Bob
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Shropshire / Welsh Border
Posts: 145
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lost the Buzz?
Dear Matron,
Thanks for the opportunity to air my views on indexes. I am not a big fan of combined indexes. They seem to be just for the convenience of the press to put out a top 20 ranking. Production ends up being the main governing factor and often poor type bulls that nobody should touch get ranked high up.
Protein is still the overriding weighted factor in new PLI. 10 kgs of protein will be worth far more than +3.00 on udder composite which in my opinion, is misguided.
When marketing semen, the well balanced bulls sell. Bulls that are high on type, good udders, good feet and legs, adequate strength and then reasonable production levels. The best sellers are often not anywhere near the top rankings of PLI or PIN listings - so why bother with theses indexes?
New PLI is an improvement on old PLI. The obsession with short teats was rediculous and showed the total misguided ignorance of those that invented PLI.
We have to try to protect common sense values in cattle breeding. We are going to see more weighting put on fertility and longevity in our indexes. This is ok if it is accurate. The current methodology for longevity is a joke. It is either based purely on parent average as in case of USA, or real info but without first calf casualties in the UK. The groundswell of opinion is that more emphasis on productive life should be put on udders, feet and legs - and fair play, PLI acknowledges that- but a weighting breakdown would be useful. Will an extra 5 kgs of protein still be worth more than a 2 or 3 point foot and leg and/or udder composite?
Somatic cell is becoming more important and can be accurately predicted. Longevity is very hard to predict and so should be given a lesser weighting. As for fertility - the rocket scientists say the more milk the lower the fertility - and that is how they intend working the index out, which is plainly rediculous. They will have us milking lazy cows that look after themselves too much. Fertility is very similar as maidens but not once milking. Maybe it isn't genetic - it is management/ feeding?
Lots of issues, but basically farmers want bulls that suit them - not necessarily bulls that suit PLI or £PIN index.
Last edited by Bob, 6/11/2003, 16:01
|
|
6/11/2003, 15:45
|
Link to this post
PM via Email
|
mckeague
Ex 97 2E
Registered: 06-2003
Posts: 1628
Karma: 14 (+14/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lost the Buzz?
I have to agree with basically everything you have said bob, (though it breaks my heart). However the worrying thing about the Somatic cell improvers is that as a direct consequence they also breed slow milkers - is there any way round this or do we just have to go with the flow, or should that be lack of it??
|
|
7/11/2003, 12:09
|
Link to this post
PM via Email
PM via Forum
|
Matron
GP80
Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 7
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lost the Buzz?
Dear Imont,
The development and launch of the Test Day Model should improve the production situation – however without compulsory classification of all animals in 2nd and 3rd lactation and the introduction of ‘down pointing’ this will be more difficult to achieve with Type surely?
More focus and better recording of animals leaving herds and the reasons why should be improved as a start perhaps?
|
|
7/11/2003, 15:30
|
Link to this post
PM via Email
PM via Forum
|
Matron
GP80
Registered: 11-2003
Posts: 7
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lost the Buzz?
Bob
Customised herd indexes?? Ever ‘herd’ of them? Quite a revelation. I always thought that the National PLI is a list of recommended bulls to take account of the most accurate predictors of longevity information available at the time. The PIN values take account of the majority of contracts and you haven’t mentioned that the increased negative weighting on milk in the formula actually increases the relative weight of fat further.
PLI aside – take it or leave it…. each to there own…it’s a general ‘tool’ Bob not the ‘Holy Grail’…I would like to think that in the future (after careful rubbing of a genie’s lamp) that each farmer could really easily have his own PLI or PIN or whatever formula that will rank the bulls depending on his own personal situation, requirements and milk contract…or am I just dreaming again?
Now your comments on the fertility index concern me….I would have thought that for someone with such a keen interest in animal breeding that you would have kept up with reading the ongoing published papers from the project….which I fit into my sad nights In alone…..between finishing up the jobs, tea and the paperwork. As far as I can make out from what I have read about it, is that there are high yielding sires, which have daughters with good fertility…. it’s not a correlation of one…..great news?!
I think that you comment “maybe its not genetic its management and feeding” is wrong. I would suggest that It’s a balance of all three. If you feed a 10,000-ltr cow on a 6000 ltr ration the wheels will fall off the wagon for sure. Likewise cows of differing genetic merit will partition energy differently than others. Some cows and indeed bulls daughters are ‘genetically’ programmed to loose condition in early lactation – this drives production and the other ‘less vital’ metabolic functions which are non-essential to survival or the maintenance of a calf (production) will start to shut down. I agree that the ‘fuel’ and management at this point are critical to ensure that the negative energy balance is managed to minimise these problems, however with energy balance proofs being developed at the moment I believe, we may soon have the choice of bulls who’s daughters we know to loos less condition early in lactation. So Genetics are indeed a crucial factor Bob…as I am sure you well know………x
|
|
7/11/2003, 15:57
|
Link to this post
PM via Email
PM via Forum
|
Bob
Registered: 06-2003
Location: Shropshire / Welsh Border
Posts: 145
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lost the Buzz?
Excellent response Matron!
Customised herd indexes are great. We can get them now to a certain degree through sort engines on the HUK website but bull listings in the press will tend to stick with PLI or TOP.
Longevity indexes are the most accurate at the time but that does not mean they are actually accurate and the weighting will or should reflect this. For example in the USA all Duster and Rudolph sons were originally given Productive life scores of over +3.00 which is really at the top end of the standard deviation curve. As time has gone by many have slipped back but it did give them a distinct advantage (approx 135 TPI points) initially. this meant the difference between the bull being top 20 or outside top 100.
I should obviously take a leaf out of your book and stop watching holiday Swop or Wife Swop and read more meaningful literature.
With regard to Fertility, I agree it is a balance of all three but my sources (last NAAB meeting)is that it will be mainly based on Milk plus which is a bit worrying. It will have to be based on that plus pedigree but my guess is that this may be an indicator rather than a factual index. Lets hope this is also reflected in the weighting until reliability for this and any other new additions increase to respectable levels before they are included in any index.
All in all, I agree with what you say. My only beef with these very important traits like Longevity and fertility is that their weighting should reflect their accuracy and reliability.
Last edited by Bob, 7/11/2003, 17:11
|
|
7/11/2003, 17:00
|
Link to this post
PM via Email
|
