Demonstrating the value of herd improvement in the Australian dairy industry
J. E. Newton
A D , M. M. Axford B , P. N. Ho A and J. E. Pryce A C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Agriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, Vic. 3083, Australia.
B DataGene Ltd, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, Vic. 3083, Australia.
C School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic. 3083, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: jo.newton@agriculture.vic.gov.au
Animal Production Science 61(3) 220-229 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN20168
Submitted: 7 April 2020 Accepted: 3 November 2020 Published: 11 December 2020
Journal Compilation © CSIRO 2021 Open Access CC BY
Abstract
Herd improvement has been occurring since the domestication of livestock, although the tools and technologies that support it have changed dramatically. The Australian dairy industry tracks herd improvement through a range of approaches, including routine monitoring of genetic trends and farmer usage of the various tools and technologies. However, a less structured approach has been taken to valuing the realised and potential impacts of herd improvement. The present paper aims to demonstrate the value of herd improvement, while exploring considerations for undertaking such a valuation. Attractive value propositions differ among and within dairy stakeholder groups. While broad-scale valuations of genetic trends and industry progress are valued by government and industry, such valuations do not resonate with farmers. The cumulative nature of genetic gain and compounding factor of genetic lag means that long timeframes are needed to fully illustrate the value of genetic improvement. However, such propositions do not align with decision-making timeframes of most farming businesses. Value propositions that resonate with farmers and can lead to increased uptake and confidence in herd improvement tools include smaller scale cost–benefit analyses and on-farm case studies developed in consultation with industry, including farmers. Non-monetary assessments of value, such as risk and environmental footprint, are important to some audiences. When additionality, that is, the use of data on multiple occasions, makes quantifying the value of the data hard, qualitative assessments of value can be helpful. This is particularly true for herd recording data. Demonstrating the value of herd improvement to the dairy industry, or any livestock sector, requires a multi-faceted approach that extends beyond monetary worth. No single number can effectively capture the full value of herd improvement in a way that resonates with all farmers, let alone dairy stakeholders. Extending current monitoring of herd improvement to include regular illustrations of the value of the tools that underpin herd improvement is important for fostering uptake of new or improved tools as they are released to industry.
Keywords: animal breeding, EBVs, estimated breeding values, genetic gain, genetics, genomics, herd testing.
References
ABARES (2019) ‘Agricultural commodity statistics 2019.’ (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences: Canberra, ACT, Australia)ABS (2020) ‘Consumer price index. All groups.’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics: Canberra, ACT, Australia)
Anderson JR (1988) Accounting for risk in livestock improvement programs. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 7, 32–41.
Axford MM, Williams PW, Abernethy DP, Nieuwhof GJ (2015) Evaluating dairy herd genetic progress. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 21, 229–232.
Bérodier M, Brochard M, Boichard D, Dezetter C, Bareille N, Ducrocq V (2019) Use of sexed semen and female genotyping affects genetic and economic outcomes of Montbéliarde dairy herds depending on the farming system considered. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 10073–10087.
| Use of sexed semen and female genotyping affects genetic and economic outcomes of Montbéliarde dairy herds depending on the farming system considered.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31447148PubMed |
Blair HT, Sewell AM, Corner-Thomas RA, Kemp P, Wood BA, Gray DI, Morris ST, Greer AW, Logan CM, Ridler AL, Hickson RE, Kenyon PR (2013) Understanding how farmers learn. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 20, 1–5.
Boichard D, Dassonneville R, Mattalia S, Ducrocq V, Fritz S (2013) All cows are worth to be genotyped. Interbull Bulletin 47, 256–260.
Byrne TJ, Santos BFS, Am PR, Martin-Collado D, Pryce JE, Axford M (2016) New breeding objectives and selection indexes for the Australian dairy industry. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 8146–8167.
| New breeding objectives and selection indexes for the Australian dairy industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27522425PubMed |
Calus M, Bijma P, Veerkamp R (2015) Evaluation of genomic selection for replacement strategies using selection index theory. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 6499–6509.
| Evaluation of genomic selection for replacement strategies using selection index theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26142859PubMed |
Cambridge University Press 2011 ‘value.’ Available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/value
Cole JB, Eaglen SAE, Maltecca C, Mulder HA, Pryce JE (2020) The future of phenomics in dairy cattle breeding. Animal Frontiers 10, 37–44.
| The future of phenomics in dairy cattle breeding.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32257602PubMed |
Cole JB, VanRaden PM (2018) Symposium review: possibilities in an age of genomics: the future of selection indices. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 3686–3701.
| Symposium review: possibilities in an age of genomics: the future of selection indices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29103719PubMed |
Crawford A, Nettle R, Paine M, Kabore C (2007) Farms and Learning Partnerships in Farming Systems projects: a response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 13, 191–207.
| Farms and Learning Partnerships in Farming Systems projects: a response to the challenges of complexity in agricultural innovation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dairy Australia (2020a) Australian Dairy Industry sustainability report 2019. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Dairy Australia (2020b) Dairy Australia evaluation framework 2020–2025. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
DataGene (2018) Australian dairy herd improvement report 2017. DataGene, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. Available at https://datagene.com.au/sites/default/files/DirectoryPage/Herd%20Improvement%20Report/2017%20Australian%20Dairy%20Herd%20Improvement%20Report.pdf [Verified 24 February 2020]
DataGene (2019a) ‘DataGene annual update 2018/2019.’ (DataGene: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
DataGene (2019b) ‘National herd recording statistics 2002–2019: herd recording statistics for the 2018/2019 year.’ Available at https://datagene.com.au/0/8b2c39cd71015148ca257b010083d5ad [Verified 1 February 2020]
Falconer DS (1989) ‘Introduction to quantitative genetics.’ 3rd edn. (Longman Scientific and Technical: New York, NY, USA)
Hazel LN (1943) The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28, 476–490.
Henderson CR (1953) Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9, 226–252.
| Estimation of variance and covariance components.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herd Improvement Industry Strategic Steering Group (2019) Herd improvement strategy 2019–2024. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
Hjortø L, Ettema JF, Kargo M, Sørensen AC (2015) Genomic testing interacts with reproductive surplus in reducing genetic lag and increasing economic net return. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 646–658.
| Genomic testing interacts with reproductive surplus in reducing genetic lag and increasing economic net return.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25465627PubMed |
Ho C, Newman M, Dalley D, Little S, Wales W (2013) Performance, return and risk of different dairy systems in Australia and New Zealand. Animal Production Science 53, 894–906.
| Performance, return and risk of different dairy systems in Australia and New Zealand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Klieve HM, Kinghorn BP, Barwick SA (1993) The value of accuracy in making selection decisions. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110, 1–12.
| The value of accuracy in making selection decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21395699PubMed |
Maltecca C, Tiezzi F, Cole JB, Baes C (2020) Symposium review: exploiting homozygosity in the era of genomics – selection, inbreeding, and mating programs. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 5302–5313.
| Symposium review: exploiting homozygosity in the era of genomics – selection, inbreeding, and mating programs.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32331889PubMed |
Martin-Collado D, Byrne TJ, Am PR, Santos BFS, Axford M, Pryce JE (2015) Analyzing the heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences for improvements in dairy cow traits using farmer typologies. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4148–4161.
| Analyzing the heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences for improvements in dairy cow traits using farmer typologies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25864048PubMed |
Mayberry D, Bartlett H, Moss J, Davison T, Herrero M (2019) Pathways to carbon-neutrality for the Australian red meat sector. Agricultural Systems 175, 13–21.
| Pathways to carbon-neutrality for the Australian red meat sector.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McCullock K, Hoag DLK, Parsons J, Lacy M, Seidel GE, Wailes W (2013) Factors affecting economics of using sexed semen in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6366–6377.
| Factors affecting economics of using sexed semen in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23932128PubMed |
Morton J (2011) ‘InCalf Fertility Data Project 2011.’ (Dairy Australia: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
Morton JM, Woolaston RR, Brightling P, Little S, Macmillan KL, Pryce JE, Nieuwhof GJ (2015) Are high Australian profit ranking sires best in all herds? Findings from the feeding the genes project. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 21, 185–188.
Murphy J (2020) ‘National Farmers Federation adopt carbon neutral by 2050 policy.’ Farm online National. Fairfax media. Available at https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/6885317/ag-industry-backs-2050-carbon-neutral-target/ [Verified 4 September 2020]
Nettle R, Paine M, Penry J (2010) Aligning farm decision making and genetic information systems to improve animal production: methodology and findings from the Australian dairy industry. Animal Production Science 50, 429–434.
| Aligning farm decision making and genetic information systems to improve animal production: methodology and findings from the Australian dairy industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newton JE (2017) ‘The power of information: how are dairy farmers capturing value from herd recording information, Herd17.’ (DataGene: Bendigo, Vic., Australia)
Newton JE, Berry DP (2020) On-farm net benefit of genotyping candidate female replacement cattle and sheep. Animal 14, 1565–1575.
| On-farm net benefit of genotyping candidate female replacement cattle and sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newton JE, Brown DJ, Dominik S, van der Werf JHJ (2017a) Impact of young ewe fertility rate on risk and genetic gain in sheep-breeding programs using genomic selection. Animal Production Science 57, 1653–1664.
| Impact of young ewe fertility rate on risk and genetic gain in sheep-breeding programs using genomic selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Newton JE, Goddard ME, Phuong HN, Axford MA, Ho CKM, Nelson NC, Waterman CF, Hayes BJ, Pryce JE (2017b) High genetic merit dairy cows contribute more to farm profit: case studies of 3 Australian dairy herd. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 23, 19–22.
Newton JE, Hayes BJ, Pryce JE (2018) The cost–benefit of genomic testing of heifers and using sexed semen in pasture-based dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 6159–6173.
| The cost–benefit of genomic testing of heifers and using sexed semen in pasture-based dairy herds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29705423PubMed |
Newton JE, Nettle R, Pryce JE (2020) Farming smarter with big data: insights from the case of Australia’s national dairy herd milk recording scheme. AgSystems 181, 102811
| Farming smarter with big data: insights from the case of Australia’s national dairy herd milk recording scheme.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
NFF (2018) ‘2030 roadmap Australian Agriculture’s plan for a $100 billion industry.’ (National Farmers Federation: Canberra, ACT, Australia)
NHIA (2020) ‘Semen market survey 2019 results.’ (National Herd Improvement Association of Australia Inc.: Melbourne, Vic., Australia)
Pryce JE, Bell MJ (2017) The impact of genetic selection on greenhouse-gas emissions in Australian dairy cattle. Animal Production Science 57, 1451–1456.
| The impact of genetic selection on greenhouse-gas emissions in Australian dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pryce JE, Daetwyler HD (2012) Designing dairy cattle breeding schemes under genomic selection: a review of international research. Animal Production Science 52, 107–144.
| Designing dairy cattle breeding schemes under genomic selection: a review of international research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pryce J, Hayes B (2012) A review of how dairy farmers can use and profit from genomic technologies. Animal Production Science 52, 180–184.
Pryce JE, Gonzalez-Recio O, Thornhill JB, Marett LC, Wales WJ, Coffey MP, de Haas Y, Veerkamp RF, Hayes BJ (2014) Short communication: validation of genomic breeding value predictions for feed intake and feed efficiency traits. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 537–542.
| Short communication: validation of genomic breeding value predictions for feed intake and feed efficiency traits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24239085PubMed |
Pryce JE, Nguyen TTT, Axford M, Nieuwhof G, Shaffer M (2018a) Symposium review: building a better cow – the Australian experience and future perspectives. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 3702–3713.
| Symposium review: building a better cow – the Australian experience and future perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29454697PubMed |
Pryce JE, Phuong HN, Newton JE, Hayes BJ (2018b) Using genomics to improve dairy heifer selection decisions. Interbull Bulletin 53,
| Using genomics to improve dairy heifer selection decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ramsbottom G, Cromie AR, Horan B, Berry DP (2012) Relationship between dairy cow genetic merit and profit on commercial spring calving dairy farms. Animal 6, 1031–1039.
| Relationship between dairy cow genetic merit and profit on commercial spring calving dairy farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23031462PubMed |
Rogers GW (1990) A utility function for ranking sires that considers production, linear type traits, semen cost, and risk. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 532–538.
Simm G (2000) ‘Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep.’ (Farming Press, Miller Freeman UK: Tonbridge, UK)
Van Tassell C, Van Vleck LD (1991) Estimates of genetic selection differentials and generation intervals for four paths of selection. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 1078–1086.
Waters W, Thomson D, Nettle R (2009) Derived attitudinal farmer segments: a method for understanding and working with the diversity of Australian dairy farmers Extension Farming Systems Journal 5, 47–57.
Watson PWD (2019) Herd genetics and animal husbandry survey 2019 report. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Watson P, Watson D (2013) Animal husbandry and genetics survey report. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Watson P, Watson D (2016) Animal husbandry and genetics survey report. Dairy Australia, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Weigel KA, Hoffman PC, Herring W, Lawlor TJ (2012) Potential gains in lifetime net merit from genomic testing of cows, heifers, and calves on commercial dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 2215–2225.
| Potential gains in lifetime net merit from genomic testing of cows, heifers, and calves on commercial dairy farms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22459867PubMed |
Weigel KA, VanRaden PM, Norman HD, Grosu H (2017) A 100-year review: methods and impact of genetic selection in dairy cattle – from daughter–dam comparisons to deep learning algorithms. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 10234–10250.
| A 100-year review: methods and impact of genetic selection in dairy cattle – from daughter–dam comparisons to deep learning algorithms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29153163PubMed |
Weller JJ, Ezra E, Ron M (2017) Invited review: a perspective on the future of genomic selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 8633–8644.
| Invited review: a perspective on the future of genomic selection in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
