A 26-Lancaster Farming, Saturday, March 1,1986
Playing the ‘numbers’ game -
a panel discussion with views from 4 authorities
BY JOYCE BUPP
Staff Correspondent
PITTSBURGH - Early birds at
the Pennsylvania Holstein con
vention didn’t get the worm - but
they turned out in force to hear a
panel of well-known industry
representatives argue the hottest
subject going in the breed
business.
“Should We Play the “Num
bers” Game?” was the question
debated at the 7 a.m. Saturday
session, drawing a roomful of
interested listeners and some
heated discussion.
At the heart of the issue are the
cow indexing and sire summary
computer numbers formulas.
These computer-figured,
numerically-based evaluations
measure an animal’s genetic
potential.
Stirring up new murmurings by
many breeders on the “numbers”
issue is a recent national Holstein
board ruling to utilize only one
classification score in evaluating
the daughters of a sire. The score
used will the closest to 30-months
of age, and not beyond 42 months,
and will determine Predicted
Difference in Type, or PDT.
Previously, a cow’s most recent
classification was figured into sire
proofs, changing the sire’s proof if
daughters changed in
classification as they matured.
Those favoring the new rule say
it will make all sire proofs more
fair, since only data on cows
basically the same age will be
computed.
Protesters of the new rule say it
ignores durability in cows and
locks in a proof before the long
term performance of daughters
can be fairly evaluated.
Panelists were Dr. Robert
Everett, a geneticist at Cornell
University; Dennis Wolff, Pen-Col
Farms; Pete Blodgett, Landmark
Genetics; and Donald Seipt,
New officers for the Holstein Assoc, are, left, Art Baxter,
Tim Merwarth, and Walter Wurster.
Dan Carr, left ana helper, take care of restoring the
ballroom to its former state by removing the sawdust.
Keystone Farms. Ron Buffington,
Holstein Investment Op
portunities, moderated.
Long-time Holstein breeder Don
Seipt admits they play the
“numbers” game at their Easton
farm, but dislikes it immensely.
After 30 years of breeding cattle
that earned Keystone considerable
industry respect and 28
Progressive Breeder awards, Seipt
finds indexing demands a “radical
departure” from his basic cattle
breeding beliefs.
About 12 years ago, Seipt
responded to industry pressure to
begin using higher Predicted
Difference bulls of the time, in
order to regain markets the farm
was losing to higher indexed herds.
Sires such as Elevation, Astronaut
and Bookmaker - sires now lower
in index favor - became familiar at
Keystone.
Then, five years ago Keystone,
with reluctance, went to total use
of high PD bulls to meet mer-,
chandising demands.
“We were told that we didn’t
really have anything good or
' superior genetically; that it was all
just good management. That was
demoralizing and depressing.
Now, we’re starting to lose type.
And those with numbers from the
very beginning are still ahead.”
“Numbers” indexing has
resulted in showring competition
being nothing more than an “ego
trip” for exhibitors, Seipt figures,
and gives no credit to longevity or
durability in individuals. He
further critized the decision to
base sire proofs solely on first
classification of daughters, and
suggested the formula “protects
the proof long enough to sell a lot of
semen, and then “the bull turns out
not to be the bull we thought we
selected.”
“The system doesn’t wait for the
bull’s real impact,” Seipt added,
further leveling criticism at the
unavailability of semen from
certain sires just before sire proofs
come out semi-annually.
“It’s all great if you’re in the
semen business...or are selling
embryos...or baby calves,” flatly
states Seipt.
Seipt says that while, in his
opinion, indexes aren’t all wrong if
practically designed and kept in
proper perspective, the current
formulas result in “paper
figures.” That offers only part of
the necessary information to
successfully breed animals, he
adds, and the use of the computer
numbers is just a shortcut to real
thinking and consideration in
mating cattle.
Columbia Countain Dennis Wolff
has become a recognized leader
for his high indexed animals, and
his experience and success in
worldwide marketing of ET off
spring and eggs.
Two herds are maintained at
Pen-Col, near Millville, both run on
the same DHIA testing program.
Wolff’s main herd includes one
hundred head of “genetically
superior” individuals, including
sixty two-year-olds, and as he
notes, “no row of good old cows.”
In the second herd of 45 head are
lower producers, along with some
recipient animals.
Wolff is quick to admit that his
breeding philosophy has changed
over the years to embrace the
needs of the market.
“If that’s in the minority of the
breed, it eventually will not suc
ceed,” he projects.
Wolff also notes that he does not
go to any great lengths to contact
potential purchasers of his high
indexed genetic offspring; buyers
come seeking his merchandise. He
openly acknowledges the two-herd
arrangement, letting AI personnel
and other potential customers
evaluate for themselves what
influence it might have on per
formance records.
High PD sires are selected at
Pen-Col to continue development
and enhancement of the high in
dexed individuals, along with
functional type, Wolff elaborated
later. He further feels that func
tional type and classification type
are not parallel, and classification
typing leans too heavily toward
“showring” traits.
“I’d like to change the emphasis
on mammary to center support
and udder depth and see less
criticism of foreudder attachment.
Calving a cow at 1 year-9 months
that milks 75 pounds is going to
result in a bulging fore udder,”
Wolff explains.
S-W-D Valiant is still seeing
heavy use in the Pen-Col mating
program, along with some select
young sires. Wolff first heavily
weighs PD$ when making sire
choices, followed by emphasis on
type, test and protein.
Landmark Genetic’s Pete
Blodgett has been matching
genetic traits and arranging bull
mother contracting in the dairy
industry for some twenty years.
He sums up his personal
breeding philosophy as “don’t
stray too far from the middle of the
road.” Breeders, he says, should
not “tie their wagon” to cow in
dexes.
Blodgett acknowledged the
numbei s controversy and its direct
influence on marketing cattle, but
noted that the breed will always
need “free thinkers.” These
specialists will Steer away from
popular trends and breed to their
own philosophies. And, such in
dividualists lead to a pool of
genetic variety, an alternative of
genetics should marketing needs
change down the road.
“A lot of badmouthing of the
numbers game is caused by going
to extremes,” is how Blodgett sees
Dr. Robert Everett:
“Preferential treatment of
cows can influence a
pedigree index."
Don Seipt; "Indexes are
great if you're in the semen
business • selling calves - or
embryos."
the current spate of criticism of
indexing.
He, too, was critical of the
change in formulating PD type,
through the use solely of first-time
daughter classification.
Needs of the industry, Blodgett
adds, are for females high in fat,
protein and functional type traits.
Just because an individual is low in
index doesn’t mean she is unable to
transmit genetic value. In
Blodgett’s opinion, good breeding
must combine “common sense”
with all the available tools for
selection toward improved type
and production.
Dr. Robert Everett is a Cornell
University geneticist, and a
staunch defender of the indexing
formula system. He reviewed the
indexing program and related his
beliefs on the correctness of the
current computerized genetic
measure methods.
One of Dr. Everett’s concerns,
however, is of pedigree slippage.
Slippage depicts the ranking of
animals higher than they
genetically merit.
Part of that concern focuses on
the relationship of “preferential
treatment,” or the extra or box
stall attention lavished on in
dividuals within a herd, to enhance
the animal’s overall performance.
According to the geneticist, such
preferential care could potentially
influence a cow’s production
The Scott Brothers, from New Florence, provided the
entertainment for the Convention Banquet.
janHMBnHMMMMMflKMiet''' <. ■
m
<^K
Early-bird seminar panelists:
Blodgett: “Don’t stray too
far from the middle of the
road.”
Dennis Wolff: “We have no
row of good old cows."
records by perhaps 2,000 pounds,
or boost a pedigree index $22 above
its actual true genetic numerical
merit.
Embryo transfer sons may
reflect this preferential treatment,
warns Everett, and that could
result in some ET sires con
siderably lower than non-ET sires
in their true ability to transmit
desirable breeding charac
teristics.
“The problem is educating
people,” is Dr. Everett’s view of
-.the criticism of the numbers
debate.
He further predicts the
possibility of commercial
dairymen setting up separate
genetic evaluation methods, if
those currently in place do not
meet their needs.
Moderator Ron Buffington kept
the discussion, which included a
host of questions, flowing at a
lively rate, with the debate con
tinuing around the participants
even after the session adjourned.
He assured breeders - many of
them visibly angry over the in
dexing trend - that the registered
Holstein business encompasses a
large breed, and not everyone has
to play the same “game.”
“No tool will replace all tools,”
concluded Buffington. “Each is a
building block; and we need to not
go to extremes.”
“Just keep an eye on the
market.”