December 2004

Pendulum swings back towards 60:40 protein/butterfat split

With a milk protein surplus in the country, the ratio of protein to butterfat is moving back towards a more equal split, the ratio between protein and butterfat moving back into balance. And that is likely to change the yardsticks for genetic selection

by DON STONEMAN

The Canadian dairy industry is taking the emphasis off protein and putting it on fat again in an attempt to balance market demands. The genetic industry started going that way several years ago, but has picked up the pace of change a little.

Before Christmas, the Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) is likely to give formal approval to changes to the Lifetime Profit Index (LPI), the yardstick used for genetic selection. Dairy breeders use the LPI to select the bulls they should use to breed their cows to enhance profitable milk production.

The current changes to the LPI are for all breeds and are in response to the same factors that led to dramatic changes in dairy pricing last summer, and a worrisome surplus in dairy protein. Canadian dairy farmers get paid for both the protein and the butterfat they produce, but the quota is based on butterfat. Producers have been maximizing income by feeding and breeding cows to produce as much protein as possible for the butterfat output.

Now there is a milk protein surplus in this country and trade rules hamstring Canada's ability to export it on world markets. On Aug. 1, Dairy Farmers of Ontario and marketing boards in other provinces switched the emphasis on pricing to put nearly equal weight on butterfat and protein in an attempt to reduce the "structural" surplus in non-fat solids. (Before Aug. 1, on milk of average composition, a producer received $6.41 for a kilogram of butterfat and $9.40 for a kilo of protein. Under the new pricing formula, the same milk would bring a return of $8.94 for butterfat and $6.40 for protein. Other solids still bring $1.34 per kilo). Ontario aims to reduce the solids non-fat production (which includes lactose, minerals, and protein) to 2.2840 a kilogram for every kilo of butterfat produced by July 31, 2006. In the last dairy year, the ratio was 2.3231 kilos to one.

Producers must change their feeding practices to achieve this in the short term. Feeding more forage in the ration is one solution. In the longer term, genetic selection will play a role, but the payoff from this is a long way away.

"There is a lot of second guessing going on in the market," says Blair Murray, dairy genetics lead for the Ontario agriculture ministry, based in Kemptville. From the time that a change in the selection process takes place; it is five years before a cow begins producing milk. In 10 years, when the second generation comes into play, the market might change completely. Maybe protein will be in vogue in 2014, he speculates.

Farmers usually respond pretty fast to a price change, says Murray, and they will change rations to achieve this goal if it will put money in their pockets. There is a feed cost advantage too. It is generally cheaper to increase butterfat content in milk than it is to raise protein.

According to a document prepared by CDN general manager Brian Van Doormaal for its Genetic Evaluation Board in September, the emphasis on butterfat and protein has already undergone some substantial changes. Back in 1991, when the LPI was introduced, there was nearly equal emphasis on protein (55 per cent) and butterfat (45 per cent) yield. In January 1993, scores were weighted to favour protein (73 per cent) and again in 1996 (82 per cent). By 2001, the pendulum was already swinging back, with protein getting a 75 per cent weighting compared to 25 per cent for butterfat.

The Genetic Evaluation Board has proposed changing the weighting to 60:40 for all breeds. If the CDN board approves the new weighting system in December, it will take effect with February bull proofs. Van Doormaal adds that there is another side to these changes. There will be emphasis on increasing the fat and protein percentages in the milk, actually producing more protein and fat without increasing milk volume.

Van Doormaal says that isn't as simple as it sounds. The genetic relationships between the important production traits of fat, protein and milk yields are so high that through current selection processes "you never end up changing those fat and protein percentages. The milk (yield) just follows along."

The board wants more emphasis on fat and protein percentages and improvement at rates that are equal between the components. A third element in the new LPI formula is a factor for daughter fertility and that is a new trait that will be used to evaluate bulls.

A change in the LPI formula can change the ranking of bulls. "These things have a bearing," says Jay Shannon, breed improvement officer for Holstein Canada. "How you weight the formula can make one bull highly selected versus another."

The proposed changes to the LPI formula will affect the ranking of some current sires, says Van Doormaal's document. American bred Hartline Titanic-ET is the top ranked bull in the official LPI standings and remains there under the proposed new formula. However, Canadian-registered Stantons Stress moves up to second place from third in the standings, replacing Mainstream Magical-ET.

The big difference comes further down the list, where Comestart Lempire moves to seventh spot from an official 24th ranking and LaPresentation Jenus moves to 12th spot from 84th.

The really outstanding bulls will rise to the top regardless of the formula, Shannon says. "A bull like Rudolph (Startmore) would have been popular in his day, no matter where the formula was set at," he says. Rudolph was born in 1991 and his first proofs were issued in 1996. Rudolph was exceptional for production and for type and that was what breeders were looking for at the time.

The biggest change for Holstein Canada may be a slight trend towards increasing component volume, which is another way of saying that the production of solids will be encouraged for a given volume of milk. The current round of changes to the LPI is the first time that we have tried to do this, Shannon says. It can be done two ways, either by incorporating a negative rating for milk, or by a positive rating for components. Both amount to the same thing, he says.

Shannon says the shift to the 60-40 protein-butterfat weighting in the index has been controversial. Some Holstein Canada members wanted to make the move towards butterfat more drastic. Shannon calls the current approach "middle of the road."

There is a structural surplus in the Canadian milk supply, he says, but it's not the fault of genetics programs. The LPI is changing because we don't want to make it any worse, he believes.

"The good breeders have always been looking for balance in their traits. I think the good breeders have always been looking for balance in components too." BF

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..


back