Credit for early genetic technology users
Farmers who used new genomic technology from their cooperative, LIC, in 2008 and 2009 will shortly receive a credit for the premium they paid for the product in those two years.
New Zealand Animal Evaluation Limited (NZAEL) last week announced agreement with LIC and CRV that such bulls would be listed separately with breeding worth expressed as gBW and breeding values for specific traits as gBVs from this autumn.
“CRV Ambreed and LIC agreed to assign the leading g term to acknowledge that genomic estimates differ from the parentage and daughter based BW produced by NZAEL, and that genomic estimates are derived by the breeding companies themselves,” NZAEL general manager Jeremy Bryant explains.
“For this autumn’s breeding catalogues, gBW indicates a genomic-based breeding estimate derived by the breeding companies and a BW with the NZAEL logo indicates a BW estimate derived by NZAEL.”
Bryant told Dairy News genomically selected bulls will lose the g prefix once the breeding worth is at least 75% reliable based on progeny and parentage performance and at least 10 herds have two-year-old herd tested daughters contributing to the bull’s proof data.
He doesn’t believe companies marketing bulls with in-house genomic evaluations of breeding worth undermines the cross-industry principles of NZAEL.
“gBW and gBV are still estimates of animal genetic merit that can be used in support of traditional progeny and parentage based estimates of genetic merit… produced by NZAEL. Farmers can still access these progeny and parentage based estimates as an additional, cross industry selection tool using the Bull Search functionality on the NZAEL website.”
Having two companies investing heavily in genomic technologies “is a good situation for the industry,” he adds.
Heifers born to gBW-rated bulls will still have their BW calculated from parentage and progeny and won’t carry the g prefix.
Federated Farmers Dairy chair, Willy Leferink, says NZAEL’s move is “fair enough” but he remains concerned breeding companies and/or societies are not sufficiently rigorous in removing bulls with potential defects.
“It needs tightening up because the economic implications for producers are enormous.”
Traits such as udder conformation, teat placement, and longevity need to be given greater emphasis, alongside production, as long-term they are what keeps a cow productive year after year on farm.
“If you think we can double the number of cows in New Zealand to double production you’re dreaming, so we have to produce more milk from the same number of cows and to get them to survive doing that they need better udders than they have currently.”
Leferink says he has “no problem” with genomic selection and has used several bulls selected in that way.
Indeed, some of the greatest dairy bulls in the world were initially selected by gene analysis.
However, producers using bulls selected on genes alone, before progeny performance records are available to proof those genetic selections, need to be aware of the greater degree of uncertainty in the breeding worth, he stresses.
“You don’t want to use this [genomic selection] for every single bull, only a number of them. You need to select a team. If you only use one or two you might as well be natural mating!”
While the clarity of the BW lists is a good thing, greater access to the background data would be beneficial too, he believes.
“We don’t get to see the amount of animals that have been discarded from the data set because they didn’t grow, or had long hair. That needs to be disclosed.”
As for the recent announcement by LIC that it has identified a gene responsible for a recurring problem of small calves*, leaving the small calf syndrome carrier bulls in the breeding lists is acceptable, provided they are, as has been promised, clearly identified, he says.
“They didn’t cull CVM or BLAD carriers either so it’s not a problem, as long as they are identified.”
