Results from the clover and crossbreeding study conducted by Teagasc at Clonakilty have just been published in the Journal of Dairy Science.
The economic analysis shows that Jersey crossbred cows grazing a perennial ryegrass and white clover-based sward is the most profitable system, producing a net profit of €2,751/ha. This compares to a net profit of €2,639/ha for three-way cross and €2,632/ha for Holstein Friesian cows grazing the same sward.
For background, the study was conducted over four years and looked at three breeds – Holstein Friesian, Jersey-cross Holstein Friesian, and a three-way cross of Holstein Friesian, Jersey and Norwegian Red. The three breeds were grazing two different sward types – perennial ryegrass and perennial ryegrass plus clover.
There was no significant difference in milk solids production between the Jersey-cross at 469kgMS/cow and Holstein Friesian at 460kgMS/cow
The economic analysis takes into account factors such as increased reseeding intervals where clover is used and lower calf and carcase value where Jersey is used. A base milk price of 29c/l is presumed.
All three breeds performed well. There was no significant difference in milk solids production between the Jersey-cross at 469kgMS/cow and Holstein Friesian at 460kgMS/cow but the three-way cross produced significantly less than the Jersey-cross at 453kgMS/cow.
Despite this excellent performance for the Holstein Friesian, the Jersey crossbred was still more profitable
Fertility performance was excellent for all three breeds but was exceptional for the Holstein Friesians, with an average of just 3% empty after 12 weeks of breeding while that figure was 7% for both crossbred groups.
Despite this excellent performance for the Holstein Friesian, the Jersey crossbred was still more profitable, even on a per cow basis. Where cow numbers are fixed, net profit per cow in the grass and clover swards came out at €938 for the Jersey crossbred, €926 for the Holstein Friesian and €890 for the three-way cross.
Frank Buckley, principal research officer, Teagasc, answers our questions on the ICBF analysis
Frank, you have seen the Mythbusters analysis of breeds by Andrew Cromie of ICBF. Do you think it was a fair analysis of where the breeds are at?
Data interrogation analysis of this type, when conducted across many thousands of herds, can be a useful exercise as a preliminary helicopter view or look-see. It is what we scientists refer to as examining the raw data. It can help identify possible trends or identify outliers in a dataset and is common practice before digging deeper.
The analysis by ICBF tells me that there are highly profitable Holstein Friesian and crossbred dairy herds in Ireland today.
The two key performance indicators were milk receipts per cow and six-week calving rate
Indeed the initial high-level data compilation included more than 10,000 creamery milk herds. However, the trends also suggest that herds incorporating a reasonable degree of Jersey crossbreeding perform considerably better than herds with Holstein Friesian cows only.
The two key performance indicators were milk receipts per cow and six-week calving rate. The crossbred herds supplied €63 more worth of milk per cow and had 80% cows calved in the first three weeks versus 66% for herds with only Holstein Friesian genetics. This is consistent with what we expect based on controlled research studies. Again, while interesting, this does not meet the standard of a scientifically rigorous comparison of breeds.
The main weakness with this form of analysis is that by comparing herds of Holstein Friesian and crossbred animals, you are inadvertently also comparing farm systems, management types and a host of other characteristics that differ between these types of farms. In the same way we cannot just compare the milk recording performance of two herds and assume that one is superior to the other because there may also be differences in concentrate supplementation and so on.
The standard scientific method of analysis of breeds is to look at the performance of different breeds within herds
In the same way breed is but one part of this story in this comparison. If observational data is presented, as is sometimes the case, it must always be interpreted objectively, with the utmost of caution and with the appropriate disclaimer. The standard scientific method of analysis of breeds is to look at the performance of different breeds within herds, thereby removing the confounding impacts of alternative systems between herds.
Any conclusions drawn from the raw means about breeds are certainly not scientifically robust for this reason. That is why we as scientists run scientifically controlled experiments like the Next Generation Herd, apply (at times complicated) statistical models to adjust for imbalances when analysing data, possible confounding affects, differences in management and so on. We also subject our research to international peer review. This is to ensure our findings are objective, factual, scientifically robust and consistent with the full weight of international science.
In previous articles, you and other scientists both in Ireland and elsewhere have said that there is merit to continuing a crossbreeding programme in Ireland. However, do you accept that there are also drawbacks, particularly in relation to calf value and carcase size. How can you marry the two?
Yes, there has been a lot of talk this past while regarding the impact of EBI as well as Jersey genetics on the value of progeny entering the beef sector. With regard to Jersey, yes they have lower beef merit. What contributes to their efficiency capabilities as a dairy animal contributes to their downfall in terms of beef merit. That is a fact. However, the extent to which that is the case in the context of crossbreeding is very much overplayed.
The study showed that for every 1% increase in Jersey in the cow, carcase value decreased by €1
My colleague Donagh Berry published a comprehensive analysis about a year ago using national slaughter data where he quantified the reduction in carcase value for animals sired by Holstein Friesian or Angus out of Holstein Friesian or Jersey crossbred cows. The study showed that for every 1% increase in Jersey in the cow, carcase value decreased by €1. So that is the actual impact which has up until relatively recently at least been reflected in relative calf value.
That beef animals with Jersey genes are perceived as lower value by the beef sector is without question and herds using Jersey genetics in particular, should try to minimise the proportion of low-value bull calves produced each year on that basis.
Sexed semen provides a great opportunity for dairy farmers to continue to avail of the benefits of selecting a highly efficient and profitable crossbred cow
Jersey genetics should only be used during the period of the breeding season from which replacement heifer calves to be retained are generated.
Sexed semen provides a great opportunity for dairy farmers to continue to avail of the benefits of selecting a highly efficient and profitable crossbred cow while simultaneously minimising the number of low value Jersey cross males and should be prioritised. In addition, using easy-calving beef sires on low-EBI or poorer cows from the outset and on all cows outside of the period to produce replacements can greatly increase the beef quality of all surplus dairy calves.
For the past two breeding seasons, Teagasc herds have incorporated both sexed dairy and conventional beef semen using a range of both traditional and continental breeds – Angus, Hereford, Limousin, Charolais, Aubrac and Belgian Blue – all very successfully. The result being a markedly increased average calf crop value. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of crossbreeding, those choosing this strategy should be encouraged to maximise the beef merit of the proportion of their calves that will be available for beef production. This can be done by the AI and dairy industry getting behind sexed semen.
In light of the recent ICBF Mythbusters campaign, what do you say to farmers who have been crossbreeding or to those who are considering using different breeds on their herd?
Those who choose to crossbreed should be enabled to do so by the provision of a quality multi-breed team of high-EBI sires and decision support, for example clear visibility around the value of heterosis within Sire Advice, etc. These farmers are simply maximising genetic progress in a way that is consistent with the best available scientific information and the full complement of the genetic resources available to them. Thus, capitalising on non-additive genetic merit (hybrid vigour) as well as additive genetic merit via high-EBI Holstein-Friesian from our own highly successful national breeding programme and high-EBI Jersey, primarily from New Zealand. It is abundantly clear that the strategy has been working and will continue to do so.
Read more
Genetic gain: is crossbreeding redundant?
Watch: Jersey cows outperforming Elites
Results from the clover and crossbreeding study conducted by Teagasc at Clonakilty have just been published in the Journal of Dairy Science.
The economic analysis shows that Jersey crossbred cows grazing a perennial ryegrass and white clover-based sward is the most profitable system, producing a net profit of €2,751/ha. This compares to a net profit of €2,639/ha for three-way cross and €2,632/ha for Holstein Friesian cows grazing the same sward.
For background, the study was conducted over four years and looked at three breeds – Holstein Friesian, Jersey-cross Holstein Friesian, and a three-way cross of Holstein Friesian, Jersey and Norwegian Red. The three breeds were grazing two different sward types – perennial ryegrass and perennial ryegrass plus clover.
There was no significant difference in milk solids production between the Jersey-cross at 469kgMS/cow and Holstein Friesian at 460kgMS/cow
The economic analysis takes into account factors such as increased reseeding intervals where clover is used and lower calf and carcase value where Jersey is used. A base milk price of 29c/l is presumed.
All three breeds performed well. There was no significant difference in milk solids production between the Jersey-cross at 469kgMS/cow and Holstein Friesian at 460kgMS/cow but the three-way cross produced significantly less than the Jersey-cross at 453kgMS/cow.
Despite this excellent performance for the Holstein Friesian, the Jersey crossbred was still more profitable
Fertility performance was excellent for all three breeds but was exceptional for the Holstein Friesians, with an average of just 3% empty after 12 weeks of breeding while that figure was 7% for both crossbred groups.
Despite this excellent performance for the Holstein Friesian, the Jersey crossbred was still more profitable, even on a per cow basis. Where cow numbers are fixed, net profit per cow in the grass and clover swards came out at €938 for the Jersey crossbred, €926 for the Holstein Friesian and €890 for the three-way cross.
Frank Buckley, principal research officer, Teagasc, answers our questions on the ICBF analysis
Frank, you have seen the Mythbusters analysis of breeds by Andrew Cromie of ICBF. Do you think it was a fair analysis of where the breeds are at?
Data interrogation analysis of this type, when conducted across many thousands of herds, can be a useful exercise as a preliminary helicopter view or look-see. It is what we scientists refer to as examining the raw data. It can help identify possible trends or identify outliers in a dataset and is common practice before digging deeper.
The analysis by ICBF tells me that there are highly profitable Holstein Friesian and crossbred dairy herds in Ireland today.
The two key performance indicators were milk receipts per cow and six-week calving rate
Indeed the initial high-level data compilation included more than 10,000 creamery milk herds. However, the trends also suggest that herds incorporating a reasonable degree of Jersey crossbreeding perform considerably better than herds with Holstein Friesian cows only.
The two key performance indicators were milk receipts per cow and six-week calving rate. The crossbred herds supplied €63 more worth of milk per cow and had 80% cows calved in the first three weeks versus 66% for herds with only Holstein Friesian genetics. This is consistent with what we expect based on controlled research studies. Again, while interesting, this does not meet the standard of a scientifically rigorous comparison of breeds.
The main weakness with this form of analysis is that by comparing herds of Holstein Friesian and crossbred animals, you are inadvertently also comparing farm systems, management types and a host of other characteristics that differ between these types of farms. In the same way we cannot just compare the milk recording performance of two herds and assume that one is superior to the other because there may also be differences in concentrate supplementation and so on.
The standard scientific method of analysis of breeds is to look at the performance of different breeds within herds
In the same way breed is but one part of this story in this comparison. If observational data is presented, as is sometimes the case, it must always be interpreted objectively, with the utmost of caution and with the appropriate disclaimer. The standard scientific method of analysis of breeds is to look at the performance of different breeds within herds, thereby removing the confounding impacts of alternative systems between herds.
Any conclusions drawn from the raw means about breeds are certainly not scientifically robust for this reason. That is why we as scientists run scientifically controlled experiments like the Next Generation Herd, apply (at times complicated) statistical models to adjust for imbalances when analysing data, possible confounding affects, differences in management and so on. We also subject our research to international peer review. This is to ensure our findings are objective, factual, scientifically robust and consistent with the full weight of international science.
In previous articles, you and other scientists both in Ireland and elsewhere have said that there is merit to continuing a crossbreeding programme in Ireland. However, do you accept that there are also drawbacks, particularly in relation to calf value and carcase size. How can you marry the two?
Yes, there has been a lot of talk this past while regarding the impact of EBI as well as Jersey genetics on the value of progeny entering the beef sector. With regard to Jersey, yes they have lower beef merit. What contributes to their efficiency capabilities as a dairy animal contributes to their downfall in terms of beef merit. That is a fact. However, the extent to which that is the case in the context of crossbreeding is very much overplayed.
The study showed that for every 1% increase in Jersey in the cow, carcase value decreased by €1
My colleague Donagh Berry published a comprehensive analysis about a year ago using national slaughter data where he quantified the reduction in carcase value for animals sired by Holstein Friesian or Angus out of Holstein Friesian or Jersey crossbred cows. The study showed that for every 1% increase in Jersey in the cow, carcase value decreased by €1. So that is the actual impact which has up until relatively recently at least been reflected in relative calf value.
That beef animals with Jersey genes are perceived as lower value by the beef sector is without question and herds using Jersey genetics in particular, should try to minimise the proportion of low-value bull calves produced each year on that basis.
Sexed semen provides a great opportunity for dairy farmers to continue to avail of the benefits of selecting a highly efficient and profitable crossbred cow
Jersey genetics should only be used during the period of the breeding season from which replacement heifer calves to be retained are generated.
Sexed semen provides a great opportunity for dairy farmers to continue to avail of the benefits of selecting a highly efficient and profitable crossbred cow while simultaneously minimising the number of low value Jersey cross males and should be prioritised. In addition, using easy-calving beef sires on low-EBI or poorer cows from the outset and on all cows outside of the period to produce replacements can greatly increase the beef quality of all surplus dairy calves.
For the past two breeding seasons, Teagasc herds have incorporated both sexed dairy and conventional beef semen using a range of both traditional and continental breeds – Angus, Hereford, Limousin, Charolais, Aubrac and Belgian Blue – all very successfully. The result being a markedly increased average calf crop value. Instead of focusing on the negative aspects of crossbreeding, those choosing this strategy should be encouraged to maximise the beef merit of the proportion of their calves that will be available for beef production. This can be done by the AI and dairy industry getting behind sexed semen.
In light of the recent ICBF Mythbusters campaign, what do you say to farmers who have been crossbreeding or to those who are considering using different breeds on their herd?
Those who choose to crossbreed should be enabled to do so by the provision of a quality multi-breed team of high-EBI sires and decision support, for example clear visibility around the value of heterosis within Sire Advice, etc. These farmers are simply maximising genetic progress in a way that is consistent with the best available scientific information and the full complement of the genetic resources available to them. Thus, capitalising on non-additive genetic merit (hybrid vigour) as well as additive genetic merit via high-EBI Holstein-Friesian from our own highly successful national breeding programme and high-EBI Jersey, primarily from New Zealand. It is abundantly clear that the strategy has been working and will continue to do so.
Read more
Genetic gain: is crossbreeding redundant?
Watch: Jersey cows outperforming Elites
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: