Archive for May 2017

From Hamilton, New Zealand to Grand Rapids, Michigan there appears to be an unsettling addition to the growing disconnect between the realities of farm life and city sensibilities. Headlines proclaim bullying, rejection from stores and verbal abuse as the new normal for city-country relations.

Who Is the Bully? Who is Being Bullied?

Regardless of when it happens, we are always dismayed to hear about bullying.  When this headline “Dairy Farmers’ Children Bullied” came out of New Zealand, it struck a chord within the agricultural community.

Comments from DairyNZ chief executive Tim Mackle were reported in NZ Farmer. DairyNZ is the industry organization that represents all New Zealand dairy farmers. At a speech given at the organization’s Farmers Forum near Hamilton, Mackle said there had been “two or three incidents” of children who were being singled out in school because their parents were dairy farmers. He referred to it as: “The saddest story I’ve heard.”  He concluded that the behavior was an indication of the negative treatment “many felt the industry was receiving from the media.” He added. “It’s fair to say that across the country, dairy farmers are feeling a bit beaten up right now and that’s been going on for the last 18 months.”

Halfway around the world in Grand Rapids Michigan dairy farmer, Leslie Van Houten Parrish, went to Facebook in outrage over her son being kicked out of a Lush Store. Here are the highlights from her post that has since gone viral.

“Her teen son was shopping for a gift for his girlfriend when an employee allegedly asked him to leave the high-end beauty retailer known for its “100 percent vegetarian” products.  The 17-year-old, who was wearing clothes that indicated he worked on a dairy farm, was told the beauty retailer “didn’t support farmers and stood against cruelty to animals and refused to sell to him,” Van Houten Parrish said her son explained how his family’s farm goes “above and beyond to care and nurture our animals. “When the Lush employee refused to relent, Van Houten Parrish says her son said “I farm you eat!” before leaving. The angry mom says she will never shop at Lush again, and unleashed her fury on what she sees as the ignorance about the connection between farms and food.

Is ignorance the problem?

We tend to brush off the occasional bad urban-rural interaction as ignorance.  We glibly use the words that “They don’t know enough!” If that was the case, all we would have to do is inform critics loudly, clearly and often. The thing is ignorance is not really the problem between country and city.  With the world of communication being what it is today, it isn’t that we don’t know about differences in our respective jobs and locations.  The real problem is that city, and country lifestyles are so disconnected that too many think of all farmers … as dirty, poor people. Rather than an understanding of the nature of animal-based food production, our interactions are reduced to a quick judgment. It’s bad enough when it’s all in the mind, but in many cases, it’s all in the nose!  “What’s that smell?” is the new country nose rage offense. Unfortunately, no concession is given to extenuating circumstances that might have brought the farmer to the store, bank or pharmacy before showering and changing from work clothes into shopping wear.

We don’t need to inform each other. We need to engage each other.

Although headlines grab attention, we need to recognize that the priority isn’t that we need to expose our sight and smell differences. It’s that we need to communicate our shared goals. The angry Mom in Michigan tried very passionately to state the farmer side of the issue.  Her post said, “Maybe you don’t realize that the ingredients YOU USE (soy yogurt and soy milk) in your products are available because of FARMERS!!!*** I supported your business because you didn’t test on animals. We treat our animals with love and respect. But I refuse to support you when you can’t support those who help make your business profitable.  This world needs farmers more than it needs bath bombs.” Mrs. Parrish later followed up after talking to the store’s manager. “At first he thought it was a miscommunication. But after telling him, it clearly wasn’t when the clerk made a statement to him ‘how would you like to be chained up most of your life?’ He was caught a little off guard. This was not what was told to him by the employees working that night. I am continuing to work with them to educate their staff.”.

Bully, Bullied or Bystanders.

Clearly in both instances described here, feeling “in the right” doesn’t make the inflicted adverse actions any more justifiable. In these instances and many more, disconnectedness causes and, unfortunately, encourages bullying of a targeted group. In this case, it’s farmers. We especially feel for the one being bullied. Even more so, because we too are part of that shrinking group. I always encourage reasonable people to ask the second question. “Are we willing to do anything about it or are we okay with remaining bystanders?”  Do we or should we bully back? After all, it’s not hard to find instances of poor hygiene or fashion flops in city crowds.  Or do we become enablers, simply standing by and bemoaning the ways of the world?

Disconnection Is Fertile Ground for Growing Lack of Trust

The most dangerous outcome of not trying to meet on common ground is that a lack of trust develops on both sides.  In the Lush Store headline, the issue went beyond smell detection to blaming the identified farmer as an animal abuser. This radical leap is made too quickly by those who are at best three generations from the farm. On the farmer side of the equation, we are too quickly taking the position, which everyone on the “other” side is misjudging and abusing us! Neither position benefits consumers or animal agriculture.

Many farmers feel a great sense of frustration that people don’t understand how life, in general, is connected to life in the soil and life on the land.

Having said that, if something as simple as the smell can trigger abuse and rejection, the issues have gotten further than the mere excuse of not knowing where your food comes from. It isn’t lack of understanding.  It is a lack of respect.  Even worse, it’s the idea that expressing that respect in word or action is entirely acceptable.

What does it matter if people don’t understand where their food comes from?

I must admit there are many other occupations that I don’t understand.  I drive a car.  I live in a house. I read and work extensively on the Internet.  Certainly, problems arise.  However, I don’t believe it would serve my needs to attack all providers and malign them as a group. I don’t believe that, but I do acknowledge that seeds of dissension are happening much more often in today’s society. In politics, communities, schools and sports we first react with outrage and division.  That is at the core of what is happening between consumers and farmers.

Conflict, frustration, depression, anger, and other miseries in life are but a symptom of our disconnectedness. It’s one thing when it’s just a headline that you’re reading.  It’s another when it happens to someone you care about.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

No matter which category you fall into, bully, bullied or bystander, this response to city-country life comes at a high price.  Not only does it point out a growing disconnection between food providers and consumers, but there is an increasing disconnection between two vital parts of the community. City-country cruelty hurts everybody!

 

 

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

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : The Bullvine

In tough times, it may seem impossible to run a profitable dairy. Watch this video as Devin Brennen explains the Financial Matrix for Profitability and how it can help you on your dairy farm.

This video was recorded as part of the Tactical Business Workshop: Dairy Producer during the 2017 Canadian Dairy Xpo.

About the Presenter

Raised on a small mixed farm in Quebec, Devin Brennan, Principal – Ocresco & Associates Inc, studied at MacDonald Campus of McGill University where he received a diploma in agriculture and a BSc in animal science. Worked for ROP federal milk testing, then a large feed company, from there he Switzerland where he pursued post graduate studies in agriculture at the University of Zurich (ETH)while working at the research farm. Return to Canada in 1996, started a dairy nutrition/management consulting company which he managed with his partner until they sold in 2011. He continues to pursue an executive MBA part time, while working as an independent dairy management consultant focusing on financial efficiencies. He continues to work in nutrition with a select group of producers. Dairy consulting work has permitted him to travel internationally as well as working in many of our Canadian provinces.

Comments (0)
Categories : BullvineTV

The Quest to Eradicate Mastitis!

Tuesday, May 23rd, 2017

If there is one long lived, rarely defeated dragon in dairying, it is Mastitis.  Despite heroic efforts, many a knight in shining armor (aka vets, farmers, researchers) has tried to save fair damsels (aka cows) and lost. Furthermore, the dragon Mastitis has grown ever more powerful and costs the dairy industry $2 billion dollars annually because of treatment costs, discarded milk, lost milk production, vet services, lost premiums and reduced cull values. And the list keeps growing!

When a quest takes place in a movie or fairy tale, there are tests and challenging obstacles to overcome.  In the dairy quest for Freedom from Mastitis, there have been countless very real challenges to overcome.  Here are five outcomes of some of these battles and forecasts of more to come:

  1. In 1986, compliance with the federal bulk tank somatic cell count (SCC) standard of 750,000cells per milliliter (cell/mL) was instituted.
  2. The limit could be lowered again to 400,000 cell/mL in the near future.
  3. There is the ongoing challenge of being profitable in a market of ever-volatile input and milk prices.
  4. The mounting concern about antibiotic resistance in human medicine is causing antibiotic mastitis therapy to be looked at more critically.
  5. Because the goal is to seek to prevent mastitis infections from happening at all, the quest is changing from defense to complete elimination

From Defense to Elimination

Eliminating mastitis is indeed a quest of very large proportions as explained by Lorraine Sordillo, a mastitis researcher at Michigan State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, “When I began researching mastitis 30 years ago, we concentrated heavily on epidemiology and microbiology. Now we are placing much greater emphasis on immunology and enhancing the cow’s natural defenses to minimize mastitis infections.”

Sordillo expresses that progress in managing mastitis owes a lot to adherence to the “5-Point Plan for Mastitis Management,” issued decades ago by the National Mastitis Council.

The hallmarks of the 5-Point Plan are (1) teat disinfection; (2) dry-cow antibiotic therapy; (3) use of functionally adequate milking machines; (4) antibiotic therapy for clinical mastitis infections, and (5) culling of chronic cows.  Steve Nickerson, University of Georgia Professor of Animal and Dairy Science suggests nine more ways of reducing mastitis prevalence and SCC levels:

  1. herd surveillance and
  2. recordkeeping,
  3. environmental sanitation,
  4. strategic culling,
  5. vaccination,
  6. teat sealants,
  7. herd biosecurity,
  8. dietary supplementation and
  9. mastitis control in bred heifers.

Now the Quest is for Immunity

A quest always has to be larger than life. When you take into account that 137 organisms cause mastitis (Watts 1988), trying to develop vaccines for all of them certainly qualifies as a huge undertaking. Even though that quest is unlikely to be entirely won, Sordillo, nevertheless, has positive expectations about the prospects for mastitis vaccine technology. “The mammary gland is unique in that you can vaccinate it separately, targeting individual cell populations to trigger an immune response,” she said and goes on to explain, “Sub-unit vaccines, which target specific peptides that contribute to disease progression, are the focus of current research.” Sordillo calls for “fresh thinking in development of the adjuvants that serve as the carrier for vaccine delivery.”

In the fight against invasive pathogens, the ultimate goal is to enhance cows’ immune system so that they can ward them off.  There are commercially available mastitis vaccines called bacterins.  This means that because they help the cow’s immune system recognize the core structure of the target bacteria, they are more effective at helping cows fight new infections rather than preventing them.

Immunity Through Nutrition and Supplementation

Another option is to enhance immunity through nutrition.  Today this is Sordillo’s primary area of research. The concept is that immunity is affected by all health events.  If there is a challenge in one area – such as uterine infection, metritis or another condition — the immune system is busy healing in the challenged area and, as Sordillo notes, “It lets down its guard in other areas.” The goal is optimal immunity being derived from optimal nutrition. Both Sordillo and Nickerson feel that nutritional supplements have the potential for supporting immunity. “Dietary supplements with trace minerals and vitamins can have immune-modulatory effects on the mammary system.” Nickerson foresees that supplement uses will expand. “We believe supplemental yeast acts as a probiotic, supporting rumen microflora and digestion, particularly in early lactation,” he said.

Using Genomics to Breed for Disease Resistance

Genomics is another area that holds promise, but it is clear that progress in this area could be a long way off. “It is important to recognize that in trying to zero in on mastitis immunity with genomic selection, there is the risk of an adverse impact on other immune channels.  This is an evolving area of genetic selection and more data, research and trials are needed to keep the forward momentum.  Optimizing host defenses especially during times such as dry-off would have a tremendously positive impact.

The Role of Antibiotics Has Dramatically Changed

Researchers agree antibiotic therapy always will be part of the mastitis offense; many feel that its role will change. “Through regulation and our own proactive efforts, I think we will be seeing increased veterinary involvement, and more emphasis on susceptibility testing in the future,” Sordillo said. “Prophylactic antibiotic use, such as whole-herd dry-cow therapy, probably will not continue as we know it today.”

Immune-stimulating additives explored

The bigger the challenge, the more opportunities there are for exploring new frontiers.  Feed additives that can support the immune system are attempting to do that. The goal is to develop the ability of the animal’s body to discern between its own naturally occurring molecules and substances that are foreign. Supplements that can achieve this without risk of toxicity of tissue damage are being developed.

Micronutrient Supplementation

Researchers such as Sordillo and Streicher (2002) target development of micronutrient supplements while keeping main priorities: 

  1. increasing effective and sustained immunity
  2. without adding risks of toxicity of tissue damage.

Georgia Trial with 40 Prefresh Heifers

It is informative to review the results of a commercially available additive that was evaluated by researchers at the University of Georgia.

Overview of the Trial:  A dietary supplement containing B-complex vitamins and yeast extract was fed daily to 40 prefresh heifers from five months of age until calving. Using a control group of 40 untreated heifers, researchers compared the health and milk production of the two groups.

Summary of the Research Findings:

  • From 5 to 20 months of age, supplemented heifers had higher systemic levels of the molecule L-selectin, which is a measure of the ability of white blood cells to be mobilized from the blood stream and attack invasive organisms.
  • After 30 days of feeding the supplement: White blood cells collected from heifers in the treatment group were more active in engulfing two important mastitis-causing bacteria, E. coli, and Staph. Aureus.
  • At Day 3 of lactation:          
    Mastitis incidence for the supplemented group was 11%,
    Mastitis incidence for the untreated controls was 20%
  • Three days Post-Freshening:
    Somatic cell count (SCC) was 221,000 cells/mL for treated group
    Somatic cell count (SCC) was 535,000 cells/mL for control group
  • Milk production at freshening:
    Not significantly different between the two groups,
    Production advantage for supplemented heifers as lactation progressed.
  • By five weeks in milk: Treated group produced 7.0 pounds per day more than untreated controls.

(For further information check these sources: Journal of Animal Science Vol. 90, Suppl. Three/ and Journal of Dairy Science. Vol. 95, Suppl. 2, Abstract 220)

Research Conclusions:

Researchers concluded that `dietary supplementation with immune-supporting additives shows promise in preventing mastitis infections and promoting udder health and milk production. With more research and product development, immune-supporting additives may become a standard recommendation in dairy nutrition.

Nickerson says, “If we can reduce new mastitis infections, and successfully equip the cow to use her own defenses to manage those that do occur, it’s a victory for animal welfare, drug residue risk, milk quality, production and profitability and consumer confidence.” 

The Bullvine Bottom Line

We may be without the fairy tale ending, but we are moving the quest to eradicate mastitis a little closer to reality. 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Management

Judge: Adam Liddle, NY

GRAND CHAMPION: CHUBANNA DIEHARD HEARTS (DIEHARD), 1ST 4YR OLD, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA

GRAND CHAMPION: CHUBANNA DIEHARD HEARTS (DIEHARD), 1ST 4YR OLD, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION: DOUBLETREE APPLE ACE RED (JACK), 2ND 4YR OLD, DOUBLETREE DAIRY, UT

SENIOR CHAMPION: CHUBANNA DIEHARD HEARTS (DIEHARD), 1ST 4YR OLD, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
RESERVE SENIOR CHAMPION: DOUBLETREE APPLE ACE RED (JACK), 2ND 4YR OLD, DOUBLETREE DAIRY, UT

INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: MEL-TINA ACTION LACY RED (ACTION), 1ST JUNIOR 3YR OLD, R TEIXEIRA & M MEDEIROS, UT

INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: MEL-TINA ACTION LACY RED (ACTION), 1ST JUNIOR 3YR OLD, R TEIXEIRA & M MEDEIROS, UT
RESERVE INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: UTAG DEW DROP RED (LINER DEW), 2ND JUNIOR 3YR OLD, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

JUNIOR CHAMPION: DELTA BREEZE SURPRISE RED (DIAMONDBACK), 1ST FALL CALF, MICHAEL ALAMO & AIROSA DAIRY, CA
RESERVE JUNIOR CHAMPION: FLOWER-BROOK CORENA RED (AVALANCHE), 2ND FALL CALF, MILES, MACRAY, MADISON PRICE & CHRISTIAN CUNNINGHAM, UT
HM JUNIOR CHAMPION: MS GILTEX DB DANCER RED (DIAMONDBACK), 1ST SUMMER YEARLING, G TEIXERIA, MB LUCKYLADY FARM, CA

FALL CALF (3)

DELTA BREEZE SURPRISE RED (DIAMONDBACK)
1st place Fall Calf
2017 Western Spring National R&W Show
MICHAEL ALAMO & AIROSA DAIRY, CA

1. DELTA BREEZE SURPRISE RED (DIAMONDBACK) MICHAEL ALAMO & AIROSA DAIRY, CA
2. FLOWER-BROOK CORENA RED (AVALANCHE), MILES, MACRAY, MADISONPRICE & CHRISTIAN CUNNINGHAM, UT
3. AIR-OSA MLE AWS MAJESTY RED (AWESOME), JACEY ROSS, AZ

SUMMER YEARLING (5)

MS GILTEX DB DANCER RED (DIAMONDBACK)
1st place Summer Yearling
2017 Western Spring National R&W Show
G TEIXERIA, MB LUCKYLADYFARM, CA

1.  MS GILTEX DB DANCER RED (DIAMONDBACK), G TEIXERIA, MB LUCKYLADYFARM, CA (BO)
2. MILKSOURCE APLPUCKER-RED-ET (DIRECTOR), LYDIA ANDERSON
3. R JOHN ABSLT STRAWBERRY RED (ABSOLUTE), CHRISTIAN CUNNINGHAM, CA (1ST JR) 
4. RI JUL CROWNJEWEL RED (DEFIANT), KAYD, TARYN, COLTRY, SYREE GOSS, CO
5. MS ARMANI ROCKSTAR RED (ARMANI), TY ROSS, AZ

SPRING YEARLING (2)

RWD FIVER ARM FANCY 2 RED (ARMAN)
1st place Spring Yearling
2017 Western Spring National R&W Show
STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA

1. RWD FIVER ARM FANCY 2 RED (ARMAN), STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
2. SKYHART ABSOLT LONGSHOT RED (ABSOLUTE), SKYHART FARMS, WA

R&W JUNIOR 3 YEAR OLD (2)
1. MEL-TINA ACTION LACY RED (ACTION), R TEIXEIRA & M MEDEIROS, UT
2. UTAG DEW DROP RED (LINER DEW), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

R&W 4 YEAR OLD (2)
1. CHUBANNA DIEHARD HEARTS (DIEHARD), FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
2. DOUBLETREE APPLE ACE RED (JACK), DOUBLETREE DAIRY, UT

Comments (0)
Categories : Show Reports

Judge: Adam Liddle, NY

f

SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA
Grand Champion
Western Spring National
F&D Borba, F&C Borba

GRAND CHAMPION: SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA (ATWOOD), 1ST 150,000 LB, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
RESERVE GRAND CHAMPION: CLAQUATO RH EVE-ET (GOLDCHIP), 1ST 4YR OLD, STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
HM SENIOR CHAMPION: PAPPYS ATWOOD FELMA (ATWOOD), 2ND 4YR OLD, PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT

SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA
Senior Champion
Western Spring National
F&D Borba, F&C Borba

SENIOR CHAMPION: SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA (ATWOOD), 1ST 150,000 LB, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
RESERVE SENIOR CHAMPION: CLAQUATO RH EVE-ET (GOLDCHIP), 1ST 4YR OLD, STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
HM SENIOR CHAMPION: PAPPYS ATWOOD FELMA (ATWOOD), 2ND 4YR OLD, PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT

PAPPYS GOLDWYN NATASHA
Grand Champion of the Junior Show
Western Spring National
Alexis Papageorge

SENIOR CHAMPION OF JUNIOR SHOW: PAPPYS RAUL CINDY (RAUL), 2ND 150,000 LB COW, PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
RESERVE CHAMPION OF JUNIOR SHOW: MS GOSS KIDS DEMPSEY TWINK (DEMPSEY), 11TH 4 YEAR OLD, KAYD, TAYRN, SLAYTER, COLTRY & SYREE GOSS, CO

BROWNKING ATWOOD 1131
Intermediate Champion
Western Spring National
Brown Dairy

INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: BROWNKING ATWOOD 1131 (ATWOOD), 1ST SENIOR 3YR OLD, MICHEAL BROWN, UT
RESERVE INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: SPALLVUE BROKAW ICE CREAM (BROKAW), 1ST JUNIOR 2YR OLD, XANDER HARRIS, UT
HM INTERMEDIATE CHAMPION: RUANN GW AT ELLIE 42714 (ATWOOD), 1ST JUNIOR 3YR OLD, STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA

AROLENE GOLD CHIP ELIZA
Junior Champion
Western Spring National
F&D Borba and F&C Borba

JUNIOR CHAMPION: AROLENE GOLD CHIP ELIZA (GOLDCHIP), 1ST WINTER YEARLING, FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
RESERVE JUNIOR CHAMPION: PAPPYS CHELIOS ROVER (CHELIOS), 1ST FALL CALF, PAPPYS FARMS LLC, UT
HM JUNIOR CHAMPION: MILKSOURCE DOORMAN MISSY (DOORMAN), 1ST SUMMER YEARLING, CHRISTIAN CUNNINGHAM, CA

CAMPHOLS DOORMAN ELISEE
1st place Fall Yearling
Western Spring National
David Edwards

JUNIOR CHAMPION OF JUNIOR SHOW: BUTLERVIEW ANTH ARTFUL ET (ANTHUIS), 1ST SPRING YEARLING, C ARNTZ & C CUNNINGHAM, UT
RESERVE JUNIOR CHAMPION OF JUNIOR SHOW: CAMPHOLS DOORMAN ELISEE (DOORMAN), 1ST FALL YEARLING, DAVID EDWARDS, UT
HM JUNIOR CHAMPION OF JUNIOR SHOW: BUTLERVIEW LOTUS QUEEN B (LOTUS), 3RD FALL CALF, K,M & S MACRAY & MILES PRICE, IL

Winter Heifer Calf

TY-D DEMPSEY LOVEMMY
1st place Winter Heifer Calf
Western Spring National
Matti, Kabul, Trey & Stockton Leak

1.  TY D DEMPSEY LOVEMMY (DEMPSEY) MATTI, KAEL, TREY , KAYSON & STOCKTON LEAK, UT (1ST JR)
2. MS R JOHN ARCHRVL BRANDY (ARCHRIVAL), JOHN CUNNINGHAM, CA, (1ST B&O) 
3.  MS DIAMONDBACK PRESTIGE (DIAMONDBACK), MILES PRICE, IL (2ND JR)
4. RAN-RUE BYWAY BELLE (BYWAY), DANICA RUPARD, WA
5. CALORI-D CRS DRMN RYLYN (DOORMAN), CRANEHILL GENETICS & MATT & LAUREN EVANGELO, CA

Fall Heifer Calf

PAPPYS CHELIOS ROVER
1st place Fall Heifer Calf
Western Spring National
Pappys Farms

1. PAPPYS CHELIOS ROVER (CHELIOS), PAPPYS FARMS LLC, UT, (BO) 
2. PYRAMID DOORMAN LYRIC (DOORMAN), WADE YARDLEY, UT
3. BUTLERVIEW LOTUS QUEEN B (LOTUS), K,M & S MACRAY & MILES PRICE, IL, (1ST JR)
4. PIERSTEIN HIGH OCTANE LOLLITA (HIGH OCTANE), JRD GENETICS LLC, UT
5. PAPPYS CHELIOS RAPUNZEL (CHELIOS), PAPPYS FARMS LLC, UT

Summer Yearlings

MILKSOURCE DOORMAN MISSY
1st place Summer Yearling
Western Spring National
Christian Cunningham

1. MILKSOURCE DOORMAN MISSY (DOORMAN), CHRISTIAN CUNNINGHAM, CA
2. DEWBROOK BRADY ANDREA (BRADY), BILL WRIGHT & BLAIR MICKELSON, UT
3. PAPPYS UNO RAINBOW (UNO) PAPPYS FARM LLC, UT (BO) 
4. MS GILTEX DBACK MAY (DIAMONDBACK), G TEIXERIA, MB LUCKYLADYFARM, CA
5. NO LIMIT ATW LUCILE (ATWOOD), MICHELL COLEMAN, CA (1ST JR) 

Spring Yearling

BUTLERVIEW ANTH ARTFUL
1st place Spring Yearling
Western Spring National
Arntz & Cunningham


1. BUTLERVIEW ANTH ARTFUL ET (ANTHUIS), C ARNTZ & C CUNNINGHAM, UT, (1ST JR)
2. PAPPYS DOORMAN RALEY (DOORMAN), ALEXIS PAPAGEORGE, UT,  (BO & 2ND JR)
3. DOUBLETREE D+BEEMER LORI (BEEMER), DOUBLETREE DAIRY , UT
4. UTAG SID CHERRY (SID), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
5. OAKFIELD DBACK DERBY (DIAMONDBACK), WADE YARDLEY, UT

Winter Yearling

AROLENE GOLD CHIP ELIZA
1st place Winter Yearling
Western Spring National
F&D Borba and F&C Borba

1. AROLENE GOLD CHIP ELIZA (GOLDCHIP), FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
2. PAPPYS DOORMAN ROSE (DOORMAN), PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT, (BO)
3. COBEQUID DOORMAN PIPPY (DOORMAN), MMM PRICE & C CUNNINGHAM, IL
4. MS KRESS HIL EJ ALLYSON (DOORMAN), GRAISSON SCHMIDT, MANDY BRAZIL & TYLER DICKERHOOF, CA(1ST JR)
5. CACHE VALLEY C JELLY BEAN (COLTON), ZAIDIE HARRIS, UT

Fall Yearling

CAMPHOLS DOORMAN ELISEE
1st place Fall Yearling
Western Spring National
David Edwards

1. CAMPHOLS DOORMAN ELISEE (DOORMAN), DAVID EDWARDS, UT (1ST JR)
2. KUK LAN GOLDWYN JOY (GOLDYWN), BILL WRIGHT & BLAIR MICKELSON, UT
3. GOLDEN OAKS DOORMAN CHARM (DOORMAN), MITCHELL COLEMAN, CA
4. MILKSOURCE DOORMAN JINX (DOORMAN), MATT LEAK, UT
5. ADDED ENTRY, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

JUNIOR BREEDERS HERD (4)

1. PAPPYS FARM LLC., UT
2. ESKDALE DAIRY, UT
3. UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
4. HARRIS DAIRYLAND, UT

JUNIOR BREEDER & EXHIBITOR

PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT

Junior Two Year Old

SPALLVUE BROKAW ICE CREAM
1st place Junior Two Year Old
Western Spring National
Xander Harris

1. SPALLVUE BROKAW ICE CREAM (BROKAW), XANDER HARRIS, UT
2. CACHE-VALLEY BRKW HALLI ET (BROKAW), MATT LEAK, UT
3. RUANN MCCUTCHEN MOLLY (MCCUTCHEN), STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
4. PAPPYS GOLD CHIP BERNA (GOLDCHIP), PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
5. MS APPLE ATIYANA (CORVETTE), R TEIXEIRA & T NUNES JR., CA

Senior Two Year Old

CROSS-WAKE MORE ANNALYSE
1st place Senior Two Year Old
Western Spring National
Maddox, Schmidt & Brazil

1. CROSS-WAKE MORE ANNALYSE-ET (MOREGOLD), S&P MADDOX, GARRETT SCHMIDT & M BRAZIL, CA
2. PAPPYS GOLDWYN RADIANT ET (GOLDWYN), PAPPYS FARM LLC., UT (BO) 
3. BBM KINGBOY ADELA (KINGBOY), G&R TEIXEIRA & M SILVERA III, CA
4. UTAG ATWOOD DONNA (ATWOOD), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
5. BUTTER-DELL GOLD CHIP SADIE (GOLDCHIP), KENT BUTTERS, UT

Futurity

PAPPYS GOLDWYN RAVEANN
1st place Futurity
Western Spring National
Pappys Farm

1. PAPPYS GOLDWYN RAVEANNE-ET (GOLDWYN), PAPPYS FARM LLC., UT
2. BLONDIN DIAMOND EXPRESS (DIAMOND), WADE YARDLEY, UT
3. BUTTER-DELL SID SERENA (SID), DALLIN BUTTARS, UT
4. UTAG G W ATWOOD ABBS (ATWOOD), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
5. CACHE-VALLEY AT AMAZING (ATWOOD), Z HARRIS & M&Z BREUNCH, UT

Junior Three Year Olds

RUANN G W AT ELLIE-42714
1st place Junior Three
Western Spring National
Maddox

1.  RUANN GW AT ELLIE 42714 (ATWOOD), STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA (BO & BU)
2. MEL-TINA ACTION LACY RED (ACTION), R TEIXEIRA & M MEDEIORS, UT
3. UTAG DEW DROP RED (LINER DEW), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
4. PAPPYS GOLDWYN RAVEANN (GOLDWYN), PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
5. UTAG GW ATWOOD ABBS (ATWOOD), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT

Senior Three Year Olds

BROWNKING ATWOOD 1131
1st place Senior Three
Western Spring National
Brown Dairy

1. BROWNKING ATWOOD 1131 (ATWOOD), MICHEAL BROWN, UT (BO) 
2.BELLA-ROSA BELIEVABL PAMELA (BELIEVABLE), R-JOHN HOLSTEINS, J&A PRICE & CAMILLA  SYNDICATE, UT  (BU) 
3. RUANN HAMMER DORINDA-30893 (WINDHAMMER), STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
4.BLONDIN DIAMOND EXPRESS (DIAMOND), WADE YARDLEY, UT
5.BUTTER-DELL SID SERENA (SID), DALIN BUTTARS, UT

Four Year Old

RUANN ATWOOD PAGE 30626
1st place Four Year Old
Western Spring National
Maddox

1. CLAQUATO RH EVE-ET (GOLDCHIP, STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
2. PAPPYS ATWOOD FELMA (ATWOOD), PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT (BO) 
3. CHUBANNA DIEHARD HEARTS (DIEHARD), FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
4. SILVERMAPLE WINDHAMMER CAMILLE (WINDHAMMER), C CUNNINGHAM & M PRICE, CA
5. DOUBLETREE APPLE ACE RED (JACK), DOUBLETREE DAIRY, UT

Five Year Old

UTAG WINDBROOK ECLIPSE
1st place Five Year Old
Western Spring National
Utah State University

1. UTAG WINDBROOK ECLIPSE (WINDBROOK), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT (BO &BU) 
2. FRONTIER SPEAR MARIOLA (SPEAR), FRONTIER DAIRY, UT
3. UTAG GUTHRIE ZEEZLER (GUTHRIE), UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
4. RUANN AT BONNIE 20767 ET (ATWOOD), STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
5. MARKWELL GOLD CHIP GRACE ET (GOLD CHIP), GOLDCREST FARMS LLC., UT

Six Year Old+

STRANSHOME DUNDEE DAHLIA
1st place Six Year Old +
Western Spring National
Matt Leak

1. STRANSHOME DUNDEE DAHLIA ET (DUNDEE), MATT LEAK, UT
2. PAPPYS RAUL CINDY (RAUL), PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT (BO) 
3. CACHE-VALLEY SHOT 2376-ET (SHOTTLE), HARRIS DAIRYLAND, UT
4. ESKDALE ABSOLUTE BALM (ABSOLUTE), ESKDALE DAIRY, UT
5. BALLAND BOW COCOA (BOW), REGINA BALL, ID

150,000 lbs Cow Class

SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA
1st place 150,000 lbs Cow
Western Spring National
F&D Borba, F&C Borba

1.  SIEMERS ATWOOD ALEXIA (ATWOOD), FRANK & CAROL & FRANK & DIANE BORBA, CA
2.  PAPPYS GOLDWYN NATASHA (GOLDYWN), ALEXIS PAPAGEORGE, UT (BO)
3. ESKDALE PRONTO MONTAGE ET (PRONTO), ESKDALE DAIRY, UT

BEST 3 FEMALES (7)
1. PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
2. STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
3. UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
4. HARRIS DAIRYLAND, UT
5. ESKDALE DAIRY, UT

BREEDER HERD OF 5 FEMALES (5)
1. PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
2. UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY, UT
3. STEPHEN & PATRICK MADDOX, CA
4. HARRIS DAIRYLAND, UT
5. ESKDALE DAIRY, UT

PRODUCE OF DAM (4)
1. MARKWELL DURHAM RAVEN-ET, PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT
PREMIER BREEDER & EXHIBITOR
PAPPYS FARMS LLC., UT

RUNNER UP BREEDER
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

RUNNER UP EXHIBITOR
RUANN DAIRY, CA
DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD: CRAIG BUTTARS, UT

DISTINGUISHED BREEDER AWARD: KENT BUTTARS, UT

ART HAY AWARD: MIKE HARRIS, UT

Comments (0)
Categories : Show Reports

The dairy cattle breeding industry has, for the past century, had goals … increased lifetime production, udders compatible with machine milking, first calving at second birthday, … BUT … mostly the goals have not considered the people who spend their grocery dollars to buy dairy products. Yes, consumers are important. Yet consumers are, 99% of the time, the farthest thing from breeders’ minds when they make breeding decisions.

With all the back and forth in the media these days on trade and supply and demand in milk products in North America and also the world, The Bullvine decided to study the USA, as an example, of how breeding could possibly take place in the future in order to meet consumer demand for milk products. During the writing of this article, we consulted closely with Dr Jack Britt, as he has been giving considerable thought to what the US dairy industry will be in the future. Our review of Dr Britt’s work included presentations, that he made on dairying in 2067, at the CRI Annual Meeting in January 2017.

Current Situation for US Milk

In short, the US is swimming in surplus skim or what one writer called “a glut of skim’. To put it yet another way it requires the processing of too much milk to get the needed amount of butterfat. Thereby leaving a mountain of skim that must find a home in America or abroad. All the while when there is excess production in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. The result is that the US farm gate prices have tanked. Recently some producers have been informed that their processor will no longer pick up their milk.

After a thorough study of total domestic and export disappearance of US milk in 2016, Dr. Britt estimates that America consumes only 82% of its skim solids while using 97% of its fat solids. Simply said to come into balance the US needs to reduce its total milk production by 18% and significantly increase the fat percent in that reduced national production. By the way that significantly increased fat percent would need to be 4.6%.

History of US Milk Supply

The US dairy industry, in the past, operated well when supply was 105% of domestic demand. The current production level of 115+% of US demand has thrown the industry into disorder. With low prices, farm shipments increasing just so farms can maintain their cash flows and many newer producers, with debt and limited equity, being forced to leave the industry.

In the past when the milk supply in the US significantly exceeded domestic demand many governments and volunteer programs were implemented including the buyout of milking herds, purchase, and storage of excess butter, powder and cheese mostly destined for export, school milk for children and more.

Dairy marketing programs with commercial users (cheese, pizza, etc.) have been successful, but not to the extent that they have stopped the rise in the burgeoning stocks.

Moreover, cow numbers have crept up a bit in recent years and this means more cows are in the national herd and these cows are producing more and more each year.

No initiative has been the long-term solution to bring stability to milk supply or demand for milk in the American dairy industry.

Breeds (2014) in America

For dairy cattle farmers one immediate question is … “Do they have the right breed of cows or have they been making the right choice when selecting sires for their herds?”

Current (2014) production averages by breed for recorded cows are as follows:

Table 1 – American Breed Production (2014) for Officially Recorded Cows*

Breed % of Total Milk(#)**          F%           P%    P:F Ratio
Ayrshire 0.2 19,214 3.91 3.15 0.806
Brown Swiss 0.7 22,691 4.04 3.32 0.822
Guernsey 0.2 17,907 4.49 3.31 0.737
Holstein 87.4 27,251 3.73 3.06 0.821
Jersey 11.3 20,592 4.77 3.63 0.761
Milking Shorthorn 0.1 19,122 3.74 3.06 0.818
Red & White 0.1 24,675 3.76 3.05 0.811
    Weighted Average 26,421*** 3.82 3.11 0.818

* Data Source : Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (https://www.uscdcb.com)
** Milk yields are for officially recorded cows
*** Milk yield for officially recorded cows exceeds the average US cow’s production by over 4,400 lbs

When considering Table 1, it is important to note: (1) the weighted butterfat average is 3.82%; and (2) that the weighted production level of officially recorded exceeds the level for the average US dairy cow by 4,400 lbs.

The Bullvine asks … if all US dairy cows were Jerseys or had a fat percent like Jerseys … would there still be a problem of not enough fat in proportion to other solids? Although Guernsey’s are few and far between their P:F ratio may be what the industry needs to bring into balance fat to other solids according to domestic disappearance. Breed loyalties run strong with dairy cattle breeders and it normally generations of selection to increase Fat %.

American Customer Needs (2030)

Healthy human nutrient intake has had a very significant uptake in research projects in the past decade. One big winner from this research has been the dairy industry with butter and whole milk now on the good side of the ledger, where just five years ago they where severely frowned upon.  In short, butterfat is no longer a swear word.

Considerable research into milk products is now in progress and a decade from now consumers will have many new or enhanced products that are based on milk or that contain milk products as a significant ingredient.

Other Factors That Will Affect the Desired Milk

The list is almost endless of factors that will change the way milk is produced and the component composition of milk the processors will demand. A partial list of factors could include: forage/pasture diets (80-90% forage); ways to minimize transport costs (don’t ship water); ways to best utilize storage capacity on-farm and at processors (higher component milk); environmental and emission regulations; a2 milk; the best milk for cheese making; enhanced fats in butter; … etc. As well as all the on-farm factors of cow size, cow mobility, cow feed conversion, labor minimization and adoption of technology.

The challenge for dairy cattle breeders will be to change their genetic, nutrition and management programs to capitalize on the opportunity to ship milk that brings the premium price.

Breeds in America (2030)

Dr. Britt’s work predicts that the average US cow in 2030 will produce 34,100 lbs of milk, that number considers the advances that will be made in genetics, nutrition, management and farm practices.  34,100 lbs. is 155% of what the average (all breeds) cows produced in 2014.

But is that the way to go? More and more and more milk? More and more and more skim? More and more and more whey? Is more volume the route the dairy breeding industry always needs to follow?

What about Dr. Britt’s idea of 4.6% fat in the milk? And what about a more significant portion of the national dairy herd being crossbred animals for reasons other than production?

The Bullvine offers (Table 2) a suggestion for breed composition and for when cows produce only 130% of their current (2014) volume of milk.  But with enough fat to fill the American domestic need.

Table 2 – Possible American Breed Production (2030)*

Breed % of Total Milk (#)**          %F            P%    P:F Ratio
Holstein 50% 35,424 4.3 3.5 0.814
Jersey 25% 26,770 5.3 4.1 0.774
Crossbred 25% 31,354 4.6 3.7 0.804
  Weighted Average 32,200*** 4.6 3.7 0.802

* Assumes dramatic genetic improvement for Fat % and Protein % and no genetic improvement for milk volume.
** Estimated milk yields for officially recorded cows at 130% of 2014 production
*** Dr. J H Britt predicts average US dairy cow’s production in 2030 will be 34,100 lbs (155% of 2014)

Do the numbers in Table 2 make sense? Are they achievable? Remember that the heritabilities for fat percent and protein percent are high and there will be 5 generations of cows before we reach 2030. If the numbers in table 2 are not achievable, then what are the numbers that the American dairy industry needs to plan for?  Or simply do Jersey and Guernsey need to be the breeds for the future?

Of course, there will be fewer cows needed to meet the national demand for milk in 2030, but that is a fact of life that the dairy industry has been living with forever.

Sires To Use

For Table 2 to become a reality, then heavy emphasis would need to be placed on selection for fat percent and some emphasis on protein percent. Sires that increase fat and protein yield but do not increase milk yield (0 PTA Milk) would help the process immeasurably. Table 3 provides some examples of high fat percent North American sires.

Table 3 – North American Sires that are High for Fat %

Name      Fat % **              Fat    Protein %        Protein         Milk  TPI/JPI/LPI NM$ / Pro$   Sire Stack
US Holstein                
Marriott 0.37 69 0.09 1 -823 2328 588 Predistine x Facebook x Bogart
Skateboard 0.35 99 0.07 22 121 2478 672 Uno x Russell x Auden
Element 0.35 81 0.12 23 -387 2429 652 Balisto x Hill x AltaAlly
Armani 0.35 33 0.16 -4 -1491 2087 249 Goldwyn x Regiment x Durham
Bloomfield 0.34 105 0.07 29 875 2429 652 Delta x x Uno x Shottle
US Jersey                
VJ Dee 0.58 69 0.24 13 -889 141 428 Lappe x Hirse x Lemvig
Vivaldi 0.52 82 0.22 29 -407 177 576 Lix x Implus x Paramount
Huell 0.45 87 0.16 31 -23 182 584 Hulk x Renegade x Maximum
Canada Holstein              
Flame 1.16 96 0.39 28 -515 3021 1809 Uno x Freddie x Bolton
Loic 0.91 104 0.45 61 283 3001 2066 Flame x Sudan x MOM
Lynx 0.81 118 0.24 55 920 3424 2678 Lylas x Jennings x McCutchen
Achiever 0.78 141 0.21 73 1550 3332 2902 Yoder x AltaEmbassy x Robust
Brewmaster 0.77 133 0.12 54 1235 3186 2377 Garrett x Shottle x Champion
Canada Jersey                
Maserati 1.09 80 0.38 28 40 1659 914 Merchant x Implus x Lemvig
Antonio 1.05 80 0.46 37 210 2030 1508 Vivaldi x Zuma x Lemvig
Mastermind 0.97 82 0.42 40 308 1822 1257 Hilario x Impuls x Lemvig

* Milk Rel – sires 90% and higher are daughter proven and sires 80% and lower are genomically evalauted
** Fat % cannot be directly compared US to Canada. All sires listed are at the top for their grouping.

Note that Fat % cannot be directly compared USA (expected daughter performance) to Canada (breeding value). Most of the sires in Table 3 may not be well known as North American total merit indexes place only minor emphasis on fat %.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

The entire global dairy industry, not just the USA, needs to take heed and implement ways of balancing milk supply with the demand for milk products. If fat percent and/or protein percent are to be changed significantly for the milk shipped to processors then genetics will be involved. And 2017 is not too soon to start considering ways that genetics can assist with balancing supply and demand. Definitely the balancing is more than just a genetics problem, all stakeholders need to bring forward possible solutions so dairy farming and the dairy industry can be viable and sustainable.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Dairy Industry

The Bullvine seldom talks about the processing of milk into product when it comes to writing about the breeding of dairy cattle. We expect it happens even less frequently that dairy cattle breeders consider the yield their processor obtains in products from the milk they ship. The different kappa casein genotypes found in today’s dairy cattle can have a significant effect on the volume and quality of cheese produced from milk. Here are some interesting details that we found from our research on this subject.

The Situation

Dairy cattle are evaluated for their ability to produce the percentage of protein in milk and the total protein yield.  Milk processors find that: 1) some milks clot quickly, its cheese is firm and produces the most cheese per unit of milk; 2) some milks clot, but not quickly, and have varying degrees of firmness and produces 10%-15% less cheese, and 3) some milks do not clot. Cheese makers are not prepared to buy milk that fits into the latter category. Studies from Europe and North America have found a strong association between the kappa casein genotype BB and milk that clots quickly, produces firm cheese and has a high volume of cheese yield.

The situation of poor or non-clotting milk came to international attention in the 1970’s when Italian cheese makers were no longer able to make their cheeses from the milk from certain farms. After studying the situation, it was determined that some daughters from North American Holstein sires produced milk that was not desirable for cheese making.  In-depth study identified the problem to be with the kappa casein produced by these non-Italian sires’ daughters.

Kappa Casein Alleles

At least nine alleles have been identified for kappa casein. Specifically, three alleles, A, B, and E, dominate in global dairy cattle populations. Initially, it was thought that two alleles, A and B, were the main ones present in dairy cattle. However, a third allele, E, was found to exist approximately 10% of the time. E is the allele associated with the milk that does not clot to make cheese.

Cheese Yield by Genotype

A synopsis of the published findings on kappa casein genotypes follows:

  • Cheese from the milk of BB cows’ clots 25% faster and is twice as firm as cheese made from AA cow’s milk.
  • Milk from BB cows produces 1.0- 1.5 lbs (about 10%) more cheese per cwt of milk than milk from AA cows.
  • Milk from AB cows is about midway between BB and AA cows for clotting speed, firmness, and yield.
  • Milk from EE cows does not clot and is not suitable for cheese making
  • Milk from AE cows is also considered by most cheese makers to be unsuitable.
  • The literature is not informative on the properties of milk from BE cows. There are suggestions that it may be similar to milk from AA cows when it comes to cheese making.
  • A 1985 study by Okigbo, Richardson, Brown and Ernstrom found that milk with impaired clotting properties was not improved by mixing it with an equal amount of well-clotting milk.

General Stat’s with respect to Kappa Casein

Initially, our focus was on kappa casein relative to North American dairy cows. However, we found interesting information from published studies in Italy, France, Estonia, The Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Turkey.  Milk for cheesemaking is important in these countries because from 40% to 75% (Italy) of the national milk is used to make cheese. Some additional facts include:

  • About 10% of North American Holsteins are BB.
  • North American Jerseys have a significantly higher percent BB than do Holsteins. Likely the result heavy use of two BB Jersey sires from twenty years ago.
  • Globally Brown Swiss are reported to be 35% BB.
  • Holsteins in Europe have between 15% and 23% BB
  • Water Buffalo are almost 100% BB. India, the world’s largest milk producing country, gets half its milk from Water Buffalo.

What About Current Holstein Sires?

Table 1 is the frequency of occurrence for the kappa casein genotypes for the top North American proven or most used Holstein sires.

Table 1 – Kappa Casein Genotype Profiles for North American Holstein Sires

Grouping Total Sires BB AB AA BE AE EE
Most Registered Daughters – USA* 20 2 6 4 4 4 0
Most Registered Daughters – Canada** 20 2 8 5 0 5 0
Top Proven TPI Sires *** 20 4 8 6 1 1 0
Top Proven NM$ Sires *** 20 2 7 6 2 3 0
Top Proven CM$ Sires *** 20 2 6 6 2 4 0
Top Proven LPI Sires *** 20 6 6 5 0 3 0
Top Proven Pro$ Sires *** 20 6 6 6 1 1 0
Average (%)   17% 34% 26% 7% 16% 0%

* For time period two weeks prior to April 03, 2017
** Based on registrations in 2016
*** April 2017 Proofs

Some points that should be noted from this table include:

  • The sires in Table 1 have a higher occurrence of BB (17%) than in the general cow population (10%).
  • There are no EE sires but the 16% level of AE should concern breeders and A.I studs when it comes to cheese firmness and lost potential yield in the future.
  • The frequency of BB & AB is higher in the Canadian sire proof groupings than in other groupings.
  • The overall 38% gene frequency of the B allele gives hope that genetic progress to eliminating E and reducing the A allele should be possible in the not too distant future.

Some BB daughter proven sires that topped or were near the top of the groupings in Table 1 are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 –  Leading BB Daughter Proven Sires

Sire NAAB Code Sire Stack Rank
Aikman 250HO01043 Snowman x Baxter x Goldwyn #2 LPI, #20 Pro$
Aikosnow 200HO03914 Snowman x Baxter x Goldwyn #4 Pro$, #14 LPI
Balisto 29HO16714 Bookem x Watson x Oman #20 TPI
Bob 7HO11752 Bookem x Oman x Manat #8 TPI
Camaro 250HO01109 Epic x Freddie x Lucky Star #9 LPI, #19 Pro$
Donatello 7HO11525 Robust x Planet x Elegant #14 US Registered, #14 CM$, #17 NM$
Dragonheart 7HO12111 Epic x Planet x Elegant #1 Pro$, #4 LPI
Facebook 200HO03753 MOM x Airraid x Shottle #20 CAN Registered
Impression 200HO00560 Socrates x Potter x Durham #1 CAN Registered
Living 200HO06573 Epic x MOM x Shottle #12 Pro$, #19 LPI
Punch 7HO11207 Boxer x Oman x Manat #13 Pro$, #18 LPI
Rookie 7HO11708 Bookem x Bronco x Shottle #9 TPI
Trenton 7HO13094 Sterling x Robust x Planet #9 CM$, #12 NM$

One BB genomically evaluated sire is in the top registered USA sire grouping in Table 1:

  • Jedi                       (7HO13250)                             (Montross x Supersire x Bookem)                #8 US Registered

What About Genomic Sires?

With over half of the semen being used coming from genomically evaluated sires it is important to consider this category. In some herds, only genomic sires are used. However, to summarize the kappa casein genotype frequency for this group is not reasonable as many of the top sires on the April 2017 listings are too young to have semen available yet. As well the usual cautions that The Bullvine gives apply do not overuse any one genomically evaluated sire as their indexes range from 55% to 75% REL. Moreover, take into consideration the future inbreeding coefficient of these sires as a breeder may already have those sires close up in their animals’ sire stacks.

Some genomically evaluated Holstein and Jersey sires that are BB for kappa casein that are worthy of breeder consideration include:

Table 3 – High Ranking BB Genomic Evaluated Sires

Sire NAAB Code Sire Stack          CM$          NM$      TPI/JPI          LPI         Pro$
Holstein              
Achiever 29HO18296 Yoder x Altafrido x Robust 1062 1023 2788 3332 2902
AltaCraig 11HO11749 Stoic x Supersire x Massey 842 806 2643 3188 2498
AltaForever 11HO11821 Silver x Freddie x Obrian 774 746 2642 3313 2767
Baylor 551HO03419 Delta x Bob x Uno 874 846 2735 3379 2722
Cam 7HO13592 Jedi x Moonray x Bookem 893 876 2727 3263 2709
Cardinals 200HO10668 Yoder x McCutchen x Robust 804 785 2682 3108 2155
Galahad 200HO10755 Penmanship x Jacey x McCutchen 732 678 2636 3377 2695
McGuffey 551HO03350 Montross x Robust x Mac 834 820 2683 3199 2657
Medley 29HO18343 Yoder x Balisto x O-Style 986 966 2779 3447 2962
Powerfull-PP 224HO04510 Powerball-P x Supersire x Colt-P 670 635 2462 2962 2225
Selfie 224HO04273 Supershot x Aikman x Larson 749 734 2561 3231 2561
Yale 7HO13328 Yoder x Altafrido x Robust 836 824 2683 3286 2654
Jersey              
AltaBlitz 11JE01320 Axis x Kilowatt x Karbala 619 593 173 1803 1701
Charmer 29JE04009 Chili x Dividend x T-Bone 630 588 178 2010 1824
Halt 29JE03989 Harris x Hendrix x Redhot 664 628 187 1911 1744
Joyride 200JE10011 Rufus x Paramunt x First Prize 152 139 48 2014 1712
Torpedo 250JE01456 Santana-P x Fastrack x Nathan 408 390 118 1823 1514
Tyrion 203JE01632 Hulk x Action 782 736 231 1755 1587

Take Home Ideas

The Bullvine offers the following ideas for breeders and breeding industry people to consider:

  • Cheese Making: In the future, it is entirely possible that cheese processors will not buy milk from Holstein herds that cannot guarantee that their cows are at least a high percentage are BB. Jersey herds and totally BB Holstein herds are likely to be paid a premium for this milk.
  • Niche or Mainstream: In the next five years breeding to increase the percent of BB females will be niche. However, as more and more milk is used to make cheese selection for the B allele and away from the E allele is likely to be mainstream. Selecting sires on total protein without regards to the kappa casein profile of those sires should become a practice from the past.
  • Breeding Animals: Breeders and breeding organizations would be well advised to commence selecting for the B allele when it comes to sire and ET donor selection. An achievable objective would be for A.I. studs to only enter BB and AB bulls into stud starting in 2019. Breeders are advised not to flush any females that are EE, AE and perhaps even BE starting in 2019 or before. Breeders need to ask their semen sales reps for a sire’s kappa casein profile before buying semen. Bull kappa casein profiles are not included in CDCB or CDN files but are most often included in A.I. stud electronic bull files or hard copy catalogs.
  • Research: More research is taking place in many countries of the impact of kappa casein genotype on cheese production. At the University of California (Davis) there are major projects underway on how to use genetic engineering to eliminate the E allele and to fast track changing Holsteins into being BB.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

One characteristic, like kappa casein, cannot rule the breeding, milk production and milk processing industries. However, with a higher and higher percentage of dairy cows’ milk being used to make cheese, breeding for animals with the BB kappa casein genotype can no longer be ignored or thought not to be important. Breeders are advised to ask their semen suppliers for the kappa casein profiles of sires before they purchase semen. Starting immediately sires with EE and AE profiles should be avoided and if the semen is already in the tank then even throwing it out may make good business sense. Because producing females that are EE or AE will delay when premiums may be possible for milk sold for making cheese.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Genetics

Go to a commercial dairy cattle sales barn, anywhere in the world, if you want to get the low down on what successful milk producers want in the physical traits of the cows that they bid on.

At one time, you would have heard that udders were #1. However, with conformation progress, udders have been significantly improved and have been lifted to hock level in mature cows. It is likely that feet and legs are now #1 when it comes to selection. But do these breeders have good information on which to select for mobility?

Do Breeds Care about Commercial?

That’s a fair question. Do Holstein breed organizations care about what commercial dairy people want the conformation of their cows to be? The answer is, “Apparently; they don’t care!”, as proven by the fact that stature, height at shoulder, depth of rear rib and excessive angularity get an extra reward by type classification programs the world over.  This state of affairs is not surprising since type classification programs around the world have been modeled after the US and Canadian systems, where marketing often far outranks animal improvement in the use made of the information.

Other breeds may not be as obsessed with these ‘pretty’ traits, but they still want them.

Holstein US has acknowledged that there are strong positive correlations between stature and final class and stature and udder composite but, so far, it is an acknowledgment, not a plan to change. Why is that? Could it be that tradition overrules what the cows of the future need to be?

In Canada, Holstein Canada type classifies all the dairy breeds, so the other breeds will get the Holstein goal of tall cows, by proximity, if for no other reason.

I leave the final answer to The Bullvine readers to say if breeds really do care about the conformation of cows in commercial dairy breeders’ herds.

Commercial Dairy Breeders’ Needs

The Bullvine addressed this question in the article, Are You Breeding For The Correct Conformation To Produce The Greatest Lifetime Profit? From our discussion with the three breeders in preparing that article the take home message on conformation we got was:

  • The current ideal cows for breeds are not their ideal cow for conformation
  • Stature is a detriment, not an asset
  • Udders need to be what robots can milk
  • With cows milked 3x (or even 4-5x in robots) udders don’t need to be large
  • Mobility and no maintenance, not feet & leg structure, is what is needed

The Bullvine has produced other related articles on ideal commercial cow conformation including She Ain’t Pretty She Just Milks That Way and What’s Needed In Type Beyond Udders, Feet, And Legs?

So, if breed type classification programs are not concerned about serving the commercial dairy breeders when it comes to conformation evaluation what alternatives are there?

What Alternatives Are There?

Here are some alternatives to using the current type classification programs available to commercial dairy breeders:

  1. Stop classifying
  2. Stop breeding for conformation
  3. Ask breeds to immediately change the programs
  4. Ask breeds to initiate a program that only collects descriptive/linear traits on key traits
  5. Only use the information that A.I. or other companies collect for conformation

Do any of these work for you?

A.I. Caught in the Middle

At one time, some A.I. companies collected their own conformation information, and they published the breeding tendencies of their bulls.

However, for approximately forty years A.I. companies have supported and used the results from the type classification programs to select young bulls and promote their sires’ daughters.

Unfortunately, the kicker is that high PTAT or CONF are not correlated with high lifetime yields in milk producing herds.  A.I.’s are therefore caught. They use information that their primary customers do not see the benefit of having.  

This trend is also seen in the new wellness traits introduced by Zoeits.  For many commercial breeders the current CDCB official evaluations that included parentage, production, reproduction, health and type data was not accurately predicting the actual lifetime profitability of their animals.  Zoetis used on farm data that was not typically used or accepted by CDCB to introduce mastitis, lameness, metritis, retained placenta, displaced abomasum, and ketosis traits.  (Read more: The Complete Guide to Understanding Zoetis’ New Wellness Traits – CLARIFIDE® Plus and Can you breed a healthier cow?

What about Electronic Imaging?

Today with new exciting and very useful technology coming out almost monthly, why not consider something for electronically capturing animal conformation at the farm level. Surely, it’s possible.

I can see it now! A camera in the milking parlor or milking stall that snaps multiple pictures or records a video of animals. The images are uploaded to a data base where special software does the analysis. In parlors, it would probably work best in exit lanes where cows could be funneled through in single file. With single box robots, it could be done just after the cow is prepped.

“Not possible” some would say. Electronic imaging works in every other industry so, why couldn’t it work for cattle conformation evaluation? Of course, there will be naysayers, but there are always those people in the world. If it is not breed ‘approved’ so what? If it does the job to help with animal improvement, nothing else is needed.

The newest generic software in this area is very versatile, and it learns quickly. The software initially uses experts to give it “lessons,” but then it begins to build on those lessons. For this, a cow’s ID would be linked to her performance, and health data and a database would soon be created to connect the dots between “physical” traits and performance and/or health data. Some software is already in development in this area (i.e. lameness), but there are other great possibilities for the future.

By the way, this type of a system was talked about twenty years ago by breeds, but it was nixed as it presented the possibility of eliminating or redefining classifiers’ jobs. Breed organizations were not prepared to accept that technology could replace human judgment.  Politics won out over cost, service and animal improvement. Today I feel that more consideration needs to be given to the opportunity for more accurately capturing data and enhancing assessments using traits information from all traits, not just conformation traits.

What Evaluations would be Possible?

The list could, in time, be long but to start with here are a few:

  • Udder depth and udder cleft
  • Teat length and teat placement
  • Udder attachments
  • Feet, Pasterns, and Legs
  • Mobility (video or series of pictures)
  • Thurl location, Slope of Rump,
  • Stature, Body width, and depth

What else could happen?

In time, such an automated system would be able to decide how best to evaluate and combine the data captured. If we limited that data to only certain traits we would not get the advantage of artificial intelligence from the software and imaging system. The equipment could take 1000 images on each pass and then scrutinize them to match body parts up to performance and health traits.  A trained machine would be very quick, accurate and cost effective.

Commercial breeders would have more data than they ever imagined possible. Furthermore, a common software and data system could be used worldwide so that dairy cattle improvement organizations could easily share data. Organizations could focus on providing breeders with accurate information and avoid the expense of harmonization.

It could even go further. Going beyond only cows to doing heifers could be helpful for all non-mammary traits, as well as to monitor structural development. The data could even be used on young calves to match genomic data.

Who Would Do This?

To start with, it would take some venture capital for research and development. After that, it could be any interested party, independently or in collaboration with others. In short, it would be individuals or organizations that saw a benefit to having accurate, unbiased conformation evaluations for genetic indexing and animal mating purposes.

It could be an add-on to services offered by milk recording, breed organizations, A.I. companies, milking equipment companies or animal health companies. Perhaps it could even be a company like Google.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Breeders need relevant and accurate evaluations and indexes for making the best possible mating decisions for their herds. Much of the current information for conformation supplied by breed type classification programs is not suited to the needs of commercial dairy cattle breeders. Alternative means for evaluating and capturing cow and heifer conformation data needs to be given serious consideration.

 

 

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

 

 

Comments (0)

The President of the United States benchmarked 100 days on Saturday, April 29th. Throughout the weekend, there was a flurry of analysis, assessment, and judgemental summations.  The hope is to clarify what the future holds and if it will be productive.

Although we can easily get wrapped up in the drama of a new presidency, it is important that our dairy livelihood takes a serious opportunity with each calf to set the stage for a lifetime of production. While a President may recover from setbacks or early missteps taken in his administration, the future health and productivity of your dairy cows depends on what happens to your calves during those first three months. There are no referendums, replays or recalls in calf rearing.

It’s Okay to be Unique.  But Protocols Must Be in Place.

Every successful dairy sets up protocols.  To have every opportunity for success, you must have a standard to compare to. The ideal is that calf protocols are not only posted but that there are regular training and review sessions for all those involved in this role. We have all heard those directions many times. The difference between success and slipping into failure is that successful dairies have a “NO Tolerance” for less than perfect compliance.

Don’t Let a Difficult Calving Dictate the Whole 100 Days and the Future!

Every dairy operation has had to deal with an unusually difficult calving. Sometimes unforeseen environmental challenges before, during and after calving have an impact. The calving itself may result in malformations. Any or all of these can all negatively affect the vigor and progress during the first few days of the calf’s life. Proper observation and care protocols must be in place in order to survive the uphill battle of getting the calf off to the best start.  This is no place for a survival of the fittest attitude.  Use every intervention available to overcome these initial hurdles. For just two examples, every calf handler should be aware that calves are often prone to diarrhea and navel infection during this period.  The calf should receive every possible attention to treat these challenges during first days of life.

Don’t Accept Less than Perfect

If you’re willing to accept less tan the best, in the beginning, be prepared to end with less profit too!  For example, where calf protocol says, “move to a clean and comfortably bedded hutch” …. a hutch that has not been completely cleaned … with bleach … after the last occupant is NOT the place where a newborn calf should be placed.  In the first twelve hours of life, a new calf needs two bottles of high-quality colostrum (the sooner, the better), proper vaccinations and placement in a clean, comfortably bedded hutch with access to fresh feed and water.  Providing one or two of these, will not get your calves off to a start that will positively impact the future of your dairy herd.

No Tolerance for “the Easier way.”

In the first days of calf rearing, familiarity can gradually backslide into slipshod attention to detail.  Providing fresh water, calf starter and one bottle of milk twice daily is an absolute that cannot be done to the highest level of timing and cleanliness.  It is crucial that careful inspections of the eyes, nose, ears and manure are done every morning.  Skipping any of these steps is not optional. It is dangerous to think that a routine overview will catch problems.  Without the certainty that the procedures and inspections can be 100% relied upon, there is no way to make an informed decision, if a problem does arise.  The easier way may seem to help staff but, eventually, there will be longer hours dealing with more difficult problems.

Time, Space and Repetition

I am not going to print a list of calf rearing protocols.  I am not raising calves. I am (maybe) raising awareness.  My excuses of time, different goals, and space are the ones that are holding me back. What holds you back from having a fully operational calf rearing protocol that is posted in your barn and adhered to every day? Excuses don’t fill milk buckets.  Poor calf rearing protocols can actually empty them!  

You Must Put it in Writing

As each step of the plan is noted, posted and carried out the beginning of each stage is the most crucial.  With every change in routine, the observation of calf responses is key to ensuring that the transition is smooth and healthy.  Once again steps ensuring cleanliness of hutches must be scrupulously adhered to.

What Impact do Proper Calf Protocols Produce in the First 100 days and Beyond?

  • Increased growth in calves. Growth rates during the first 60 days of life determine the future production potential of a dairy cow. A slow growth during these first 60 days of life cannot be compensated by speeding up the growth later in life.
  • Healthy calves equal Healthy cows: Well-grown dairy cows produce high quantities of high-quality milk. It’s too late to question calf rearing protocols when the cows are in the dairy line, and you see less than expected
  • Early Treatment and Prevention are the goals: Worse than poor production is having to face health issues. A serious episode of, for example, scours may kill the calf, but even if it survives, the chances it will meet expectations with regard to future milk production are slim.

Where Would You Start, If You Were Going to Do It Wrong?

The 24/7 nature of dairying sometimes puts you in a position where repetition makes it hard to see what it is that is preventing success. We can all analyze political gaffes and missteps because our spectator viewpoint gives us a different perspective.  Try distancing yourself from your own calf-rearing operation.  What would a reporter, interviewer or competitive peer point out as being “wrong” if they inspected your calf operation?

Are any of these “Don’t Do’s” present in your calf operation?

Temperature Stress: Too cold or too Hot.

Wet:    Wet calves. Wet bedding

Poor hygiene: Fecal or other contamination of milk, feed or water

Non-existent or poor air flow: Are calves exposed to draftiness or poor ventilation.

Lack of attention to detail: No posted protocols.  No recorded observations.  

Exposure to germs and bacteria: irregular or haphazard cleaning. Exposure to other sick animals or by feeding or handling of young calves after older animals

Mishandling of unhealthy calves: Not isolating calves that show any sign of disease.

Are You Making Your Young Calves Sick?

Even with the best intentions, you could be setting yourself up for failure by the way you carry out your calf care.

Here are five things you don’t want to make part of your calf raising routine.

  1. Feeding older calves before feeding and handling the youngest calves. This could spread infections from the one group to the other.
  2. Feeding unpasteurized milk and waste milk containing antibiotics
  3. Allowing calves to drink milk in an incorrect position. Calves drink best by sucking from a bottle where the milk is placed higher than the teat so the calf sucks more naturally.
  4. Rapid changes of milk type and concentration of milk replacer
  5. Using milk replacer not adapted for young calves

These two steps could make a tremendous difference in your calf-rearing success.

  1. Check calf health at least twice daily and re- cord, inform and act immediately on issues
  2. House sick or weak calves separately until they have recovered and are vigorous

A Calf’s First Weeks Shape the Cow’s Future

The first 100 days is where even the most seasoned dairy managers -and Presidents – make a lot of critical missteps. It’s too easy to manage by getting the job done rather than by managing the results. When you catch the signals as early as possible, there is a chance to make corrections so that the future isn’t compromised.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Make sure that your first 100 dairy days don’t close opportunities. Whether you’re presidential or not, it is much more than simply fulfilling promises. It is all about fulfilling potential.

 

 

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

 

 

Comments (0)
Categories : Management

Send this to friend