Please contact NZAEL with regards to a change in bulls Breeding Worth on info@nzael.co.nz

If you have an issue with re-ranking of cows in your herd. Please contact your herd recording provider.

Breeding Values (BVs) are an estimation of an animal’s genetic merit. They are estimated for all recorded animals, and the accuracy will depend on three key factors:

1. Data quality and quantity,
2. The suitability of the model equation
3. The solvers, or calculators, that are available to solve the equations.

NZAEL 2.0 uses similar data to NZAEL 1.0, but the model equations are more appropriate, and the solvers are state of the art. See dairynz.co.nz/breedingvalues to read more.

These two improvements result in more accurate estimations across all recorded animals. Improved accuracy will result in changes to the breeding values for many animals.

NZAEL plan to implement NZAEL 3.0 in February 2021. This will improve the data that is contributing to BVs by incorporating genomic data. As a result, further re-ranking among animals will occur.

The model equation used in NZAEL 2.0 results in more accurate estimations of the genetic trends (change in genetic merit over time) of each breed. This has resulted in an overall lift in the production BVs of Jerseys, indicating that these BVs were, to some extent, under-estimated previously.

The methodology used to calculate reliability has been updated to align more closely with international best practice. On average this resulted in a decrease in BW reliability of 5% for proven bulls. This drop in reliability between the NZAEL 1.0 and NZAEL 2.0 results does not reflect a drop in breeding value accuracy.

In February 2020 LIC will implement a single step animal model (SSAM). This is a model that simultaneously estimates breeding values for genotyped and un-genotyped animals by combining all pedigree, performance and genomic information. A SSAM approach enables the available genomic information to add value to all un-genotyped relatives.

NZAEL 2.0 does not incorporate genomic information, and so many animals will have different breeding values when compared across NZAEL 2.0 and MINDA. These differences will be the most pronounced for genotyped animals, and their close relatives.

Farmers can view NZAEL 2.0 breeding values for cows on MINDA PRO.

Genomic data is hugely valuable for estimating breeding values. NZAEL 3.0 will be a single step animal model, and the implementation of this software (planned for February 2021) will address the current omission of this important genomic information from NZAEL’s evaluations.

Cattle inherit half of their DNA from their mother, and half from their father. Inbreeding describes the proportion of an animal’s genome from its two parents that is identical because it was inherited from a common, perhaps very distant, ancestor.

On average, inbreeding has a measurable negative impact on cattle performance. This phenomenon is called 'inbreeding depression', and it means that the inbred progeny of an animal will not be as profitable (in terms of their own performance) as their BW indicates.

Find out more about inbreeding here.

In general, cross-bred animals will perform better than the average of their pure-bred parents for a wide range of traits. This additional performance is called hybrid vigour or heterosis and it occurs for two key reasons:

1. Less chance of inbreeding
   
   Inbreeding depression is the result of an animal inheriting the same compromised version of a gene from both its mother and father. Friesian and Jersey populations became separate a long time ago, and so a compromised gene in either breed would have had to persist in both populations for many generations in order for the progeny of a first cross to be at risk of inheriting two copies.
   
   Hybrid vigour reflects inbreeding depression that occurred in ancestral generations that is retained in offspring of purebred matings but disappears when an animal is outcrossed.
   
   
2. Increased prevalence of dominant and desirable genes
   
   In every population, genetic mutations will occasionally occur that improve the function of certain genes. Some of these will be dominant, whereby one copy of the gene variant is sufficient to deliver the full performance advantage (and so there is no further advantage to inheriting two copies). Pure bred animals can only inherit the favourable mutations that have occurred within their breed. The first cross of two breeds will take advantage of dominant mutations that have occurred across both breeds, and so the function of a wider range of genes may be improved. On average, this leads to performance in progeny that is greater than the average of the two parents.
   
   Because the causes of hybrid vigour involve non-additive gene action, these effects are not well predicted from breeding values as the effect depends upon knowledge of the genotype of both parents.

In NZAEL 2.0 on MINDA, genomics will feed into BW and PW therefore there will be variance in full sibling’s BW and PWs.

With NZAEL 2.0 heifer calving difficulty has been implemented. Firstly, a little clarification on the terminology we are using.

• Heifer calving difficulty: Heifer calving difficulty breeding value for a sire is calculated from the difficulty its progeny has, being born from a two-year-old.
• Cow calving difficulty: Cow calving difficulty breeding value for a sire is calculated from the difficulty its progeny has, being born from a three-year-old or older.

NZAEL 1.0 heifer calving difficulty breeding values (BVs) were generated using all calving information (calvings to heifers and cows, from all herds), as well as gestation length. These breeding values were unstable over a bull’s lifetime, and farmers regularly reported them to be inaccurate.

The calving difficulty breeding values implemented as a part of NZAEL 2.0 on February 21 used data from only heifer calvings, and excludes gestation length information. This is a conservative approach, which improves the accuracy of the breeding value, but the low use of artificial breeding (AB) on heifers has greatly decreased the volume of calving information available for the evaluation.

To rectify this situation, NZAEL and LIC have trialled an additional ‘cow calving difficulty’ evaluation based on cow (age three years and older) calvings in progeny testing herds. This analysis was restricted to calving data from herds participating in a progeny testing scheme or TOP recording. That is, in herds where we were confident, they had provided good calving difficulty data. Going forward, we will look to included data from more herds, based on the quality of their calving records.

The outcome of this work has been a decision to implement a two-trait calving difficulty evaluation as part of NZAEL 2.0 effective immediately.

On this basis, NZAEL will provide both heifer and cow calving difficulty results and these should be presented to farmers so they can make a well-informed decision when making sire selection decisions.

The accuracy of heifer and cow calving difficulty information for young sires is generally low. High accuracy is only achieved by bulls which have been used widely. Farmers are advised to use teams of bulls to reduce the risk associated with individual bulls in their team.

The BW bull file will be updated to include both cow and heifer calving difficulty BVs and reliabilities for every AE enrolled sire. Our website will also be updated to contain the two calving difficulty BVs for every bull.

Bulls being used on yearling heifers should have a minus figure on calving difficulty with a greater minus indicating an easier calving sire. Jerseys will usually be the easiest calving sires. However, jerseys do not fit all farmers breeding goals, for other options please contact your AB companies to help you pick specific bulls.

Regardless of your choice of breed in your herd, the highest breeding worth sires available in that breed should be used alongside other traits you have deemed valuable for the sustainability of your herd.

No, not all bulls from all breeding companies with an AB code have access to NZAEL V2.0 evaluations. In April 2020 all bulls marketed in New Zealand will have NZAEL 2.0 evaluations.

With the timing of the launch of NZAEL 2.0 some oversees bulls with less than 20 daughters in 10 New Zealand herds will still have some of their evaluation calculated from NZAEL 1.0 due to blending from Interbull not being calculated until April 2020.

For more information on Interbull and how blending works visit https://interbull.org/ib/interbullactivities

Milk production and profitability is a combination of environment and genotype.

Environment includes feeding and management. It is likely your herd is fed to high levels on quality feed and well managed. The statistical models to calculate BW (the genotype component) remove the environmental component via contemporary groups and permanent environmental effects so that environment does not influence the BW.

Other reasons for the low BW include that your cows are sired by bulls that do not have a large number of progeny records, relatives of animals in your herd performed poorly when managed in another herd in New Zealand or your herd is genetically heavy.

To see how BW should be used click here

A contemporary group is a group of dairy animals that are the same age and have had an equal opportunity to perform. Animals in a contemporary group are reared and managed alike, in the same environmental conditions and with the same feed resources.

When grouped in this way, it allows us to compare them on an even playing field. We can then separate genetic differences from environmental effects and differences in performance are likely due to genetic differences.

More detail and information about upcoming changes can be found on the minimum contemporary group webpage.

The definition of BW is “animals whose progeny will be the most efficient converters of feed into farmer profit.”

BW mainly relates to the expected ability of animal to produce profitable progeny. How a cow performs is a combination of her permanent environmental effect which consists of how well she was reared and the random sample of genes she received from her parents. For instance, those higher producers may have inadvertently had a better growth pattern and environment, and received a collection of more favourable genes from her parents. The calculation of BW removes this permanent environmental effect from the calculation, and places greater weighting on how well related individuals have performed.

In addition, BW does not include solely milksolids production and places moderate emphasis on live weight, fertility, somatic cell count and survival. Those highest producers’ maybe genetically larger animals for which they are penalised because of higher growing and maintenance costs or they are from families with lower fertility. PW and LW reflect an individual’s performance as they include the permanent environmental effect, but PW and LW still include estimates for traits such as live weight, fertility, somatic cell count and survival.

There may be a number of reasons for this. Firstly, they may not have produced progeny that have performed well. Remember that BW mainly relates to the expected ability of animal to produce profitable progeny, and does not include the permanent environmental effect.

Secondly, an animal that has reached an advanced age has not been given a positive value for survival. Until she exits the herd, survival is based on the survival of her relatives. Currently, the system does not give her a bonus for her longevity.

Thirdly, every year we have genetic progress of approximately 10 BW. So this cow is a result of parents who were, say eight-years-older, than a two-year-old animal in the herd. Therefore, this two-year old may have a sire that has eight years of genetic advancement (approximately 80 BW units) compared to your 10 year old animals. In saying all this, if these older cows have been producing progeny that outperform animals in their age group and still has a low BW then we would like to know about it so we can investigate.

The old saying of “5% breeding, 95% feeding” is simply not true. We know that, on average, 30% of the differences in milk production between animals of the same age, breed, season of calving and herd is due to differences in genetic merit and 70% of the difference is due to environmental effects. These environmental effects include feeding and management. Animal evaluations remove the environmental effects so that you can compare animals on an equal genetic basis.

Divide your herd into three groups by their PW, and then by their BW: top third, middle third and bottom third. Then examine the production from those groups of cows (as a group), and the income they are generating. The difference between the profitabilities of the three groups will usually be very apparent.

Your herd recording provider can generate a report that will help you complete this analysis in your own herd.

Our current breeding objective is “animals whose progeny will be the most efficient converters of feed into farmer profit”. We know that all the current traits in BW contribute economically to this overall objective. For instance, cows with poor fertility limit days in milk, herd life and replacement rates. All these affect farmer profit.

Therefore, fertility has to be included in BW. If you don’t include key economic traits in your breeding objective, these traits can quickly become faults and have a large economic impact. Our overriding reason for any including any trait in BW is that it has an economic impact on the overall objective (BW).

Type traits or TOP traits are included indirectly in BW. Owner opinion, milking speed, leg conformation, dairy conformation and udder overall are all included as predictor traits in the residual survival trait as they are known to influence how long a cow survives in the herd. So, cows that have higher rankings for these type traits do receive a small bonus in their BW.

The worldwide customers of our dairy products, the national market place and the economic environment together dictate which traits are (or become) economically important. All traits in BW have an economic importance.

Ultimately, the NZAEL Board of Directors makes the final decision to include a particular trait. Their decision depends on research undertaken by the Standing Advisory Committee in regards to how the trait can be measured, its economic importance, and availability of technology to estimate the trait.

The animal evaluation system identifies bulls and cows that have a high merit for profit - a common objective for farmers - while collecting data on other traits that farmers can use to meet their other objectives.

The current system currently provides genetic information on 26 different traits: milkfat, protein, milk, liveweight, fertility, somatic cell score, residual survival, longevity, calving difficulty, body condition score, adaptability to milking, shed temperament, milking speed, overall opinion, stature, capacity, rump angle, rump width, legs, udder support, fore udder, rear udder, front teats, rear teats, udder overall and dairy conformation. Farmers can use this information to suit their own objectives and weight traits for their own importance.

Economic values are reviewed annually and updated, if required, in February. Click here to view the latest economic values.

We know that if we didn’t include live weight in BW then cows would get larger as we know there is positive correlation between fat, milk and protein production. Larger animals require more feed to grow to their mature live weight potential, and have higher maintenance energy costs.

If two herd mates have identical milk production but one is say, 100 kg heavier than the other, then the heavier cow requires more feed to maintain herself and requires more feed overall. This heavier cow produces less milksolids per kg of liveweight. If the whole herd consisted of heavier cows, fewer cows can be carried on the farm which results in less milksolids production per hectare. If the heavier cow produces more milksolids than the lighter cow (which is generally the case), the heavier cow will gain more positive economic values for milkfat and protein, but this may not offset the economic penalty for high liveweight.

The current negative economic value for liveweight has not resulted in animals getting smaller over time. In fact, there have been small increases in liveweight. The current weighting of traits has resulted in cows that produce more milksolids per kg of live weight.

For more about the live weight breeding value and its economic value click here

Because, all other things being equal, the higher volume cow, or the heavier cow, or the high SCC cow, is less profitable.

Milk volume has a negative economic value because of the processors levy and the feed required to produce milk volume and lactose.

Most of New Zealand’s milk production is exported in solid form as butter, cheese, milk powder and other manufactured dairy products. For these products, the liquid must be removed and this has a cost. Other costs related to milk volume are involved in refrigerating and transporting milk from the farm for processing. This is reflected in a volume charge that is used to calculate the price per kg of milk solids by all milk processors. Milk volume and the associated lactose also require significant feed intake to produce.

For more about the milk breeding value and its economic value click here

All our evidence suggests that this is not the case. Liveweight has shown a slight increase over time and milk volume and capacity have continued to increase. Both volume and liveweight are positively genetically correlated with milkfat and protein yield.

Therefore, both liveweight and volume tend to increase with genetic improvement of cattle. Negative economic values for liveweight and volume merely constrain genetic increases in volume and liveweight to avoid economically wasteful genetic change. Over time we are breeding an animal that produces more milksolids per kg of liveweight.

Liveweight recording has been practised for over 20 years for inspector scored liveweights for two-year old heifers, and for over 15 years for scale-recorded weights for mixed age cows. Progeny tested bulls have a high proportion of liveweight recorded daughters. For example, 76% of the production recorded daughters of the progeny test bulls born in 2004 had at least one liveweight record. On average, these bulls had 62 liveweight recorded daughters. This enables the genetic merit for liveweight of these bulls to be estimated with a high degree of precision.

For overseas origin bulls without daughters with liveweight records in New Zealand we are reliant on overseas information to estimate liveweight breeding values for these bulls. This estimate has a low reliability, and consequently may change once their daughters are raised and weighed in New Zealand conditions.

As with any traits, more data enables more accurate breeding values. The production worth of individuals in your herd will be more accurate if actual liveweight information is available, and this will also contribute to the accuracy of liveweight breeding values for bulls.

Over the past 10 years, protein has had a higher farm gate return than fat. The current economic value model is based on a 10 year rolling historical average, and the higher returns for fat in the past few years take a while to shift this long term average. We are investigating whether this rolling average should be shifted to a shorter period to make the value more dynamic and reflective of current conditions.

For a summary of current economic values click here

A genetic base is chosen arbitrarily. The choice of the base group affects the size and the sign (+ve or -ve) of the evaluation and not the ranking of the animals. The genetic base is chosen to be practically relevant e.g. cows that you are familiar with, and is regularly updated over time. For instance, in 2020 the base cow will be updated and become the average of 2010 born cows. The base cow always has individual breeding values of zero and a BW of zero.

Like the base cow, the reference unit of feed is purely an arbitrary figure. 5000kg was chosen because it is the approximate amount of feed a cow consumes in a year.

No. A negative BW simply means that a cow’s progeny are expected to earn less net income than a base cow if mated to a 0 BW animal.

Approximately 10% of the cost of running the animal evaluation system is paid directly by AB companies (including LIC, CRV Ambreed) for evaluations of their bulls; about a further 36% is funded by DairyNZ; and the remaining 54% is paid by LIC’s MINDA service for the operation of the cow indexes. This is why LIC charges other companies or individuals for cow information if they are not using the MINDA service.

New Zealand Animal Evaluation Limited (NZAEL) currently manages the National Breeding Objective on behalf of DairyNZ. DairyNZ is an incorporated society that co-ordinates and funds dairy industry activities that are financially beneficial to New Zealand dairy farmers.

NZAEL reviews the national breeding objective annually, and recommends the statement of goal, the list of traits to be evaluated, and the assignment of relative importance to each of the traits. The review includes a report to DairyNZ on the input data used for the economic model, and on compliance with the established procedures.

NZAEL also monitors breeding value estimation (carried out as part of the national genetic evaluation system) to ensure that it meets the standards required by Interbull for participants in international genetic evaluations. Interbull conducts validation checks before incorporating data from a new national genetic evaluation - New Zealand’s data has been accepted at every Interbull international evaluation since being included in 1996.

Other audits are commissioned from time to time as required, including scientific peer reviews by national and international experts. Additions and modifications (for example, calving difficulty BV, cow fertility BV, and re-definition of the longevity BV) are usually submitted for peer review.

Because across-breed comparisons were needed, and because it could be done!

Currently, the highest proportion of cows are crossbreds. Farmers with mixed breed herds and/or crossbred cows in their herd needed to be able to make economic comparisons between cows across breed, and not just within breeds.

A little bit of history is probably required here. Cow and bull indexes originated from the forerunners of LIC, when it was part of the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB). These successive organisations set up the database, collected data, performed the research and development, and eventually developed, with dairy industry support, the first indexes of an animal evaluation system.

When LIC became a farmer-owned co-op in 2002, LIC voluntarily passed the responsibility for the bull BW to DairyNZ (formerly Dairy InSight). And so the indexes for bulls are dairy industry indexes, available to all in the dairy industry. At the same time, it was agreed that information about cows would continue to be provided by commercial dairy service providers, and not by DairyNZ. Any service provider can provide cow indexes, but the cow BW, PW and LW are indexes provided by LIC at its own cost. This is why LIC charges other companies or individuals for cow information if they are not using the MINDA service. BWs, PWs and LWs are available through LIC’s MINDA service.  However, if you’re not using the MINDA service you can still obtain the cow indexes. If your herd test or herd records provider wishes to supply the cow BW, PW and LW indexes to you, they can obtain them from LIC for a fee.

The RAS list is the abbreviation for the Ranking of Active Sires across and within breeds which are produced after each animal evaluation run. Always use the latest RAS List, click here to view.

To be eligible for inclusion on a RAS list, a bull must have commercial quantities of semen available, nominated by their marketer, have a BW reliability of more than 75% and have daughters in at least 10 herds.

BW has probably been a function of its own success in this area. They use it because it is easy, a common unit of currency and, in some cases, and indication of how much effort has gone into animal recording.

We all know that BW is not the be all and end all, and that other functional traits are important such as udder and capacity. These traits are included in BW but only in a small way. It is about us educating that there is more to an animal than her BW. Nevertheless, BW exists as common breeding objective across the industry.

We can determine this from genetic trend graphs over time. These remove the environmental (feeding and management) from a cow’s performance. The rate of genetic change from 2001 to 2010 is shown below:

To see the impact of genetic evaluation and animal selection on individual breeding values over time for different breeds, visit breeding values

For Jerseys: Click on the Registration Policy button on the Jersey.org registration page.

For Holstein Friesians: Visit the nzholstein.org registration page.

Holstein-Friesian parent transmits its spotting alleles, and if the jersey side also happens to have spotting alleles than the calf is likely to be spotted (even if the Jersey parent was not spotted).

In terms of coat colour, this is controlled by different genes and it is actually unknown what genes make the Jersey brown – probably a combination of many genes which were unable to be mapped as major effects in a genome scan. However black is the default and seems to override brown, or at least darken the browns to the point that first crosses tend to black to very dark brown.

In a nutshell, it is quite possible to have a first cross animal that is black, heavily spotted, and looks like a Holstein-Friesian. Read a much more technical description here.