genobulletin_02_2011

8/6/2019 genoBULLetin_02_2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/genobulletin022011 1/13

B R E E D I N G F O R B E T T E R L I V E S

2–2011>>>



2 GenoBULLetin –

EDITORIAL OFFICEChief editor:

asmus Lang-eeE-mail: [email protected]

PUBLISHERGeno- Hamar, orway

Phone: + Fax: + E-mail: [email protected]

FRONT PAGE PHOTO:

Synnøve Skogen erg in her nationaloutfit from the county of Westelemark, orway together with aorwegian ed calf after F sireHaga (). Photo. Solveig Goplen.

GRAPHIC DESIGN:www.dialecta.no

he content of genoULLetin has beenpublished in orwegian in USKPo ISS -

COMPANY

Geno Global Ltd.- Hamar, orway

MANAGING DIRECTOR:or rne Sletmoenobile: + E-mail: [email protected]

CONTENT2/2011

3 Crossbreeding; for smart and progressive dairy farmers

4 otal merit index is the best measure of longevity

6 Good calf care gives more milk

8 Genetic differences in fertility among

breeds of dairy cattle used in the United States

11 ew top sire for milk



GenoBULLetin – 3

Dairy cow survival is influenced by many factors. Non-genetic factors include stall size, heat detec-

ting, nutrition, veterinary care, herd expansion plans, milk quota restrictions, and availability and

affordability of replacement heifers. Genetic improvement of longevity involves breeding animals

that can produce a live calf without assistance; cycle normally, show visible heat, and conceive

when inseminated; maintain adequate body condition and resist metabolic disorders; avoid

udder injuries and fight off infection; walk and stand comfortably without frequent hoof trim-

ming, and efficiently produce milk of desirable composition. Since longevity is a result of many

traits and strongly affected by factors difficult to measure (non-genetic factors mentioned above).

Breeders in Geno believe that selection for underlying traits is a more efficient way to achieve lon-

gevity. The breeding program for Norwegian Red has included health and fertility traits for more

than 30 years and can document genetic improvement for these low heritable traits in the Norwe-

gian Red breed. This is possible in Norway since we have a very good recording system for health

and fertility traits and the progeny testing of Norwegian Red sires is based on a large daughter

groups ( minimum 200 in first progeny round).

Another factor influencing cow survival is inbreeding. Inbreeding in an individual occurs when

parents are related to each other and an inbred animal will suffer from problems like reduced fer-

tility, reduced vitality and higher mortality rates. Concerns with inbreeding are eliminated with

cross breeding. More and more farmers all around the world have NRF crosses in milk and are

experiencing increased survival in their herds as well as increased profits. These smart farmers see

the same milk yield for the crosses, less work, more robust calves and cows, improved fertility and

more net profit.

Tor Arne Sletmoen Kristin Børresen

MANAGING DIRECTOR GENO GLOBAL AREA SALES MANAGER GENO GLOBAL

W E L C O M E

Crossbreeding; or smartand progressive dairy armers.

ore e

(F) co

or. Poto:

Soe Gope



4 GenoBULLetin –

Tota l merit Bjørg Heringstad

Research geneticists, Geno/

Department of Animal and

Aquacultural Sciences,Norwegian University

of Life Sciences

[email protected]

B R E E D I N G

is the best measure oLongevity is a widely used trait in

international dairy cattle breeding.

ifferent trait definitions are used

such as survival, productive life, and

herd life, which all are derived from

information on time to culling (cull-

ing date). he interest and use of this

trait is mainly a result of lack of datarecordings for health and fertility in

many countries. Selection for longevity

is then used instead of direct selection

for the underlying traits. ime to cull-

ing is easy to record, but apart from

that longevity is a complicated trait in

animal breeding. One of the challeng-

es is that information on the daugh-

ters survival is not available until

years after the bull receive his first

genetic proof for other traits. here-

fore indicator traits are often used

in genetic evaluation of longevity.

Time to culling

Longevity measures based on time to

culling (e.g. herd-life, productive life)

are probably not directly comparable

between countries and populations.

his is because the culling reasons

or the underlying traits vary a lot.

For example, if fertility is the main

problem will time to culling to a large

degree be a measure of fertility, while

if the cows have few problems will

time to culling mainly be a measure of

milk yield.

Culling reasons

he main culling reasons for dairy

cows in orway are “management rea-

sons” or “milk quota”. Very few cows

are culled as a direct result of prob-

lems like disease, injury, or bad fertil-

ity. ypically, there are too many cows

in the herd according to the herd’s

milk quota or space, and some has

to go. hen they cull the cow that for

some reason is worse off than her herd

contemporaries with respect to milk

yield, SCC, temperament, pedigree, fer-

tility, udder, behavior, expected future

production etc. he priority of traits

when making culling decisions varies

between herds. In a situation with

plenty of heifers for replacement and

few cows with problems there is more

room for personal preferences.

If everybody agree on a definition

of longevity and made all their culling

decisions accordingly, traits based on

time to culling could probably be use-

ful. his is not the case. Culling strat-

egies are affected by e.g. production

systems and personal preferences and

will therefore vary among herds. For

example, herds with automatic milking

systems (robots) may have different

criteria for culling due to udder con-

formation. With seasonal calving the

threshold for culling a cow that return

after insemination will probably be

lower. Feet and leg problems and

locomotion may be a more frequent

culling reasons free stall systems.

Breeding values for longevity

We found that traits derived from time

to culling are not good measures of

longevity in orway. It could probably



GenoBULLetin – 5

index

longevity

Longevity is an important trait in dairy cows.

We want healthy, fertile, problem-free cows with high

milk yield. This is the breeding goal for Norwegian Redand our total merit index is probably the best measure

of longevity for Norwegian Red cows.

o broters Wester or br er o ore e cos to pstre. Poto: Soe Gope.

be used to identify the very best cows,

but it seem less suited for discriminat-

ing among medium and lower ranging

cows. ecause longevity is a result of

many other traits (e.g. yield, health,

fertility) and strongly affected by fac-

tors difficult to measure and record,

like personal preferences, selection

directly on the underlying traits is

more efficient. In orway this is pos-

sible because we have good record-

ing systems for health and fertility

traits, progeny testing of orwegian

ed sires is based on large daughter

groups and we obtain reliable breed-

ing values also for traits with low heri-

tability. he main components of lon-

gevity are included in the total merit

index used for selection for orwegian

ed sires.

Genetic improvement

of longevity

Is a cow with good longevity a healthy,

fertile, problem-free cow with high

milk yield? his is the breeding goal

for orwegian ed and our total merit

index is probably the best measure

of longevity for orwegian ed cows.

he breeding program with empha-

sis on health and fertility for more

than years has resulted in genetic

improvement for these traits. o fur-

ther increase genetic progress for

longevity in orwegian ed we will

examine whether there exist aspects

of longevity that is not already

included in our total merit index.



6 GenoBULLetin –no n ––

Stine Margrethe

Gulliksen

Veterinarian/

Specialist in calf healthNorwegian Cattle Health

Services/Tine

[email protected]

H E A L T H

gives

ere s so

ocetto

tt oo c cre

proces co

tt s ore.

Poto: Soe Gope

Goodcalf care

here is little doubt that sufficient

colostrum of good quality is the single

most important factor when it comes

to calf health. Colostrum is essential

to assure good immunity in newborn

calves and thus lower the risk for ill-

ness and death. espite sound advice

and guidelines for colostrum feed-ing, the immune status for suckling

calves varies a great deal, both within

and between herds in orway. In the

eitstad project, the immunoglobu-

lin composition G (IgG) was measured

in serum from calves. his study

found that percent of these calves

had IgG values below the desired

gram/liter. It needs to be added here

that the herds in this study were cho-

sen due to problems with calf health.

In the Calf Health project (–),

antibodies in the blood of calves

younger than days from randomly

selected farms across orway were

measured. full percent of the

calves had IgG values below gram/

liter. oth these studies show that

there is great room for improvement

with regard to passive immunity of

calves in orwegian dairy herds. Sev-

eral studies now show that a good

start also promotes positive effects

when the calves are older. onitor-

ing of the immune status of suckling

calves should therefore be included

as an important part of the operat-

ing routines in well-run dairy herds.

More colostrum – more milk

In a merican study, calves from

a large herd were divided into two

groups. he first group was fed two

liters of colostrum for their first feed-

ing, while the second group was fed

four liters. he colostrum was from the

mother and was of good quality. he

colostrum was given by bottle within

an hour after calving. Calves which

refused bottle feeding after a -min-

ute attempt were fed with esopha-

geal feeders. ecords for the animals

were then maintained through two

lactations. he calves which had

received four liters of colostrum had

a kilogram higher yield in total

through the first and second lacta-

tions in comparison to those which

had been fed two liters. he calves

which had been given the most colos-

trum also had a percent greater rate

of body growth before puberty and a

percent greater chance of survival

through the second lactation (able ).

Diarrhoea results in less milk

Corresponding results have been

found in Sweden, where cows which

had been healthy as calves had nearly

a kilogram greater yield in their

first lactation when compared to

cows which had suffered from diar-

rhoea during the first days of their

lives. his same study also found

that calves which had been in stalls

with deep bedding from the age of

days until insemination had a



GenoBULLetin – 7

more milk

Sick calves in the barn are expensive in terms of higher veterinary bills, increased feeding costs,

reduced rate of body growth and longer fattening times, poor space utilization and not least:

many working hours. Several studies in the past few years have shown that poor calf care and

health also have ramifications for milk production.

more than a kilogram greater

yield than those animals which had

been in stalls with slatted flooring.

It seems that fertility is also

affected by calf health. recent

Swedish study found that calves

which had suffered from serious

respiratory illness during their firstthree months of life had poorer fer-

tility when compared to animals

which had been healthy as calves.

Feeding is important

Good feeding is important for good

body growth and calf welfare. Sev-

eral studies have now shown that calf

feeding is also important for future

yield. US study found that per-

cent of the variation in yield during

the first lactation may be attributed

to growth in the milk feeding period.

ccording to this study, it appeared

that good body growth was favorable

for future yield. nother merican

research group recently found that

calves with increased energy and pro-

tein intake from the ages of two to

eight weeks developed more udder

tissue faster than calves placed on

more restrictive diets. his study thus

indicated that the basis for much

of the udder tissue is already estab-

lished during the milk period, and

this is affected by feeding strategy.

Increased body

growth – more milk

group of Swedish researchers found

that calves with a high rate of body

growth (> gram/day) from wean-

ing to first insemination had more

than a kilogram greater yield in

their first lactation than calves with

the lowest rate of body growth (<

gram/day). ut this same study also

found that over-conditioned heifers

at insemination (body condition score

>.) produced a lower yield compared

to heifers in normal condition. If one

aspires to a high rate of body growth,

then the right feed mixture is neces-

sary to prevent heifers becoming fat.

Table 1. esults from an merican study where the calves were divided into two groups.

One group was fed 2 liters colostrum at first feeding while the other group was fed 4 liters.

Colostrum, first feedg 2 lters 4 lters

umber of calves 37 31

umber of calves with registered illnesses 8 5

Estimated average daily growth, gram/day 799 1810

ge at insemination, months 14 13,5

305 days energy corrected milk, kilograms:

1st lactation 8960 9915

2nd lactation 9650 11300

Culled, percent 24,3 12,9

RESEARCH RESULTS

IN CALF CARE AND MILK YIELD 4 liters colostrum compared with 2 liters gave 2600 more kilograms milk in

the first two lactations

Cows which did not suffer from diarrhoea as calves produced 350 kilograms

more milk during the first lactation

Calves in stalls with deep bedding from 90 days of age until insemination

resulted in 1000 kilograms more milk compared with calves in stalls with

slatted flooring

20 percent variation in yield during the first lactation may be attributed to

increased rate of body growth during the milk feeding period

High energy and protein intake from 2 to 8 weeks of age produced earlier and

more development of udder tissue

High rate of body growth from weaning to insemination resulted in more

than 5000 kilograms more milk

Over-conditioning (>3.5 BCS) at insemination gave a lower yield in the firstlactation

FACTS

P h o t o : T h

e r e s e F o l l a n d T

e n n ø y



GenoBULLetin – 9

n ertility amongused in the United States

in the U.S. but that have been used in

crossbreeding programs in the U.S.

Genetic trends in

daughter pregnancy rate

he genetic trends in P among U.S.

breeds have been undesirable over

the past years. hese declines inP have resulted because of our past

selection decisions. Until recently in

the U.S. we placed no selection pres-

sure on improving fertility or pregnan-

cy rate plus our selection for increased

production and for thinner, more angu-

lar cows has resulted in undesirable

declines in P. he P of Holsteins

has declined by about percent (or

days open) between and

but fortunately the decline in P

has stopped since its inclusion in the

major U.S. selection indexes in .

We expect a gradual increase in P

over the coming decades now that it

has been included in our U.S. selec-

tion indexes but this improvement

will likely be slow just like the declines

were slow in the past. s of the pril

US genetic evaluations, we

have seen very little genetic improve-

ment in P in the U.S. Holstein popu-

lation since its low point (cows born

in to ), but we have stopped

the decline. he decline in P for

Jerseys has been about . percent (or

days open) between and .

Comparisons of current

genetic levels for daughter

pregnancy rate

With the multiple breed genetic evalu-

ation procedures used at US we can

compare breed base differences for

P readily with a high degree of con-

fidence. With the US genetic evalua-

tion results, it is simple to convert P

from one breed base to another breed

base. In this report the Holstein base

is used to compare all U.S. breeds and

all foreign breeds with at least sires

with US P that are based on the

performance of their U.S. daughters.

Figure illustrates the genet-

D a u g h t e r p r e g n a n c y r a t e

reed

0

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

U.S. Holstein

in 1960

ilking

Shorthorn

JerseyGuernseyrown Swissyrshire

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

U.S. Holstein

in 1960

Swedish

ed

orwegian

ed

ew Zealand

Jersey

ew Zealand

Hol-Friesian

ont-

beliarde

Finnish

yrshire


reed


reed

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

U.S. Holsteinin 1960

Swedished X Hol

(8107)

orwegianed X Hol

(748)

Z JerseyX Hol (2248)

Z Hol-Friesian

X Hol (2433)

ont-beliarde

X Hol (2053)

Finnishyrshire

X Hol (748)

Figure 1. Genetic differences in daughter pregnancy rate for U.S. breeds of dairy

cattle from pril 2011 US genetic evaluations. Genetic levels for each breed are

base population differences compared to the current US Holstein base (0.0 for an

average Holstein cow born in 2005).

Figure 2. Genetic differences in daughter pregnancy rate for non-U.S. breeds used in

the U.S. Genetic levels were calculated from pril 2011 US Ps on bulls with

daughters milking in the U.S. Genetic levels are compared to the current US

Holstein base (0.0 for an average Holstein cow born in 2005).

Figure 3. verage daughter deviations for daughter pregnancy rate for crosses with

Holsteins on the current U.S. Holstein base (0.0 for an average Holstein cow born in

2005). ata are from pril 2011 US genetic evaluations and number of U.S.

daughters are in parentheses after the breed label.



10 GenoBULLetin –

ic differences in P between

the base U.S. Holstein population

and the other U.S. dairy breeds.

Figure illustrates the genetic dif-

ferences in P between the U.S.

Holstein population and non-U.S.

breeds that have made important con-

tributions to the U.S. dairy industry.he deviations in P from the

Holstein base represent how produc-

ers would expect purebreds of the

various breeds to perform compared

with Holsteins if they were managed

the same way. Of course some fami-

lies within each of the breeds would

perform at a higher or lower level so

genetic differences within a breed

are important as well. his variabil-

ity within a breed allows for selec-

tion to change P in a breed over

time so it is very important. However,

it is clear that some breeds are con-

siderably higher in P compared

with Holsteins. Of the U.S. breeds

(Figure ), Jersey and ilking Short-

horn P are . percent higher than

Holsteins so we expect that aver-

age Jersey and ilking Shorthorn

cows would have higher P if man-

aged and included in the same herd

as Holsteins. However, rown Swiss

and Guernsey P would be very

similar to Holsteins. verage yrshire

cows in the U.S. would have P bet-

ter than Holstein, rown Swiss andGuernsey cows but lower than average

Jersey and ilking Shorthorn cows.

Sires from several dairy populations

outside of the U.S. have been used in

U.S. dairy herds for crossbreeding in

recent years. Some of these popula-

tions have been selected for improved

reproductive performance for many

years. We used the U.S. crossbred

daughter performance of sires from

these breeds to determine the level of

performance of purebred daughters

if we had these purebred daughters

here in the U.S. Of course the hetero-

sis effect from the crossbred daugh-

ters of sires from these breeds has

been removed so that the breed lev-

R E P O R T

Fertility o dairy cattle in the United States

els in Figure are not biased (unfairly

increased) by the heterosis effect.

Figure illustrates the actual

daughter deviations for the cross-

bred daughters in the U.S. on the U.S.

Holstein base from the pril

US genetic evaluations. Figure

does include heterosis except for theew Zealand (Z) Holstein Friesian

X Holstein crosses (these breeds are

very closely related). Figure reflects

actual daughter performance in the

U.S. with no influence from pedigree

or purebred daughters in other coun-

tries. Clearly the crossbred daugh-

ters in the U.S. from these breeds

have much higher average pregnan-

cy rates than our U.S. Holsteins.

he ordic ed breeds including the

Finnish yrshires, orwegian eds and

Swedish eds are good examples of

breeds where cow fertility has been

included in the breeding program

for many years. In addition the ew

Zealand populations and the ont-

beliarde breed in France have been

selected for cow fertility for a longer

period of time than the U.S. Holsteins.

he benefits of selection for fertility

in these breeds are obvious when you

consider the performance of these

breeds compared with Holsteins in

the U.S. he pregnancy rates of daugh-

ters of Swedish ed, ontbeliarde and

orwegian ed sires have been espe-cially impressive. he sires used in the

U.S. from these breeds are selected

for many traits including daughter

fertility. However, the ontbeliarde,

orwegian ed and Swedish ed sires

represented in Figures and (with

daughters in the US genetic evalu-

ations) have genetic evaluations for

cow fertility in their home countries

that are close to average for their

breed. hese breeds are clearly geneti-

cally much better for cow fertility than

our U.S. Holsteins. It is interesting to

note that the current genetic levels for

P of the ontbeliarde, orwegian

ed and Swedish ed breeds are very

similar to the P of the U.S. Holsteins

in . he high genetic level for P

of the orwegian ed breed is not

surprising because we know that cow

fertility in the orwegian ed breed

has improved over the past years.

Performance of

crossbreds in 2011Crossbred performance for daugh-

ters of average bulls from various

breeds can be estimated from the

differences between breeds. ver-

age Jersey X Holstein crosses would

be expected to have P half-way

between pure Holstein and pure

Jersey performance plus the effect

of heterosis. he heterosis effect for

P in the U.S. is . for crosses of

unrelated breeds. verage Jersey per-

formance is . percent higher than

the Holstein base so average Jersey X

Holstein crosses would be expected

to have P of . ((./)+.= .).

verage performance of other crosses

with Holsteins can be calculated using

the same formula and approach.

lthough many traits impact the

profitability of various breeds or cross-

breds, it is possible to significantly

increase the fertility of Holsteins by

crossbreeding with Jersey, Finnish

yrshire, ontbeliarde, orwegian

ed and Swedish ed sires. Sire selec-

tion within breeds is also impor-

tant so this should not be ignoredby producers trying to improve cow

fertility. he significant advantage

of ordic ed X Holstein crosses,

ontbeliarde X Holstein crosses and

Jersey X Holstein crosses for fertil-

ity compared to Holsteins has fueled

the increase in crossbreeding in the

U.S. his improved fertility coupled

with improved health of the cross-

breds along with their smaller size

(except for ontbeliarde crosses)

and component yields that are very

similar to Holsteins will continue

to increase the acceptance of cross-

breeding in the U.S. dairy population.



GenoBULLetin – 11

F o t o : L u c i n d a M o r g a n

B R E E D I N G

Odd RiseOrganization consultant

in Geno

[email protected] top Norwegian Red(NRF) sire or milk

rendan son uud produc-

es progeny who milk very well

with a high protein percent. Hisdaughters also have good udders.

From Snertingdal

he bull was born on arit uud

Skolseg and Steffan Skolseg’s

farm in Snertingdal in Oppland

county. uud was the fifth calf

of his mother, , who lived

until . She was inseminat-

ed only . times per calf, and

her calving interval varied with

only a month. arit tells us

that she was a cow who func-

tioned well in the herd without

attracting much attention.

She was well above the herd

average in milk. Her weak point

was her somatic cell count.

She was treated only once for

mastitis, but in the end hercell count was the decisive

factor leading to her culling.

t home in Snertingdal, there is

only one cow from , along with

four bulls. Her daughter became

a cow who also milked well, but

only produced two calves. he

father of this cow was erge.

Good genes

isa, prize winner in ,

is the maternal grandsire of the

bull. He was positive in all traits

in his first proofs. he father

of the bull’s maternal grand-

dam, J. Husveg, was also a

prizewinner. We also find many

familiar bulls further back in

his pedigree, so many good

genes are collected in this bull.

Breeding plan

arit, who also holds a part-time

job at a local upper secondary

school, is responsible for most of

the barn work. Steffan also works

outside the farm. oth of them

are interested in breeding, and

their breeding plan is decided

in consultation with an advisor.

hey go through the herd and

try to find good combinations.

Daughter after elite sire Ruud (10624). Foto: Lucinda Morgan

e e ete sre 10624 . Poto: Foto:

10624 Ruud was one of the “new” bulls who

achieved an extremely high total merit index

in the second proof round of 2011.



GenoBULLetin – 13

tions, one may expect considerable

problems with fertility and defects,

as well as higher mortality rates.

Sustainable management

of the NRF population

he goal of F breeding work is to

achieve breeding progress. his is impos-sible without a relatively strict selec-

tion of bulls. Such selection results in

there being few fathers in use per gen-

eration, which leads to a reduced effec-

tive population size and an increase in

the degree of inbreeding in the popu-

lation. he challenge is therefore to

achieve an optimal balance of breed-

ing progress through selection with the

least possible increase in inbreeding.

heories and software have been

developed to resolve this dilemma. Sim-

ply put, these involve a greater extent

of selection within families rather than

between families. For the time being,

Table 1. F inbreeding status compared with other populations

Populato Effectve umber F

Weigel 2001 US Holstein 39 1.28

US yrshire 161 0.31

US rown Swiss 61 0.82

US Guernsey 65 0.77

US Jersey 30 1.67

Sørensen et al. 2004 anish Holstein 70 0.71

anish Jersey 98 0.51

274 0.18

F 208 0.24

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

2000199619921988198419801976

D e g r e e o f i n b r e e d i n g %

Year of birth

we in Geno have chosen to solve this

problem by creating an inbreeding

index that is considered during selec-

tion along with the traditional breed-

ing values. he inbreeding index is an

index indicating the bull’s relationship

to the population. value of signi-

fies that the bull’s relationship to thepopulation equals the average of all

bulls for the last bull groups. Positive

values mean that the bull is less related

to the population and in this sense is

preferable to bulls with negative val-

ues and the same total merit index. In

addition to playing a role in the selec-

tion of bulls, the inbreeding index will

provide the basis for deciding how

often a bull may be used. For instance,

the use of a selected bull with a low

inbreeding index will only be permit-

ted once per herd, whereas a bull with a

high index may be used several times.

ber for F equals . Opinions dif-

fer as to what should be considered a

“dangerously” small effective popula-

tion size, but here it is probably best

to operate by the “better safe than

sorry” principle. In able , the inbreed-

ing status of F is contrasted with

that of other cattle populations. hetable shows that F compares favor-

ably, with only anish achiev-

ing a better result. his phenomenon

is somewhat special, given that the

population comprises only ,

cows. he explanation is that

is a crossbred population involving

several breeds. Such a phenomenon

demonstrates that crossbreeding

maybe an effective cure for inbreed-

ing. t the other end of the scale is US

Holstein. Here the effective popula-

tion size is only individuals. here is

widespread agreement that this level

is dangerously low. In such popula-

co n t ro l i n N R F

References

Sørese, C. ., . . Sørese

P. er, 2004. Ibree s

r ctte brees. Proc. 55t

eet o EP. Pper G3.9. 6s

Wee, . ., 2001. Cotro Ibree-

oer ree Prors. J.

r Sc. 84(E. Spp.). E177-E184.

Figure 1. egree of inbreeding in F, based on semen bulls

genobulletin_02_2011

Documents