<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] FYI--long response
Ridecamp@Endurance.Net

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:30:53 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: Re: [RC] [RC] Moonlight in VT
  • - Linda Parrish
  • Prev by Date: Re: [RC] FYI
  • - Rides 2 Far

    Re: [RC] FYI--long response - Lisa Redmond


    The whole point behind the use of ET is to increase the ability of superior
    females to influence the gene pool, and it is most effective when females
    with a wide number of desirable traits are used as donors.  Until its
    development, female contribution to the gene pool in single-offspring
    species was limited by the number of offspring they could produce within
    their lifetime, and most of these species are limited to 1 gestation a year.
    This means that while the male in a herd might produce 20-30 offspring in a
    given year, the individual females each only added their genes to the pool
    once.  This is why more rapid improvements in the pork and poultry
    industries occurred due to maternal contribution as compared to beef and
    dairy industries until ET was developed.    For the same reason, ET is a bad
    idea in companion and recreational animals.  I think there are too many dog,
    cat, and horse breeders who make decisions based on pleasing judges, and not
    with the best long-term interests of either breed or species in mind.
    Judging is driven by fads, and breeding decisions based on fads are
    dangerous.  I think breeders driven by fads are going to be more prone to
    making bad decisions as far as the overall quality of the gene pool is
    concerned.  Too many judging fads are surface-based--despite the fact that
    we preach conformation as being a key issue in breeding decisions, too many
    breedings are still driven by halter class placings.    Racehorse breeders
    seem to be driven by a quest for the ultimate purse or the winning a certain
    race, rather than lifetime performance.  When people breed for these goals,
    they tend to focus on single traits to the exclusion of other important
    traits, with a greater chance of perpetuating dangerous genes within
    bloodlines.  That's why we have so many horses with HyPP and neonatal
    isoerythrolysis and weak legs among other problems.  For cats and dogs
    insert your genetic problem of choice.  Until breeders in these species are
    willing to accept slow steady progress resulting in healthier animals
    overall instead of searching for the next star, ET has no place in those
    particular industries.
    
    The ET issue addressed, I feel the need to step up to bat for my industry a
    little (I'm a dairy nutritionist, even though I'd rather do horse nutrition!
    LOL):
    
    Kathy has mentioned the problems associated with fat levels in the dairy
    industry, Holsteins in particular. I'm not sure where she gets a breed
    average for Holsteins at 2-2.5% butterfat.  The literature I have suggests
    otherwise:  the 1999 breed averages for butterfat (according to Michael
    Hutjens, University of Illinois, 2000 Western Dairy Management Conference
    proceedings) were Ayrshire=3.86%, Brown Swiss=3.95%, Guernsey=4.42%,
    Holstein=3.66%, and Jersey =4.57%).  The Holstein is the most prolific breed
    in terms of milk production (thus the lower average butterfat level).
    Butterfat and milk protein percentages are functions of nutrition,
    production level, and stage of production more than they are genetics in
    many respects.  Jersey milk is high in butterfat not only because of
    genetics but also because they are not physically capable of producing large
    volumes of milk.  In addition, they are different enough genetically from
    the larger breeds that certain restrictions in feeding them have to be taken
    into consideration.
    
    Then there's animal health to consider.  High butterfat levels aren't
    necessarily a good thing.  If a cow is less than 50 days in milk and her
    butterfat percentage is greater than 1 percentage point over breed average,
    this is an indication that she's losing too much weight-some weight loss is
    expected until a fresh cow gets to full feed intake, but the amount of
    weight loss necessary to produce that level of butterfat is inappropriate.
    During peak (50-150 days in milk) production is when the lowest butterfat
    occurs, and in high producing Holsteins 3.0% is considered a minimum
    acceptable level.  From 150 days on, the goal is to have them around the
    breed average.
    
    Just for kicks, I pulled up an old feed intake analysis file from a Holstein
    herd I used to work with for illustration purposes.  For the week in
    question (first week in July), there were 3678 cows in the milk string.
    They were producing an average of 79.47 lbs/cow, with BF=3.42% and Protein =
    3.19%.  Base milk price was $13/cwt.  The adjusted milk price (based on
    premiums for milk components) was $12.93.  Why?  Because their milk company
    docks them if butterfat drops below 3.5%, and protein below 3.2%.  The milk
    company in question is the largest dairy in the valley, and it's a cheese
    market.  Obviously, component minimums in Class I fluid milk markets are
    different, because the milk goes to a different use.  In Pennsylvania, there
    is no minimum for butterfat, but there is for protein.   Breeding for 2-2.5%
    butterfat would obviously not be in a dairyman's best interests.
    
    I hear someone asking the inevitable question:  Why is this herd below breed
    average?  Simple.  The herd average on any given test date or bulk tank
    collection day is determined by the lactation profile of the herd. Average
    DIM for this herd tended to run somewhere around 170-175, so that means
    butterfat percentage should be on the rise for most of the herd as the
    majority of cows were coming off peak lactation.  Also, breed averages are
    based on average butterfat production per lactation, and this data was from
    only one week out of the lactation.
    
    Are there animals that only manage 2-2.5% on test day?  Sure--during certain
    seasons depending on where they are in their lactation and bases on
    nutritional issues or testing errors.   Cows that don't manage to maintain a
    certain minimum butterfat are usually culled, unless there are a number of
    other criteria which make her worth keeping despite her butterfat potential.
    
    Then there is the issue of keeping bulls.  They are management problems,
    pure and simple.  For every well-behaved Cuddles out there, there are many
    more that would willingly run a human down.  Bulls are simply too
    unpredictable.  As a result, getting and keeping farm help that are willing
    to work around them is difficult.  A bull is only capable of breeding a
    certain number of cows in a month without fertility decreasing
    significantly.  That means on these large dairies AI (and ET, sometimes) is
    the method of choice.  Calves are required for cows to produce milk, after
    all.  Some keep cleanup bulls, some simply rely on keeping good AT techs,
    but the only places you see bulls kept as the sole breeder on dairy farms
    these days are small herds.  Even then, some of the Amish and Mennonites are
    beginning to embrace AI technology.
    
    Just my $.02 worth.
    
    Lisa (Stepping off the tack box now)
    
    
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
     Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
     Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    
    

    Replies
    Re: [RC] FYI, Magnumsmom