Before your next semen order, read this: the traits adding $2,678 per cow aren’t the ones on the show posters.

Even “on vacation,” Ed Bos reaches for a broom. The breeder behind 415 Excellent Holsteins and three Master Breeder shields at Bosdale Farms in Cambridge, Ontario, is pitching in at Bons Holsteins in Ottoland, Netherlands — the operation of Nico Bons, who trained under Ed as an 18-year-old in 1994 and has since bred 127 homebred Excellents and won the 2022 European Championship at Cremona. The mentorship started with clean barns. Three decades later, it still does. (Read more about Ed’s influence on Nico)

Ed Bos has been picking bulls the same way since he was a teenager at Bosdale Farms in Cambridge, Ontario: udders, feet, legs, and rumps. Not stature. Not dairy character. The rest of the industry spent fifty years rewarding tall, sharp cows — 415 Excellent-classified Holsteins and three Holstein Canada Master Breeder shields later, nobody’s calling it stubbornness anymore.

“We have always believed that breeding for a well-balanced high-type cow achieves the highest profitability,” the Bos family says. “An excellent cow is a good benchmark for longevity. We see our profitability per cow being maximized with cows that continue to keep themselves in the herd.” (Read more: Bosdale Farms: The Legacy Behind Canada’s Most Excellent Cows)

Then Dr. Jeffrey Bewley’s team at Holstein Association USA matched classification records against lifetime production data for over one million cows. The functional traits Ed Bos built his herd on — the ones that don’t win Grand Champions — turned out to be worth $2,678 per cow in lifetime revenue. The tall cows look great. The right cows pay.

What Did a Million Cows Actually Reveal?

Bewley brought a bias to the research — and he’s been honest about it. He figured conformation probably wouldn’t matter as much as breeders believed. Type traits felt to be softer than genomic predictions and production data.

His team — Lindsey Worden, Daren Sheffield, and Bewley — presented “A Million Reasons Why Conformation Matters” at the 16th Western Dairy Management Conference in March 2023, with the full report published at holsteinusa.com/typematters. They split over one million U.S. Holsteins spanning nearly 20 years into quartiles by first-lactation final score. Top quartile (82–89) versus bottom quartile (76 and below).

The gaps weren’t subtle:

• 1,537 lb more first-lactation 305-day energy-corrected milk
• 13,389 lb more lifetime ECM — approximately $2,678 in gross milk revenue per cow, using Holstein USA’s long-term milk price of $20/cwt
• 142 more lifetime days in milk — nearly five extra months producing

The top-quartile cows didn’t reach higher peaks. They stayed longer. And the linear traits that kept them milking — udders and feet-and-legs — weren’t the traits that make classifiers or show judges stop and stare. They’re the ones Ed Bos has been quietly selecting for since the early 1970s.

Which Traits Keep Cows in the Herd — and Which Push Them Out?

If you’ve pulled your culling records and wondered why some of your highest-scored heifers don’t make it to third lactation, the answer is probably hiding in which traits earned those scores.

This isn’t a single study from a single country. Kern et al. (2015) studied Brazilian Holsteins born from 1990 to 2008. Setati et al. (2004) analyzed 34,201 cows in Southern Africa. Török et al. (2021) tracked 17,717 Hungarian Holstein-Friesians. The udder-trait findings held across all three:

Sources: Kern et al. (2015), Scientia Agricola; Setati et al. (2004), Tropical Animal Health and Production; Török et al. (2021), Animals.

Kern’s data is particularly telling: udder depth showed the highest positive genetic correlation with longevity at 0.31. Direct selection for longevity is painfully slow — heritability sits at just 0.05–0.07.

But udder depth is more heritable (0.23–0.26), measurable in first lactation, and provides a backdoor to longevity that direct selection can’t deliver efficiently.

Setati’s Southern African data reinforced the picture: genetic correlations between longevity and udder traits ranged from 0.22 to 0.48. The only notable negative correlations were with body depth (−0.15) and fore teat length (−0.07).

Török’s Hungarian data added the combination dimension. Three trait pairings showed the strongest effects on longevity (all at p < 0.0001): wide-chested, deep-bodied cows had the highest culling risk; weak fore udders paired with deep udders were the worst mammary combination; and very angular cows with low rear udder height showed the poorest survival.

When extreme angularity met a low rear udder, the result was worse than either trait alone predicted.

Brazil, Southern Africa, and Hungary. Same answer. The cow that stays isn’t the tallest — she’s the one with the best mammary and the strongest foundation.

THE STATURE TRAP: Why Your UDC Score May Be Lying to You

Here’s the part that doesn’t fit on a breed association poster.

There’s a roughly 50% genetic correlation between stature and udder composite. If a bull is +3.00 for Stature, his UDC is likely inflated by the math, not necessarily by better-attached udders.

His daughters might score well for UDC simply because they’re tall, not because their mammary systems are functionally superior.

Nate Zwald demonstrated this at the 130th National Holstein Convention in St. Charles, Illinois, in 2015, when he served as general manager of Alta Genetics’ U.S. division. “It shouldn’t take a tall cow to have a good udder or feet and legs,” Zwald told the audience. “The correlation is still too high.”

Take three hypothetical sires — identical for production and health but differing by one point each on overall type, feet-and-legs, and udders. Their TPI rankings? Approximately 4th, 100th, and 1,000th.

The top-ranked bull didn’t necessarily sire better-uddered daughters — he sired taller daughters, and the correlation pushed his composites up.

“We think we are selecting for better UDC and FLC, but the unintended effect is that we are also making bigger cows,” Zwald said.

Holstein USA has tried to address this — the UDC formula includes a negative weighting for stature (−0.20) to offset the correlation partially. And in December 2024, they updated the stature linear scale from 51″–61″ to 55″–65″ to better reflect the current population.

Those fixes reduce the distortion. They don’t eliminate a 50% genetic correlation.

The fix on your end: Stop trusting UDC as a single number. Pull it apart. Look at udder depth, fore attachment, and rear attachment height individually. A bull with moderate stature and genuinely strong udder depth will keep daughters in your herd longer than a tall bull whose UDC is propped up by frame.

The Dairy Character Problem Nobody Wants to Name

And then there’s dairy character — the trait that’s quietly doing its own damage.

We’ve confused “sharpness” with “efficiency” for too long. Dechow et al. (2003, Journal of Dairy Science) documented a −0.73 genetic correlation between Body Condition Score and Dairy Form in first-lactation Holsteins. That’s not a mild tendency. Cows that score high for angular dairy character are genetically predisposed to carry less body condition, which elevates metabolic disease risk and hammers fertility.

The industry is starting to catch on. Kevin Jorgensen, senior Holstein sire analyst at Select Sires, shared in early 2025: “We’ve been focusing on moderating stature for over a decade, and there’s definitely a huge demand in the market for shorter cows.” Emily Bosch of Holstein Association USA acknowledged the shift: “We have also seen trends in the show ring start to align more towards selecting cattle that can be productive in real-world environments, including an increased emphasis on cows of more moderate stature.”

The April 2025 NM$ revision made it official. Body weight composite now carries a −11% emphasis — an active penalty on cow size. The show-ring cow and the commercially profitable cow have been diverging for years. The indexes finally say so out loud.

So when someone tells you a sharp, angular heifer “has great dairy character,” ask the follow-up: Does she have the body condition to transition well, or did we just breed a cow who looks the part but can’t hold flesh when she needs it most?

Does Body Depth Actually Drag Down Profit?

Alcantara et al. (2022) at the University of Guelph put the economics in black and white. They analyzed 9,351 proven Holstein bulls in the Canadian Journal of Animal Science:

• Body depth = the most negative conformation contributor to Pro$
• Heel depth = the most positive conformation contributor to Pro$
• The model explained 72.5% of the variance in Pro$

The two conformation traits that move Canada’s profit index the most push it in opposite directions. Body depth — the trait the show ring rewards — is a drag on profit. Heel depth — the trait nobody talks about at ringside — is a profit driver.

Can You See This on Real Farms?

Last fall’s CDCB Industry Meeting at World Dairy Expo drew nearly 600 attendees in person and online. At the October 1, 2025, panel “Cows Can Live Longer — Are We Letting Them? ” three producers brought the receipts:

Glenn Kline — Y Run Farms, Troy, Pennsylvania — 1,200 cows. His family started genomic testing in 2011, and Kline credits that as the single farm change that most impacted longevity. When the farm expanded three years ago and bought outside animals, the homebred vs. purchased gap was impossible to ignore: “Boy, that’s made a huge difference in our herd. We did expand here three years ago, and we had to buy some animals in. There was really a significant difference with our original animals lasting longer.”

Eric Grotegut — Grotegut Dairy, Newton, Wisconsin — 3,500 cows. Named IDFA and Dairy Herd Managementmagazine’s 2025 Innovative Dairy Farmer of the Year, he’s targeting a 25% replacement rate. “Fifteen to 25 years ago, it seemed like I was selling cows every day; lameness, mastitis, and pneumonia… there was something all the time. Now, most cull cows are one day a week. They don’t have to go [as early].”

Kristen Metcalf — Glacier Edge Dairy, Milton, Wisconsin — approximately 750 cows, predominantly registered Jerseys. The Metcalfs built the farm from scratch in 2017, starting with 300 Jerseys and doubling the herd after completing a barn expansion in October 2023. Metcalf stresses matching longevity genetics to each farm’s management: “We have different dairy farms, we have different preferences, and we have these great new technologies and tools that let us filter for the traits we want. Why not leave them as long as the data is there?”

Three different operations — 750 to 3,500 cows, Jerseys and Holsteins, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. None of them talked about stature. All of them talked about functional traits and management.

The Replacement Math That Makes This Urgent

The cost of getting longevity wrong has never been higher.

Lactanet mapped the “lifetime profit curve” for the typical Canadian Holstein. According to Allison Fleming and Brian Van Doormaal, the average Holstein reached breakeven — complete repayment of all costs incurred from birth — at 40 months of age, typically during her second lactation. Every lactation after that is where the money stacks.

Pro$ data makes the sire-selection piece concrete. Relative to daughters of middle-ranked sires, 7.4% more daughters of top Pro$ sires stayed in the herd for six years, while 6.0% fewer daughters of bottom Pro$ sires made it that far.

Among surviving daughters, the top group generated an extra $1,300 in accumulated profit compared to the average. The bottom group earned $1,200 less. A $2,500 swing — top to bottom — from one generation of sire decisions.

And replacement costs? In Wisconsin, dairy replacement prices jumped sharply from October 2023 to October 2024, moving from $1,990 to $2,850, according to USDA data. By July 2025, USDA’s Agricultural Prices data tracked by CoBank showed the national average had climbed to $3,010 per head — a 164% jump from the April 2019 low of $1,140.

Top dairy heifers in California and Minnesota auction barns were bringing upward of $4,000. Penn State Extension’s heifer cost analysis (2016–2021 FINBIN data) found average rearing costs of $1,709 per head for Midwest farms and $2,034 for Pennsylvania farms, with a range of $1,411 to $2,301 depending on efficiency.

The Barn Math: What Half a Lactation Is Worth

That’s roughly 17 fewer heifers to buy or raise every year. Over five years, approximately 85 fewer replacements. At $3,010 per head, you’re looking at more than $255,000 in avoided replacement purchases — and that doesn’t touch the extra milk revenue from cows producing in their higher-yielding third and fourth lactations.

Grotegut’s 25% replacement target is exactly this math in action.

The Dutch show what a national commitment to longevity looks like at scale. In CRV’s 2022–2023 milk recording statistics, culled Dutch herdbook cows averaged 38,327 kg (84,500 lb) of lifetime milk with a lifespan of 2,255 days— both record highs.

Can a VG-87 Cow Outproduce an EX-90?

The Holstein USA study didn’t say type doesn’t matter — it said the opposite. Functional conformation is directly tied to lifetime production. Classification works.

But the industry has a stature addiction. Two cows can both classify VG-85 and have completely different longevity prospects, depending on whether their points came from udder depth and strong attachments or from stature and angularity.

Your classification summary tells you the final score. It doesn’t tell you where the score came from — and for longevity, the source matters more than the total.

The major indexes have been shifting in this direction. The April 2025 NM$ revision boosted Feed Saved to 17.8% of total emphasis and increased fat to 31.8%. Canada’s Pro$ was designed from the start to maximize daughter profit to six years of age. Lactanet incorporated feed efficiency into LPI and Pro$ in December 2022.

The indexes aren’t perfectly aligned with the research yet — stature’s pull on composites persists — but the trajectory is clear.

Ed Bos’s approach to the semen tank is blunt: “I always use the best bulls available. The cheapest money you can invest is buying good semen.” But he’s particular about which bulls. “We will rarely use a bull that does not have a daughter proof. It takes many generations to build up a good breeding cow family, and too much is sacrificed by using a lower reliability bull.”

It’s a conservative approach. Genomic young sires offer faster genetic gain at lower cost. But Bosdale’s 415 Excellent cows and three Master Breeder shields suggest that patience pays off for herds building multi-generational cow familieslike the Portrait and Barbie lines.

If speed of genetic gain is your priority, genomics is the play. If you’re building a cow family where every generation needs to hold up, the Bos approach makes sense.

What This Means for Your Operation

• Set functional floors on every sire order — and don’t waive them. Before your next breeding cycle, establish minimums for udder depth, fore attachment, heel depth, and productive life. Don’t break them for stature or dairy character, no matter how good the index looks. The trade-off is real: pulling apart composites adds complexity to sire selection. Most of us use UDC precisely because it simplifies things. But simplicity that masks functional weakness isn’t simplicity — it’s a blind spot.
• If you sell breeding stock, run both lenses. You may need some show-type sires for marketable females — but even those bulls should carry acceptable udder depth, fore attachment, and PL above 3.0. Limit that portion to 10–15% of matings and resist the drift toward letting it take over.
• If you’re building cow families, Bosdale’s 50-year record was built on udders, feet, legs, and rumps — not stature. Genomic testing can accelerate that timeline. Kline’s Y Run Farms has seen it since 2011.
• Your 30-day action: Pull your most recent classification summary this week. Identify where your UDC and FLC averages are really coming from — stature inflation or genuine functional quality. Set minimum thresholds on your next sire order based on what you find.
• Your 90-day check: Compare your new sire shortlist to last year’s. Did your average udder depth and heel depth PTAs actually move — or did you talk yourself back into stature?
• Your 12-month audit: Compare your herd’s average lactation number this time next year. Did it move? If not, revisit your sire thresholds and ask whether the traits you’re selecting for are the ones that should disqualify bulls from your shortlist.

Key Takeaways

• If your UDC looks great but cows leave early, stature is masking weak udders and feet. Start reading the linear traits first.
• If your herd averages under 3.0 lactations, adding just half a lactation can be worth >$255,000 over five years on 300 cows.
• If you’re still chasing body depth in sire proofs, you’re paying for it twice — once in Pro$ and again in replacement costs.
• If you want banners and cows that last, cap show-type matings at 10–15% and put hard floors under udder depth, heel depth, and PL.

The Bottom Line

Ed Bos didn’t need a million-cow study to tell him what a profitable cow looks like — he just needed to look at who was still in the barn at age ten. The data has caught up to the master breeders. The question for the rest of us: Are we breeding cows for the first five minutes in the show ring, or for the five lactations that actually pay the bills?

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More

• The Traits That Should Disqualify Bulls But Often Don’t: How Genomic Selection Changed the Rules of Knockout Traits – Stop wasting capital on “paper” bulls that fail your real-world environment. This guide delivers a ruthless knockout system for sire selection, arming you with the filters needed to prioritize longevity and functional health over inflated genomic averages.
• 9.57 Million Cows, 3.9 Million Replacements: Genetics Built This Dairy Herd Paradox – and 2027 Ends It – High heifer prices aren’t a temporary spike; they’re a structural shift. This analysis breaks down the economics of the replacement paradox and reveals how to position your operation for maximum equity as 2027 approaches.
• The $8,100 Gamble on Missy, 198 Dragged Genes, and the 20-Year Breeding Blind Spot Hiding in Your Herd – Every genetic gain carries a hidden tax. This deep dive exposes how decades of milk selection accidentally “dragged” fertility genes sideways and reveals the new metrics industry mavericks use to find the high-profit cows genomics missed.

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

Classifiers and show judges evaluate and compare cow body parts for their structure according to the breed conformation scorecard and breed ideals. Yet, yield and profit focused breeders and A.I. are now selecting based on the proven science of the functionality of body parts. This Bullvine article addresses the documented facts on Holstein cows’ rumps. Which rump traits need to be left behind? Which rump related trait indexes need to be used in over ninety percent of dairy herds when selecting and mating sires?

Source: Holstein Canada

What Do Breed Ideal Rumps Look Like?

Both US and Canadian Holstein Breeds describe the ideal rumps as being long, wide, pins slightly lower than hips, neither anus or tailhead recessed, freedom from coarseness, etc. … so as to have rumps that facilitate easier calvings and that assist with improved cow fertility, healthy recovery after calving and increased cow longevity. 

But do those descriptions hold up, when it comes to what happens in the field?

Additionally, which is the correct emphasis on the rump – US at 5 point out of 100 or Canada at 12 points? In the showring it is the author’s observation that judges often place more than 20 points on the rump when giving reasons for their class placings.

The Evolution of Holstein Rumps

Very old cow pictures often show cows that were very, even extremely, sloped from hips to pins. Somewhat like what we see in today’s native wild deer populations.

By the early to mid-twentieth century the desired rump was wide, pins level with hips and tail heads between the pin bones on cows of about 53” – 55” in stature.

Then it was decided that Holstein cows needed to be taller. Much taller by the 1980’s. This tallness and the popular bloodlines seem to have brought with them narrower animals, narrower rumps or smaller pelvis openings and more difficult birthing. An added negative was that breeders wanted larger calves, feeling that larger birth size lead to larger mature animals. In fact, that is not universally the case.

Thank goodness reason is winning out for moderated stature and what size healthy calves need to be.

What Do Results Say About Today’s Ideal Rumps?

Published Canadian (CDN) genetic correlations provide information on rump traits that dairy breeders need to be aware of. These results are based on 4,182 Holstein sires proven between 2003 and 2018.

The genetic correlations to longevity (Herd Life) by the classified traits are: rump angle (0.12), pin width (-0.08), loin strength (0.04), thurl placement (0.18) and overall rump (0.15).

The genetic correlations to fertility (Daughter Fertility) by classified traits are: rump angle (0.04), pin width (-0.06), loin strength (-0.10), thurl placement (0.06) and overall rump (-0.01).

Remember that the breed societies say the ideal rumps lead to improved longevity and fertility – but with those low correlations it just isn’t so.

The conclusion this author draws is that the rump traits, as captured by the type classification programs, do not contribute positively to either longevity or fertility in Canadian Holsteins. Correlations using US data do not appear to be available on the www.

How Important Are Rumps?

How often in a cow’s lifetime can rump structure be a limiting factor?

Consider a cow that first calves at 23 months and completes four lactations and is removed from the herd at 75 months of age. Put on a functioning basis, this means she calves on four days (0.002% of her days), walks on her feet and legs for 2280 days (100% of her days), milks for 1430 days (62.7% of her days) and is dry for 150 days (6.5% of her days).

Draw your own conclusions. However for this author rump structure ranks far far behind feet and legs (foot structure, rear-legs-rear-view, flex of hock and mobility) and mammary system (depth, cleft, teat placement and attachments) when it comes to deserving attention when selecting sires to be used in herds that focus on profitably producing milk solids.

What Really Counts in Rumps?

Rumps that function best allow for quick, easy births, fast recovery of the mother and a healthy calf with minimal stress. For the dam side of this, it is best measured by farmer supplied measurements on her calving ease – Daughter Calving Ease (USA) and Daughter Calving Ability (CAN). For the calf side of this the sire’s calving ease is important – Calving Ease (USA) and Calving Ability (CAN). In the USA, CA$’s are published for animals which combines information on both calving ease and stillbirths.

The Canadian correlations for proven sires, for the study referred to above, are as follows: for longevity (Herd Life) with sire calving ability (0.25) and daughter calving ability (0.43); and for fertility (Daughter Fertility) with sire calving ability (0.14) and daughter calving ability (0.40).

By a considerable amount (2x to 10x) daughter calving ability is a superior index to all the classified rump traits in predicting longevity and fertility in Canadian Holsteins. Although farm captured data does not exist for calf health at one week of age, it is likely that daughter calving ability is at least moderately correlated to calf health and wellbeing.

Why the Fixation with Rumps?

The short answer may have two parts:

1) Tradition – when other more accurate measures were not available, then visual observation of the exterior was the best tool available; and

2) Sight line and proximity – breeders’, classifiers’ and show judges’ eyes, when viewed from the rear of an animal, are at the same level at the rump.

Take Home Messages

1. Daughter Calving Ease (DCE or DCA) is the best predictor that currently exists for the best rumps.
2. Holsteins are improving for Daughter Calving Ease, but breeders will be well rewarded for continuing to use sires that are rated above average for CA$, DCE or DCA.
3. The bull Oman was a great help for the Holstein breed being able to reduce calving difficulties.
4. AI. organizations publish CE’s and DCE’s for their sires and most no longer sample or market sires that leave calves that are born with difficulty.
5. Sire rump type indexes are not good predictors of daughter calving ease.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Current Holstein breed ideals and standards for rump structure and the emphasis placed on rumps in the type classification programs are only of quite limited value for most herds. Outside rump appearance bears little value in predicting calving ease, longevity and fertility.

Conformation evaluations need to include the functioning of the body part and not simply the appearance. Rumps could be a good place for breeds to start in revamping their type classification programs in order to remain relevant to tomorrow dairy farmers’ needs.

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

[related-posts-thumbnails]

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.

[related-posts-thumbnails]

It seems that daily there is a new EX-95 cow somewhere in the world, or a VG-89-2yr that will never see the light of day.  While in many cases these cows deserve the recognition they receive, it also seems at times that cows are getting over scored.  However, there comes a point where the animal needs to be worthy of the score, as many breeders have expressed to us here at The Bullvine, they are getting tired of watching cows get over scored.

Over the years I have seen cows get over scored for many reasons.  The most prevalent among them have been:

• Dispersal
  I see it often.  A breeder who has been a long-standing member of the dairy industry is selling out (typically because the next generation does not have the same passion in relation to the reward), and they decide to sell their Master Breeder herd.  Just before the sale they have a dispersal special classification.  During that time, there are reliably a few animals that get an extra point or two.  I am not trying to say this is totally a bad thing, as I do believe these long established breeders do deserve some level of recognition.  I just get concerned when I see cows that should be 92 to 93 points at best being bumped to 95 points.  When you put these animals beside other 95-point animals you will typically find significant difference in how they resemble the breed ideal.
• Show Results
  Just because a 2-year-old won the local county show, or a cow was All-Canadian does not mean they deserve the maximum score.  There is a difference between what shines in the show ring and what should be the 89-point 2 year old in the classification system.  I have seen cows that could not even content at the Royal or Madison go 89 points that, when you break them down, should be no higher than 87 points.  Nevertheless, since she won some show, and someone got in the classifiers’ ear this does happen.
• High Value Animals
  This is the worst one I have seen by far and the one that has the greatest impact on the breed and breed improvement.  It happens when a cow that should really be 83 points (at best) as a 2 year old gets classified 85 points, because she is one of the top index animals in the world.  Now I am sure they will get an amazing photo, but how much can you trust that?  (Read more: Dairy Marketing Code of Conduct) This is the greatest disservice the classification program can do.  These animals will now have their genetics marketed around the world. The perception of high conformation will have a greater impact than all the other biased factors combined.  Makes me think – Is Good Plus Good Enough?

All these headaches with cows being over scored reminds me of the many conversations I have had with my father, Murray Hunt, (he ran the Canadian classification program for many years) and Tom Byers, currently in charge of the classification program (Read more: Tom Byers: “That’s Classified!”).  Tom would point out to me that as a percentage there is actually just the same proportion of cows going to the extremes as their ever was.  It’s since there is more dairy cattle being classified and the power of the internet that we are seeing more of these animals. (Read more:   The Anti-Social Farmer: On The Verge of Extinction) Then Murray will add that we need classifiers to use the full range of the system in order to ensure the best results.  You see the wider the spread in scores the greater the difference in the resulting genetic evaluations.  Instead of being afraid to use the extreme scores, classifiers should actually use it more.  Both for the 89 point 2 year olds, as well as the 65-point ones.

The greater the range the more accurately the genetic evaluation system is able to identify those sires that can breed your extremes.  I think as an industry we do ourselves a disservice by having mainly a 17-point range (75-92) in final score.  In order to truly identify top animals we need to be able to spread them out as much as possible, so that we can pick the best from the rest.  It’s when we stick to the middle that we actually do the most damage to the genetic evaluation system.  When all animals are so closely scored that those animals that do sire the good ones do not rise to the top.  It’s also why classifiers should slap on the Fair-65 classification more often.  Remember classification is relative and dynamic.  A cow that might have been an 89 point 2-year-old 10 years ago might be lucky to go 85 to 87 points today.  It’s not about comparing to the past, but rather identifying the current outliers in the breed. Hence why we need to use the full range of the system.  To accurately identify the true outliers.

Now both Tom and dad would point out to me, how can you stand in a breeders barn and put a score of 65 on one of his cows and ever expect to be back there again to classify.  And I understand that. Trust me years of dad telling me stories about going into different herds and how breeders reacted to certain situations would make a great book. The bigger issues is that there is a perception challenge with using the full spectrum.  Many breeders do not want to be pay money to be told their cow is ugly. But I ask you, why do you classify in the first place?  Is it not to advance the genetics and management of your herd?  Then why do you not let the system work to it’s maximum potential?

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Type Classification has two main purposes, marketing and breed improvement.  From the marketing standpoint I can understand the benefit of over scoring some cows from time to time.  The part that worries me more is when classifiers don’t use the full range as often as possible.  Not just in overall score, but especially in the scoring of each trait as well.  The more often classifiers use the extremes the greater the breed’s rate of advancement will be.  This will help the genetic evaluation system truly identify those sires that are the best for type.  After all isn’t that why we keep score in the first place?

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

[related-posts-thumbnails]