Holstein World: How would the termination of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) affect our milk prices?

Lee Mielke: USDA is NOT terminating the DEIP. It assumes that there will be no ned of it, considering the current supply and demand balance. DEIP is not mandatory and the Agriculture Department can use it as it sees fit, though National Milk and others have charged that USDA has not used the DEIP as Congress intended.

I hope that USDA’s decision to not use the DEIP is not based upon the success of the CWT export assistance program.

Dave Natzke: As Lee noted, I know of no one who has proposed eliminating DEIP. However, it has been used so little over the past few years, I doubt people would miss it if it was eliminated – under current market conditions.

DEIP was designed to helps exporters of U.S. dairy products meet prevailing world prices for targeted dairy products and destinations. Due to market conditions and large export subsidies by the European Union and others, “world” dairy product prices were usually lower than U.S. prices, therefore the government also had to subsidize exports (through DEIP) to help lower the cost to foreign buyers. Under the program, USDA pays cash to exporters as bonuses, allowing them to sell certain U.S. dairy products at prices lower than the exporter’s costs of acquiring them. The major objective of the program is to develop export markets for dairy products where U.S. products are not competitive because of the presence of subsidized products from other countries.

Currently, however, a weaker U.S. dollar, reduced foreign export subsidies, a drought in Australia (normally a larger exporter) that has limited world dairy product supply, and heavy demand for some dairy products in developing countries, has raised world dairy product prices to where U.S. prices are now competitive. According to the latest annual report from the U.S. Dairy Export Council, fewer than 2% of the exports in 2006 were assisted by the government or the Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) export assistance program.

Market conditions change, and the structure of DEIP should be retained for the time when, or if, it is needed again.

Holstein World: Describe for us the “regional dairymen’s” views and feelings regarding the 2007 Farm Bill.

Lee Mielke: Although I don’t believe I have much of a handle on this answer, states with larger dairies are likely opposed to extending the MILC program and states with smaller dairies, farmers likely oppose the reduction in the percentage of MILC payment and question whether the $9.90 support price is high enough.

I think most producers support the price support program and the Federal order program, although there are producer groups who are supporting their termination.

Dave Natzke: While regionalism has always added controversy to U.S. dairy policy, I believe differences more often than not are now defined by the style/size predominant in a region, not necessarily by geography. The West, predominated by fewer but larger herds, therefore would likely oppose any federal policies that have constraints based on herd size. The Midwest and Northeast, predominated by more smaller herds, may favor different policies altogether.

Take the two major U.S. federal dairy polices, for example. Between 2000 and 2005, the Dairy Price Support Program (DPSP) cost about $2.3 billion; the Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program about $2 billion. Not a big difference, but how the money was divided makes a big difference.

Under the Dairy Price Support Program, USDA purchases excess dairy products from the market, reducing supply and thus, boosting milk prices. It is not based on milk production per farm. One of the major items purchased by USDA is nonfat dry milk, produced in large quantities in the West, and the major product purchased by the government to boost milk prices. During the period 2000-2005, the West received 92% of DPSP payments; the Midwest, about 1%; and the Northeast, about 3.5%. Look for the West to continue to favor DPSP.

On the other hand, under the MILC program, payments are limited to the first 2.4 million pounds of milk production for each producer. Some smaller herds may not reach that total for the whole year. Other herds may reach that production cap within months, or less. Thus, the larger herds receive the payment on a smaller percentage of their total annual milk production. For the period 2000-2005, producers in the Midwest received 46% of all MILC payments; the Northeast, 24%; and the South, about 15%. The West, with its larger herds, received about 15% of total MILC payments.

In general, by region, the Northeast and Midwest support MILC; the West supports DPS.

Currently, MILC provides full payment to 85% of U.S. herds, but covers only 45% of total U.S. milk production. Due to changes in size distribution of dairies, the amount of milk eligible for MILC payments has decreased by 10% since December of 2001. Increasing the payment eligibility to 4.8 million lbs. per year would increase full coverage to 93% of the herds and 56% of the milk. So, in the upcoming 2007 Farm Bill debate, don’t be surprised if the MILC payment is increased to cover 4.8 million lbs. per year to make it politically palatable for large producers in the West.

Other regional differences may result from federal milk marketing order rules, which are not covered under the Farm Bill.

Holstein World: After a bit of a break from blogging last week due to some technical difficulties, Im happy to say we are off and running with another great topic for discussion. This week we will be focusing on the Farm Bill. Answering questions for us and reviewing the impact the bill will have on the dairy industry are Lee Mielke from DairyLine Radio, and Dave Natzke from Midwest DairyBusiness. If you have any questions or comments you”d like to share with us or Lee and Dave, feel free to send them my way at sschmidt@dairybusiness.com.

Share with our readers the current discussion behind the USDA’’s preliminary decision to include Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program payments in the 2007 Farm Bill.

Lee Mielke: I think MILC was included because of the political reality of who now controls Congress. Key senators from states like Vermont and Wisconsin are strong supporters of the MILC and the program is consistent with the way other commodities are treated. And, the President expressed support for the MILC program while on the campaign trail in the last election.

Dave Natzke: First, a bit of review. The original MILC was established in the 2002 Farm Bill, but had an expiration date of Sept. 30, 2005. To “extend” MILC required a separate piece of legislation, and the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 2005 reauthorized the MILC through Sept. 30, 2007, with the intent of having it sunset with the 2002 Farm Bill.

However, due to special requirements of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which almost everybody overlooked at the time, the extended MILC program (also called MILCX) actually reauthorized payments only until Aug. 31, 2007, or one month short of the expiration date of the 2002 Farm Bill. Subsequent efforts to extend MILCX for one more month failed, in part due to budget concerns. Also, opponents of the program hoped that because the program was no longer tied to the Farm Bill, it might just go away. (It should be noted that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 also reduced the payment level to eligible dairy producers, from 45% of the difference between $16.94 per cwt. and the Class I price in Boston, to 34% of that difference.

So in reality, the Bush administration’s proposal to place MILC back in the 2007 Farm Bill is really just putting it back where it started, probably so it is no longer a separate budget item, and that program costs can be adequately budgeted and managed by USDA.

The impacts of last fall’s elections make it more likely MILC will be included in the 2007 Farm Bill. The Midwest and Northeast – with a larger share of “small” dairy producers who benefit the most from MILC – gained leadership posts on agriculture and, perhaps even more importantly, appropriations committees in both the Senate and the House. Those committees not only help set policy, but also decide how much funding it receives.

Holstein World: MILC is not part of the current Farm Bill, but a separate program and line in the federal budget. Why was the decision made to include it in the 2007 Farm Bill and will this have an effect on how funds are allocated?

Lee Mielke: MILC was part of the 2002 farm bill but was unsettled. It continued as a separate item, attached to a different piece of legislation but supporters wanted it extended so that it would coincide with the actual farm bill.

It should not have an effect on how funds are allocated. The total amount that USDA budgeted for the price support program and MILC is only $793 million for 10 years.

Dave Natzke: As far as I know, MILCX has no set federal funding level. It maintained milk price triggers to determine when payments to producers would be made, but did not set spending limits. Therefore, it’’s fairly open ended, and probably difficult to budget.

How will putting it back into the Farm Bill impact the way funds are allocated? Under USDA’s latest proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill, dairy producers would continue to be eligible to receive an MILC payment if the Class I price in Boston in any month falls below $16.94 per cwt. However, USDA’s proposal gradually reduces payment rates over time. For fiscal year 2008, the proposed payment rate would remain at the current rate of 34% of the difference between $16.94 per cwt and the Class I price in Boston. For subsequent years, the payment rate would be phased down to 31% in FY 2009, 28% in FY 2010, 25% in FY 2011, 22% in FY 2012, and 20% in FY 2013-2017.

Additionally, MILC payments would be based on 85% of the 3-year average of milk marketed during fiscal years 2004-06. This policy change would make the MILC program consistent with the other farm bill counter-cyclical programs that are calculated on historical production bases.

What has always been the most controversial part of MILC is that it limits payments to a maximum of 2.4 million pounds of milk per farm annually. Under the latest USDA proposal, future payments would remain subject to that limit.

Adding MILC to the Farm Bill provides additional controls on payments. Under USDA’s plan, MILC payments would also count towards a producer’s overall counter-cyclical payment limit of $110,000 annually, helping to limit payments to producers with multiple dairy operations. The new adjusted gross income eligibility cap of $200,000 annually would also apply to MILC payments.

I would like to start out by saying I appreciate being asked to respond to this discussion. Similar to Dr. Hansen, I am quite passionate about this topic, and also am confident that I have both the practical knowledge (being raised on the 600-cow Bomaz Farms in Wisconsin) and the academic knowledge and experience to provide a response to the points made.

I agree with many of the points made by Dr. Hansen about the ideal Holstein cow. Dairy Cattle Judging has been a huge part of my life, and is something that I am proud of my accomplishments in, however the conformation that is considered “ideal” is not the most “functional”. Part of this is cow size, and part of it is dairy strength being confused with angularity. Dr. Hansen has done a good job of explaining the reasons for a different “ideal”, because clearly the fertility and longevity of the Holstein can be improved, and I do not need to revisit those statements. We have good longevity information, and instead of telling the cows how they should look, we can make significantly more progress if we simply listen to the cows tell us how they need to look to be the most profitable and longest lasting! The moderate sized cows with shallow udders that are not extremely dairy last the longest - now we need to make sure this type of cow is rewarded in classification programs. Classification programs are useless if they are not an indicator of longevity, and currently only the linear traits, and their combination into UDC and FLC are the only indicators of longevity, while final score has almost no impact on overall longevity.

My solution to the problem varies substantially from Dr. Hansen”’’s solution of crossbreeding. Why do we need to crossbreed to change the Holstein cow? Over the last 50 years we have made Holsteins that are genetically capable of producing more than 8,000 lbs more milk per lactation than they were in 1960. We also have changed the way cows look substantially, so we have proven we can change the cow through genetics. We now know that our perception of the way cows should look had flaws and needs to be corrected. Do we need to crossbreed to do this? I don””t think that is the only answer. We can also create the correct “ideal” cow and strive to get there.

Furthermore, most people interested in crossbreeding are interested in improving the fertility and longevity of their herd. This is a message that I advocate to everyone - we must pay attention to PL and DPR in selection programs. We will be increasing the weight on these important characteristics by a combined 5 percentage points in the upcoming change to the TPI formula, which will reward those sires that have highly fertile, long lasting daughters. Furthermore, if a certain producer wants to put more or less weight on PL, DPR, SCS, or Daughter Stillbirth (DSB), they certainly can do that in their own breeding program.

The real question is, must we crossbreed to change the fertility and/or longevity within our breed (or within our herd), and the answer is absolutely not. Is crossbreeding one way to improve those important traits? Yes, but it will have negative effects on production. If we analyze the paper that Dr. Hansen refers to, we find that tables 4, 5, and 6 provide some very interesting information that cannot be forgotten in this discussion. The fact is that the pure Holsteins out produced both the Swedish Red X Holstein crosses and the Montbeliard X Holstein crosses by about 2,000 lbs of milk, 45 lbs of fat, and 40 lbs of protein per lactation! This is substantial! The equivalent is similar to using a Holstein sire that is -2000 PTAM, -45 PTAF, and -40 PTAP. Would any of you be willing to use a sire with these kinds of numbers?

To be fair, the study does state that only 61% of Holstein cows calved back in a second time within 17 months after first calving, while significantly larger numbers of crossbred cows calved back in (average 76%) in the same time frame. While this is an impressive difference, I have data from one of our Alta Advantage® herds with 1600 cows that shows daughters of high PL sires (n=116) return for a second lactation 78% of the time, while daughters of low PL sires (n=91) return for a second lactation only 52% of the time, therefore proving that effective sire selection for this trait can have even more impact in a single generation than crossbreeding.

Likewise, the study states that the days open of the Holstein cows is 14 days longer than the Scandinavian Red. Again an impressive difference that is equivalent to the expected difference from using a Holstein sire that is 3.5 for DPR. There are Holstein sires that are nearly this high, and again more “real world” data shows that within another Alta Advantage® dairy that 75 daughters by one of the highest DPR bulls in the breed - KCK Bardale Blastoff (DPR=3.0) - have an average of 26 less days open than the rest of the herd, again showing that as much or more progress can be made in this important trait in a single generation than what can be made through crossbreeding. Equally as impressive is that production was not sacrificed, as these daughters are producing as much as their contemporaries.

I””m passionate that we can change the Holstein breed effectively through proper sire selection WITHIN the breed. Focusing more on traits like PL, SCS, and DPR will help facilitate this change while not losing the production that is proven in the California trials. When these traits are accurately evaluated in progressive dairies, like those sires tested through the Alta Advantage® program, we can be confident in the evaluations. We can””t be scared of these relatively new traits that can help our breed - instead we need to embrace them and use them to our advantage!

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Nate Zwald
Alta Genetics

Holstein World: To begin this week in the All Breeds Blog we will be hearing a response from one of our readers regarding last week’s discussion on crossbreeding. Kevin Jorgensen of Waupun, WI, has been working in the AI industry since 1992 and is currently employed as a SMS Evaluator for East Central/Select Sires as a SMS Evaluator – a position he has held since 1998. Kevin is also a Registered Holstein breeder and his herd operates under the Ke-Jo prefix.

As purebred dairy publications, Holstein World and All Breed Access, are proud to promote the purebred dairy cow and the people who work with them. We are delighted to see the enthusiasm of each person who contacted us last week regarding this issue and are happy to share their views, opinions and experiences with the rest of our blog audience. If you would like to weigh in on this subject, please contact Sarah Schmidt at sschmidt@dairybusiness.com.

Kevin Jorgensen: In response to Dr. Hansen’’s conversation last week about crossbreeding, yes, there are things about the Holstein cow that could be different and we need to continue to make strides in the right direction. That passion about making cows better is what gets most of us up every morning to either milk cows or work with dairy producers. However, many of the problems that Dr. Hansen talks of have more to do with what geneticists over the last 30 years were telling the industry that we need to breed and select for numbers and production solely. Single trait selection caused some of these other problems. If we used a balanced breeding approach, we could have averted many of the issues we are facing today.

Another point I”d like to mention in response to his answers regards size. First of all, it for the most part has very little to do with longevity unless you are talking about the 64 inch plus cows of which there are very few. Ag Engineers who design 44 inch stalls are dictating which cow is ideal. The cow isn”t saying she is too big. Ask producers that have renovated their barns to bigger stalls if size is now a problem. Secondly, the whole issue of crossbreeding never seems to look very long term into the equation. I hear of how well the crosses compare to pure Holsteins for production but the comparisons are always in first calf heifers and it is always on a fat corrected milk basis. If you start looking at second and subsequent lactations, the Holstein often is milking 3000-4000 pounds more. This can”t be ignored! That is a lot of milk if you are milking hundreds of cows. Additionally, Dr. Hansen never talked about the type aspects of what happens to the crosses as they age or the udder issues of F2′’s. Additionally, they are worth less which affects your balance sheet, the bull calves are worth less, and all of this is hardly ever mentioned.

I could go on an on but the reality of the situation is that crossbreeding is not a silver bullet to challenges that producers face and we as a Holstein industry need to start talking about the good things that Holsteins offer. There is a myriad of sire choices available for every breeding philosophy which is great because BREEDERS should have the freedom to decide which kind of cow they like and select for the traits that they deem important to them. Additionally, this big tent allows for improvement of the breed and I believe that we can solve the issues that Holsteins face without crossbreeding. I aspire to the fact that if we have once created a sire like Durham that meets the needs of the type conscious breeder and the commercial dairyman alike, that we can do it again.

I work with commercial and registered breeders alike and breed and develop my own animals. The greatest part of my travels in this business have been all the forms of success that I have found. Selecting for type, selecting for milk, breeding for red and white or breeding commercial cows that pay the bills. There is no one right way or wrong way to breed cows or be successful.

Another aspect of my involvement in this industry is working in the sale industry. I help producers buy and sell cows both commercially and elite registered animals. I find it ironic that with all the problems that Holsteins have, there are countless producers with extra cattle to sell. Most of these folks that do (especially large producers) are not crossbreeding and most employ that balanced approach to breeding as well as provide superior cow comfort and care. We need to learn lessons from these producers versus add other breeds to the mix.

I finish with an example of why I don”t agree with crossbreeding. 15 years ago in my first job out of college, I also worked for one of the companies that Dr. Hansen used to work for. Each year, I was sent to Nebraska to mate cows for two weeks. One of the stops I made in 1992, the producer wanted all his Jerseys mated to Holstein and all of his Holsteins mated to Jersey. About 1/2 of the cows were crosses already and quite honestly, they were really nice cows. In 1993, when I went back, the producer greeting me at his milkhouse was almost crying. He said in the last year his cows have gotten considerably worse and was sick about it. We went to the barn, and the F2′’s had been calving since shortly after I left. It was a train wreck! They weren”t milking and the type was awful. I will never forget the pain in that producer’’s eye and it drives me every day to deliver results for the producers I work with. There will be many more producers with that same pain in their eyes after they”ve tried crossbreeding on their farm.

Matt Steiner of Pine-Tree Dairy, OH: Share more information on your statement about the size of a cow: “The facts are in – a cow doesn’t need to be larger to be a top producer, and larger cows have more health problems, reduced fertility, and greater maintenance costs.” As you know, many people still make the claim that a cow needs to have as lots of size and capacity so that she can consume lots of feed to make milk. What research are you speaking of and what were the findings?

Dr. Les Hansen: There is no scientific evidence that a dairy cow needs to be bigger to “sustain” high milk production. Currently, the observed relationship between the production traits and body size composite is +.06 (on a +1.00 to -1.00 scale) of Holsteins in the U.S. This means there is a very slight tendency for production to increase with body size. Historically, this correlation has been about +.05, and it likely reflects those cows that have been stunted during development due to poor overall management, especially due to lung damage. A cow that has been provided a poor environment for growth is likely to have diminished potential for milk production. This observed relationship is near zero, but it makes sense that it should depart slightly from zero.

On the other hand, the underlying GENETIC relationship between the production traits and body size composite is -.10 (again, on a +1.00 to -1.00 scale), and this is the relationship used to calculate the Net Merit index by USDA. Historically, the genetic relationship between body size and production had been right at zero; however, as we have made Holsteins bigger and bigger (for god knows what reason!), the correlation has tipped negative.

Also, I have considerable first-hand experience with body size of Holsteins because of our ongoing body size study with Registered Holsteins at the University of Minnesota (the herd is located at our research station in far northern Minnesota at Crookston), in which we have selected for large versus small Holsteins for 40 years (the study was initiated in 1966 by my predecessor, Dr. Charles Young, and I have continued it). There is a huge difference for body size in the two genetic lines of Registered Holsteins in the study — after all, body size traits are highly heritable (are heavily controlled by genetics). However, the cows in our small Holstein line have significantly better fertility, longer productive lives (3 months), and fewer health disorders than their herdmates in the large Holstein line. For production, there has never been a statistically significant difference in production for the two body size lines across the 40 years of the study. In recent years, the herd average production has been about 27,000 lbs of milk (sometimes as high as 29,000 lbs), with a slight advantage (but not statistically significant) in favor of the cows in the SMALL line. Because smaller Holsteins have fewer health problems than larger Holstein cows, it probably makes sense for them to have a tendency for somewhat higher milk production.

Any comments about needing a larger cow to consume lots of roughage, etc., are just a lot of hearsay based on human intuition. I especially hear the claims by grazers that they need a cow with lots of width and depth to eat lots of forage. Numerous studies in the world have documented that shorter-legged, narrower (between the front legs), and shallower cows live longer than their larger herdmates. Most of us want a “stronger” Holstein cow, but we shouldn’t be measuring strength as width between the front legs. More BODY CONDITION is what Holstein cows need most for health and survival, and cows with more body condition appear much “stronger” than ones that are a rack of bones (or a “coat hanger” as Europeans say).

Research on the antagonistic relationship of cow body size with longevity applies in most countries in the world. An exception is Canada – in that country, bigger cows live longer. I assume that has something to do with Canada’s much higher price of milk compared to most of the world, which is propped up with a quota; therefore, Canadian dairy producers would have the luxury of keeping cows in their herd that they like to look at.

Matt Steiner of Pine-Tree Dairy, OH: What specific recommendations do you have for the Holstein Association USA to address the needs of the breed?

Dr. Les Hansen: The Holstein Association USA desperately needs a revised model of the Ideal Holstein Cow. There have been only two versions through history that I am aware of – the original one, which some of us grew up with, that reigned from 1922 to 1977, and the newer one that has been considered the ideal since 1977. All recent research suggests the “smaller and rounder” version, that was considered ideal for 55 years until 1977, is closer to the sort of cow that commercial dairy producers seek today.

Secondly, the TPI index needs major modification. That index still places 13% weight on final score type, and final score type continues to reward taller and sharper cows. Supposedly, classifiers have been trained to place somewhat less emphasis on these two traits, but the comments I hear from the field suggest there is tremendous variation from classifier to classifier on the extent of this shift. Furthermore, there clearly is no penalty in classification for cows that are extremely large and/or extremely sharp. Therefore, final score type should be removed from TPI. Another option is for “as-scored” final score type to be replaced by a “computer assigned” final score type, which has been done by the American Jersey Cattle Association for many years. With “computer assigned” final score type, individual linear traits are weighted as appropriate to improve the profitability of cows. Furthermore, the Net Merit index published by USDA is based on research and economic analysis, and it places nearly twice the weight as TPI on Productive Life (17% versus 8%) and Daughter Pregnancy Rate (9% versus 5%). Lastly, TPI currently ignores stillbirth rates.

A big part of my life has revolved around showing and judging of Registered Holsteins. However, cows with more moderate body size and with adequate body condition need to once again place near that top of classes (as they did in my youth back in the 1960s). A new trend is needed. I love to hear the word “balance” in a set of reasons.

Matt Steiner of Pine-Tree Dairy, OH: What changes should the association implement (which cows are recognized, etc.)?

Dr. Les Hansen: My observation is that the Holstein Association USA and the A.I. organizations are aware the fertility of Holstein cows must be improved, the length of productive lives of Holstein cows must be increased, and the death rates (on-farm) of Holstein cows must be reduced. However, many seem to want to force these fertility and health-related traits into a tall and sharp cow. Instead, it would make more sense to embrace the smaller and rounder body form of daughters of, for example, the Manfred sons (especially O-Man) and other bulls such as Ramos. Why attempt to force function into a body form that isn’t biological ideal for function? We have turned the Holstein cow into an ultra-slim, long-legged bovine version of a fashion model. That’s probably a pretty silly thing to do.

Holstein World: How will the incorporation of crossbred evaluations by the USDA influence the data capturing of crossbred cows with European heritage on DHIA test across the country? Will these bulls get accurate proofs without a US purebred base to compare against?

Dr. Les Hansen: The movement of USDA-AIPL to an across-breed evaluation is a normal progression and is an effort to be applauded. However, continuous refinements in the prediction system will be needed to properly adjust for heterosis (hybrid vigor) that is specific to breed combinations. European breeds with only semen used in the U.S. (and without a purebred cow population in the U.S.) will be at a disadvantage in this regard. Recent research from New Zealand suggests that heterosis from some breed crosses might be much greater for production than has been assumed. The across-breed evaluations should not decrease the accuracy of proofs for Holsteins and other traditional U.S. breeds.

Holstein World: Where can interested dairy producers find more information about implementing crossbreeding into their herd?

Dr. Les Hansen: We have an extensive review paper with results to date from crossbreeding of Holsteins with Scandinavian Red (Swedish Red and Norwegian Red) and Montbeliarde available on-line at:

http://www.ansci.umn.edu/research/californiaupdate2006-lb.pdf

Also, the University of Minnesota is hosting the 4th Biennial W. E. Petersen Symposium on Monday, April 2. The topic is “Crossbreeding of Dairy Cattle: The Science and the Impact”. The list of speakers is impressive. For those who cannot attend, proceedings papers will be posted on the website of the Department of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, shortly after the symposium. To view the brochure reviewing the symposium program:

http://www.ansci.umn.edu/petersen_symposium/2007/PetersenSymposiumBrochure-07.pdf

Holstein World: What combination of breeds is most prevalent in the crossbred dairy population? What is your research saying is the most beneficial cross? Beyond the first generation - where do producers go from there?

Dr. Les Hansen: We began crossbreeding pure (but unregistered) Holstein cows and heifers at the University of Minnesota with Jersey semen, which has been the first step by many people who decide to take the plunge. A couple of years later, we needed to breed those crosses to something, and we chose imported semen from the Montbeliarde breed of France. That was due to the sensational results we found from crossbreeding by seven dairies in California. We are now milking Montbeliarde crossbreds in our research herds at the University of Minnesota (in their 1st and 2nd lactations), and we are pretty convinced the Montbeliarde breed has a major role to play in crossbreeding systems around the world.

To adequately capitalize on heterosis (hybrid vigor), it is important to use three breeds in a crossbreeding system. Common knowledge is, “The first cross is good, but then what?” Too often, the first-cross cow was bred back to Holstein, and that was a huge mistake! Once a commercial dairy producer becomes accustomed to a full dose of heterosis, he/she isn’t very pleased with only a 50% dose of heterosis. Rotational crossbreeding with three breeds is simple to implement, and it is far simpler than trying to avoid inbreeding within the Holstein breed. Often commercial dairy producers lack pedigree information on their cows, so they can’t avoid inbreeding if they would like to. We are now milking 3-breed crossbreds in our campus herd, and they are neck-and-neck with our pure Holsteins (sire by top bulls) for production. However, in the next rotation of our crossbreeding system, we will be replacing the Jersey breed with the Swedish Red breed.

Holstein World: What do we know about the breeds we are crossing with? What is in their pedigree that indicates including them in a crossbreeding program would be advantageous?

Dr. Les Hansen: All breeds have their advocates, and that is good. Actually, a small number of breeds merit consideration globally for dairy cattle, but they are splendid breeds. The Holstein breed leads the pack.

The Scandinavian Red group includes Swedish Red, Finnish Ayrshire, Norwegian Red, Danish Red, German Angler, and Aussie Red, and those breeds intend to work collectively to form a global breed into the future, which will likely be referred to simply as the “Red” breed. Currently, Swedish Red is “the king of the world” among the Scandinavian Red breeds for combined production, udders, feet & legs, and functionality. The Scandinavian Red group has focused on the functional traits (fertility, health, calving ease, etc.) for many, many years. The breeds in this group have predominately Ayrshire heritage; therefore, I assume most Ayrshire breeds globally will bring in large doses of Scandinavian Red. This will probably be the case for Milking Shorthorns, too. This global “Red” breed will function as a global breed similar to the Holstein breed; however, it will have much greater gene variation and, therefore, much less concern about inbreeding than the global Holstein breed.

As I have already mentioned, the Montbeliarde breed has many attributes that make it ideally suited for crossing with Holsteins – the breed has selected FOR body condition on top of production through history, it has outstanding legs & feet (similar to its cousin, the Brown Swiss), and the udders are outstanding, too. There are more than twice as many Montbeliarde cows on DHI in France as there are Jerseys on DHI in the U.S. Commercial dairy producers who have traveled to California to see first-hand the Montbeliarde crossbreds in the seven dairies we have been working with uniformly go away impressed.

Most readers of the Holstein World are very familiar with the Jersey and Brown Swiss breeds, and they are aware of the strengths and liabilities of those breeds. Crossbreds of Jersey and Brown Swiss with Holstein should be very comparable to pure Holsteins for production.

The Normande breed is especially well suited for low-input, grass-based systems. Normande cows will maintain body condition, fertility, and health on diets that are below par for energy. Low-input, grass-based systems are a growing niche in the U.S., and I expect the Normande breed to play a large role in those crossbreeding systems.

Also, the “Red”, the Montbeliarde, and the Normande breeds each have selection programs for young sires that are carefully orchestrated to avoid the accumulation of inbreeding that has occurred within the Holstein, Jersey, and Brown Swiss breeds.

Holstein World: What is the current population (an estimate would be fine) of crossbred dairy animals in the U.S.? How has this number grown in the last 5, 10 or 20 years?

Dr. Les Hansen: It is very hard to gauge the extent of crossbreeding with accuracy. Only 50% of cows in the U.S. are in DHI, and many herds on DHI do not provide accurate records on young stock. Also, there has been a major hurdle in getting uniform coding of sires from the European breeds. I believe the Holstein World conducted a survey last year that indicated a remarkably high percentage of dairy producers are at least dabbling with crossbreeding.

The typical entry point to crossbreeding is the use of an A.I. sire of another breed on problem-breeder cows. That eventually results in crossbred cows in the herd. The Canadian Dairy Network, which does the genetic evaluations for Canada, recently confirmed higher non-return rates for Holstein cows bred to sires from another breed compared to Holstein cows bred to Holstein sires. Therefore, a problem breeder is probably more likely to conceive to a sire from another breed.

However, the number of crossbreds has to be growing rapidly in the U.S. For example, in 2006, 250,000 units of Swedish Red semen were imported into the U.S. Domestic use of Jersey semen continues to climb very rapidly – a good share of the increase must be semen going into commercial Holstein cows.

The first large wave of Swedish Red/Holstein crossbreds are calving in late 2006/early 2007, and the preliminary reviews are very favorable. Time will tell – and dairy producers will tell their fellow dairy producers their opinions on crossbreds versus pure Holsteins. Dairy producers listen to fellow dairy producers much more than they listen to breed associations, A.I. companies, or university researchers. I frequently comment, “If you listen to enough commercial dairy producers, you will usually get the story about right.”

My personal prediction is that 50% of the dairy cows in the U.S. will be crossbreds within a decade. Inbreeding continues to mount unabated in the Holstein breed at the rate of about +0.12% per year. Blackstar now has a 16.2% relationship to American Holsteins, and Starbuck has a 20% relationship to Canadian Holsteins. Together, Elevation and Chief now comprise roughly 30% of the Holstein gene pool internationally. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to predict where this will take us.

Holstein World: Why have dairy producers become interested in using crossbreeding in their breeding programs? What are some of the advantages and/or disadvantages that may result?

Dr. Les Hansen: Why the interest? Because of the frustration with 1) the fertility of pure Holstein cows, 2) the calving difficulty of 1st calf Holstein heifers (stillbirth rates are too high, as well), 3) the health problems of pure Holstein cows, and 4) the extreme size of many pure Holstein cows.

Holstein has been the undisputed #1 breed of dairy cattle in the world; however, in hindsight, we have done some very foolish things in our selection programs. We became complacent and began selecting for “glamour” rather than function. Why on earth did we select for dairy character on top of milk production? Why have we continued to make the Holstein cow larger each year? The facts are in – a cow doesn’t need to be larger to be a top producer, and larger cows have more health problems, reduced fertility, and greater maintenance costs. Why did we ignored calving difficulty in selection programs until recently?

Why have we asked the cow to have an uphill run, which moves causes more of the cow’s weight to be carried by the rear legs? Why have we discriminated against potential bull mothers who milk like crazy but happen to be a tad thick? “Smaller and rounder” should become the goal rather than “taller and sharper”.

When we dispersed our home herd in 1976, we had a couple of cows making records of 25,000 lb with 1,000 lb of fat. Those cows weren’t super tall with an uphill run and ultra slim. They had meat on their bones, were rugged and tough, and still milked extremely well. That was the Registered Holstein cow that I grew up with, and many commercial dairy producers want more of that stamina and vigor back in the breed.

Sometimes, I fear one half of my Minnesota dairy producers with Registered Holsteins only breed them to provide show cattle for their kids. I thoroughly enjoy the showring, and it has been a huge part of my life; however, the showring should not determine the sort of cow milked by commercial dairy producers. The only reason for a pure breed to exist is to provide germplasm for the commercial sector.

If crossbreeding doesn’t become routine for commercial dairy production (although, I think it will), the topic clearly has been a wake-up call to some associated with the Holstein breed. However, my fear is that too many in leadership positions with the Holstein breed are in denial about the extreme displeasure of commercial dairy producers with the functionality of the 2007 version of the Holstein cow. Therefore, I believe there will be much more movement to crossbreeding among commercial dairy producers before many in leadership roles with Holsteins wake up and smell the coffee.