 -119 9 9 8 7 113 2.64
KEYSTONE POTTER 1933 1100 1 4 -1 -4 113 2.91
BOSS IRON ET 1925 -720 6 6 1 4 113 2.74
RUBIS LOTUS 1908 -514 9 9 1 4 113 2.79
JOHNIE FRANCIS 1754 -561 -2 -1 -3 -4 113 2.59
BARKA FETICHE 1009 -1793 -14 -11 -14 -13 113 2.47
GEN-I-BEQ ALTABUZZER 2748 1417 6 4 8 0 112 2.82
HEATHERSTONE-V MCGUIRE-ET 2570 1417 9 11 8 5 112 2.67
MICHERET INFRAROUGE 2521 710 7 8 11 -1 112 2.66
DUDOC RADIUS 2518 1344 4 2 6 0 112 2.67
RALMA CARRIBEAN-ET 2501 756 6 3 7 3 112 2.74
SANDY-VALLEY DEPUTY-ET 2424 801 5 6 5 -3 112 2.37
HASS-ACRES BRAVEHEART 2225 639 5 7 4 1 112 2.68
KED OUTSIDE JEEVES-ET 2216 580 4 4 3 -2 112 2.99
SHAWNEE ALTASTRATOS-ET 2209 186 7 10 5 -4 112 2.51
DESLACS DUSTER 2134 159 8 8 11 -2 112 2.83
MARKWELL DUCKETT-ET 2094 117 3 7 8 -9 112 2.71
KLASSIC BILLBOARD 2033 618 1 -1 0 -2 112 2.68
WHITTAIL-VALLEY COOPER-ET 2015 461 2 3 4 -7 112 2.61
BONACCUEIL LORD 1954 696 0 3 -2 -4 112 2.64
FLEURY LOTION 1883 963 0 -1 3 -6 112 3.11
GRASSHILL CAREW 1824 -12 -4 -1 -3 -4 112 2.68
CEDARWAL TAIT 1816 -985 0 4 0 -6 112 2.55
CANCO ARMAGEDDON 1664 254 -8 -10 -7 -3 112 2.73
JACOBS EMAIL 1642 -1179 -6 -2 -4 -12 112 2.65
HILLCROFT MAJESTIC 1396 -952 4 2 2 2 112 2.61
CLAYNOOK GARNET 1319 -431 -5 -5 -4 -3 112 2.89
HENKESEEN NIGHTSTORM 1238 -1215 -2 -1 3 -4 112 2.78
I have always been a big proponent for type classification (Read more: Is Type Classification Still Important? and Tom Byers: “That’s Classified!”). My father ran the Canadian system for many years. But I now find myself asking “Are we missing the mark?”
The Bullvine Bottom Line
For years I have heard commercial producers tell me that they don’t care as much about type and that it’s the seed stock breeders that are putting all the emphasis on type. The thing is, as Don points out, “the function of a seed stock producer is to produce the animal that is the most profitable for the commercial dairyman.” If that is the case are we as seed stock producers missing the mark by emphasizing type sires? In today’s free agent bull market, it is more profitable to have a sire that sells well in the commercial market than just in the pedigree market. Should we work to have the correlation between PTAT /Conformation with Herd Life/Productive Life as high as possible, as that is the whole point in evaluating type traits?
Get original “Bullvine” content sent straight to your email inbox for free.
