21st Century Solutions for Canada’s Dairy Industry

Where once genetic and herd management services to the dairy industry came from separate sources, Lactanet Canada now integrates these services under one organization.

As of June 3, 2019, founding partners of the new Lactanet (Canadian Dairy Network, CanWest DHI and Valacta—the leading dairy herd improvement organizations responsible for genetic evaluations, milk recording and knowledge transfer) can offer access to modern herd management through improved technologies and software and more meaningful data. Not only will these integrated services make life easier for farmers, Lactanet will also offer new services, using the same current resources. These services will be offered before the end of 2020, and include remote electronic collection of on-farm data, a national dairy cattle traceability system and genomic evaluations for feed efficiency,

While the objective in creating the partnership was not to save money (although operational efficiencies are predicted), Lactanet’s Chief Services Officer, Brian Van Doormaal, points out that fees for current services to farmers and the staff delivering them, are not projected to change nor are genetic evaluation services to the industry.

What Lactanet will do is: better position the dairy sector to manage business risk, take advantage of operational synergies and efficiencies, integrate genetics with management services, stimulate innovation of new products and services, and build on the strengths of each partner.

“The sector as a whole will benefit,” says Brian. “We’ll be able to help farmers tackle the challenges of the Canadian dairy industry, which include lower milk prices, increased farm debt load and rising interest rates.”

Lactanet’s governance structure is designed to reflect the three founding organizations, and focus on services to Canadian producers: every member of the Board is a dairy farmer. Three additional important industry partners have a producer appointment to Lactanet: Dairy Farmers of Canada, Semex Alliance and Holstein Canada.

“Holstein represents over 90% of all dairy cows in Canada,” explains Brian. “And Semex is the largest Canadian farmer-owned A.I. company with national reach. Dairy Farmers of Canada is the national body that represents all licensed producers from coast to coast. In this way, the Lactanet Board covers the vast majority of services to farmers. As well, working with a Board of nine producers, with the ability to name two additional external directors, allows us to be more nimble in these early stages and ensure success. The Lactanet governance model is scalable, if needed, as the industry decides how to best meet the needs of dairy farmers and remain globally competitive.”

Beef and Wetlands: It’s a win-win

Beef producers and Ducks Unlimited Canada find common ground to improve sustainability

Kristine Tapley has an unusual job title for an employee of Ducks Unlimited Canada, an organization traditionally known as a fowl-hunting lobby. Based in Manitoba, she’s the Regional Agrologist, Beef Industry. The only one for the Prairie region. Her job is to support the beef sector through partnerships, by promoting research and innovative ideas to producers, and by adapting DUC’s programs to ensure better uptake.

“Our starting point is that producers own much of the remaining habitat on the Prairies. As long as they have viable operations, it will stay in grass and water to meet their needs,” she explains. “We are interested in keeping those producers going so that the Prairies support a thriving beef industry, lots of habitat for waterfowl and the ecological services it provides.”

That’s where things get sticky. Long-term average margins show that a herd of 200 head provides an annual income of $17,559. So, not sustainable. And in many cases, there’s no way to make a living on the farm other than by working off the farm. Among the biggest barriers—access to land. Kristine has first-hand experience of this. Her father and brother’s farm is landlocked. She and her husband had to move away to start their own beef operation.

Okay, so still not seeing the tangible link to ducks….

Here’s the clever part. DUC actually has a vested interest in the sustainability of the beef industry. It recognizes that forage and grasslands that stay in the hands of producers benefit both cattle and wildlife—and are critical to health of grasslands and wetlands. A report from the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef shows that the beef sector only accounts for 33 percent of land in agricultural production but provides 68 percent of the wildlife habitat. Other data on the benefits of cattle for biodiversity will be available in a few years. DUC also realizes it can have a greater impact on sustainability by supporting the beef industry than by buying land and conserving it one acre at a time. The broader perspective. There’s only one landscape. Everybody has to live on it—preferably, in harmony.

As such, DUC runs a number of resources and programs to help restore and protect Canada’s land and water, which can become an integral part of a producer’s long-term management plan. Traditionally, the best-known have been easements; legal agreements through which the landowner retains ownership and gets paid for the natural assets on the property but that limit the type and amount of development on the land. However, DUC’s Revolving Land Conservation Program adds a very interesting angle because it recognizes market forces. The organization buys property that is significant for conservation, restores the wetland, slaps a permanent conservation easement on it—then puts it back on the market at a 10-30% discount. Why? The easement deters developers, cottagers, annual croppers etc., leaving beef producers as pretty-much the only purchasers, who are then able to expand their operations. Now, isn’t that clever?

“Today, DUC’s mission is to conserve, restore and manage wetlands and associated habitats for North America’s waterfowl,” says Kristine. “When we poll our community, the biggest issue they identify is water quality. Cattle need both grass and water. If you manage both of those well, there’ no reason they can’t work together.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As an aside, while Kristine was doing her Master’s, she went through the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association’s Young Leaders Program, which provides the industry-specific training and interest-specific mentorship that will help keep the beef industry profitable into the future. Kristine wanted to focus on sustainability. She was paired with mentor Jeffrey Fitzpatrick-Stilwell from McDonald’s.

“In 2014, McDonald’s announced it wanted to source sustainable beef—but it didn’t know what that meant yet,” she remembers. “It was a wonderful experience that formed the basis for my job today. I never thought I’d find a beef role in conservation so I’m pretty excited to be doing this.”

Toys for boys: Drones in agriculture

Using drones to manage cattle has piqued the interest of many ranchers over the past years as their appearance in the media and in the malls becomes more common. This has led some in the agricultural community to wonder if these toys could inject a little practical application (and fun) into their cattle operations.

This notion was reinforced to Gentec in the lead-up to and post-mortem of our recent Forage to Beef Demonstration events hosted with the Foothills Forage and Grazing Association in Southern Alberta July 10th & 11th. When canvassing producers for a (non-genomic) topic of special interest to include, drone use by far generated the most interest. As confirmation, Dr. John Church’s presentation, Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) to Monitor Cattle, garnered many accolades for highlight-of-the-day.

John was raised with a cattle background and went on to develop a passion for drones that he combines with his day-job as Associate Professor and the BC Regional Innovation Chair in Cattle Industry Sustainability at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops BC. In his presentation, he touched on many of the applications below. At Gentec, we did a little digging to see what else we could uncover with respect to drones as they relate to livestock agriculture.

Advances in drone technology, and in particular, the move to multi-rotor design have greatly increased the ease with which the general public, as hobbyists and within a work environment, can control and manoeuvre these aerial vehicles. Improvements in battery life and payload capacity, coupled with inversely-proportionate reductions in price, have caught ranchers’ attention as to how they might use these toys… uhm, “tools” profitably.

Currently, for less than $2,500, you can buy a drone that has a flight time of up to 30 minutes (depending on wind and temperature), speed of 70 kph, range of 8 km—and the ability to record and transmit HD-quality video. With a little imagination and a modification or two, anybody in the cattle industry can now improve and manage their pastures, cattle herd and operational profitability.

The most straightforward application would be monitoring cattle without having to slog through pasture, bush, wind and snow to find them. From a hilltop or roadside, the rancher can make the drone do that miserable job instead. Armed with an infrared camera, the drone can spot animals day or night, and read ear-tags from a height of over 70 m, either visually with an optical zoom or potentially via RFID transmission.

Digital video and expanded sensor technologies are also opening the door to precision pasture and animal management. Infrared technology can “see” below the canopy to find animals in the underbrush. It also provides the potential to take an animal’s “temperature” and remotely identify sick or distressed animals. As a result, it relieves valuable staff time and sends people-power to where it is most urgently needed (precisely “pinned” GPS coordinates).

Similar technologies provide pasture mapping by flying grid-formations over pasture lands that, when combined with computer applications, stitch together topographical maps outlining water / moisture availability, forage and biomass availability and help optimize pasture health, management and rotation. These tools are also increasingly being applied in the ranching and feedlot setting, such as checking on troughs (remote 3D monitoring can check feed depth) and fence integrity; verifying animal inventories in paddock and on pasture; moving livestock, and searching for missing animals.

In fact, the time may not be too far off when ranchers will be able to find and herd cattle using a combination of drone and RFID technology; the drone will be programmed to fly a given route to find an individual animal or conduct a head-count within a defined area; monitor water, salt, and mineral visitation; and provide a status and / or variance report to the rancher.

Taken together, these abilities all aim to make life easier by increasing the timeliness, accuracy, cost effectiveness and convenience of gathering and processing information, and reducing the manpower that is often hard/impossible to find/afford in rural communities.

We finish with a couple of practical tips from the wise:
• Nav Canada regulations apply to the use of drones near populated areas, highways and commercial flight paths, including line-of-sight operational restrictions. Know the law.
• Hone your skills on an inexpensive model. From what we hear… the Force is strong… but there is a learning curve :)!

Genomics tools for commercial cattle producers: So what?

For the commercial cattle producer, crossbreeding is one of the least expensive ways to increase productivity, largely due to the resulting increase in hybrid vigour (scientifically known as heterosis / heterozygosity). In spite of this knowledge, the past 30 years have seen a continual erosion in heterosis in the cow herd as colour and “uniformity” became one of main considerations of cattle buyers. Crossbreeding, in contrast combines superior genetics from different breeds while eliminating any inbreeding depression. The Beef Cattle Research Council article “Have You Rotated Your Breeds Lately?” provides an excellent overview of why inbreeding depression occurs and some ways in which crossbreeding pays off so well for producers.

New tools are being developed that allow producers to use DNA to quantify heterosis (via breed composition) with an accuracy of 96%. This is superior to the degree of accuracy achieved with even the most accurate pedigree records due to the phenomenon of genetic “re-shuffling” that occurs on each chromosome in every generation. For example, an accurate pedigree calculation for a 100% Simmental bull crossed with a 50% Angus / 50% Hereford cow records a calf that is 50% Simmental x 25% Angus x 25% Hereford. In fact, the true genetics of the animal as a result of this “re-shuffling” might be 50% Simmental x 15% Angus x 35% Hereford. As an aside, the genomics method of breed composition automatically captures the neighbour’s bull who thinks the “grass” is greener on the other side of the fence.

But back to hybrid vigour… It is important to calculate heterosis accurately because the benefits are proportional (the greater the heterosis, the greater the benefits), the most economically important of which impact fitness, longevity, and reproductive productivity, the magnitude of which are as follows:

Every 10% increase in Vigour increases:

Pregnancy Rate                                 +2%                       2 more pregnancies per 100 cows*

Weaning Rate                                    +3%                       3 more weaned calves per 100 cows

Lifetime Productivity                      +79lbs                   79 additional pounds of saleable

calf over 5 calvings

Days in the Herd                               +51 days

So what does this mean for the commercial producer? Two things. One: knowing the heterosis present in heifers being considered as replacements helps you select for those animals that have the greatest probability of staying in the herd the longest and producing the most pounds of beef. At an estimated cost of $2,000 to develop a replacement heifer, the longer they last, the better your bottom line!

Second: knowing the genomics breed composition of your herd allows for the selection of those bulls / breeds that will allow you to continue to optimize your mating, selection, and culling decisions, the benefit of which have been estimated at over $200 as the return on the investment of a $45 genomic test. It’s all money in the bank.

_________________________

* As an example, an increase in average Vigour in a 100-cow herd from 50% to 70% would be expected to result in an additional 4 pregnancies and 6 weaned calves per year; 158 additional pounds of saleable calf / cow over 5 calvings; and an increase in the average number of days a cow stays in the herd of 101 days.

Genome Editing in Livestock

As a beef cattle producer and the Chief Scientific of Acceligen, the livestock food subsidiary of Recombinetics, Tad Sonstegard is in a position to offer a moderate, informed opinion of this technology while standing at the water cooler.

Tad provides tangible examples of how gene editing has already shown it can benefit the livestock sector through the potential for “precise cross-breeding.”

One example discussed as an introduction to gene editing is the potential to select for polled dairy cattle, which removed the need for de-horning and improved animal welfare. These genetics have been selectively bred (the old-fashioned way) for generations via the polled beef breeds and, as such, have been part of the human food chain for thousands of years. One positive signal towards the potential acceptance of this technology is that the Humane Society of the United States has endorsed the use of gene editing technology to select for polled animals on the grounds that it reduces pain and suffering for livestock. More importantly, it also agreed to evaluate and endorse the application of gene editing on a case by case basis depending on its impact on animal welfare.

CRISPR is also being used to mitigate the greenhouse gas impacts of food production, with the most potential for use in the developing world through improving heat tolerance. Heat affects the disease resistance, nutrition, productivity and health of animals. Tad talks of how it takes nine dairy cows in India to produce the milk of one dairy cow in the US, with much of this difference due to lower productivity due to heat stress. If this technology eliminated this productivity gap, the GHG emissions and environmental impact of up to eight cows could be removed with no corresponding loss of milk production while also freeing up the food, water and other inputs currently directed to those eight animals. One application of selective breeding is showing great promise. It takes advantage of animals, referred to as “slick,” which have a hide comprised of hair that is less dense and half the normal length in addition to possessing larger, more active sweat glands. This combination allows “slick” animals to maintain a lower body temperature in more heat-stressful conditions.

In closing, Tad talks of future applications for gene editing and where the greatest economic benefits may lie, which appears to be in addressing disease resistance. More work does need to be done here as we don’t yet understand which areas of the genome are important when it comes to health. With a better basic understanding however, comes the ability to select for innate immunity as well as using rational design techniques that allow animals to better defend against bacteria and viruses. While the means discussed here differ, the ends are similar to those currently being pursued via more traditional methods in the Genome Canada Pig Resilience Project led by UAlberta’ Mike Dyck.

Watch the video summary for a more in-depth look at these and other editing applications

Temple Grandin speaks at 2018 Livestock Care Conference

Many of our readers will know Temple Grandin as the Colorado State University Animal Science Professor who despite (or perhaps because of) her autism has had a hand in designing livestock facilities around the world, working with corporations such as McDonald’s, Chipotle and Whole Foods. She has appeared on Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, a TED Talk, and was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential people.

Taking to the stage, Dr. Grandin decided that the world had had enough of her “Improving Cattle Stockmanship 2nd Edition” presentation and instead delivered a wide-ranging, very entertaining and largely off-the-cuff presentation that moved through a number of topics that perhaps can be best described as exploring the theme of unintended consequences.

The first was in relation to “bad becoming normal.” Often, when we set out to solve a problem, we focus too narrowly and end up with unanticipated results. Think genetic selection or breed for a single trait. Examples she gave include the “Rapist Roosters” that Grandin spoke of in her book “Animals in Translation,” where breeding programs intended to select for larger breasts and white meat resulted in hyper-aggressive roosters with poor courtship skills. A more benign example involves how, as a result of selecting cattle for docility, the industry has dialed back the fear response to the extent that we are now able to observe a much wider range of emotions in cattle (such as curiosity).

From this, she expressed two frustrations: 1) while a lot of great research is being done, genetic and otherwise, to improve the livestock industry, unfortunately much of it is done privately and thus proprietary, and can result in said unintended consequences spreading when they should be contained; and 2) very positive results are prevented from wider adoption when they would benefit animals and people. As an aside, Grandin also noted the prevalence of the myopic expectation that advances in genetics, engineering, and/or equipment will solve our problems when in fact they account for only half of the solution. The other half falls to us; it is management that must step forward to solve the other half.

Grandin’s second overarching theme was that “big is fragile,” which has led society to worry about sustainability. Locally-sourced food is comforting because deep down on a psychological level, we know that big is fragile and we wonder what will happen to us if “the Walmart truck doesn’t arrive.”. Local, sustainable food provides security.

And finally, we should be careful of what we wish for. The future holds all sorts of potential but we need to step into it with our eyes wide open: CRISPR technology that allows us to select for “no horns” may, as in the roosters example, select for something that looks similar but results in unintended consequences; a) synthetic meat may provide a “humane” alternative to livestock production but b) it’s probably a GMO, c) may require huge energy inputs to achieve, and d) as a monoculture grown in vats, holds enormous potential for diseases to flourish during production.

Stepping forward isn’t bad in and of itself but we should be careful about how we do it and what we wish for. Bad becomes normal… and big is fragile!

Mike Lohuis talks to Gentec

You haven’t been with Semex very long, but what is your role as Vice President, Research and Innovation likely to entail?

“It’s very exciting! This is the first time Semex has had an executive level position focused solely on research and innovation, so it brings new focus on the R&D aspects of our business. It’s important because the industry is changing very quickly, and we need to focus on the technology that’s likely to shape the industry’s future—as developed by in-house and academic partners.”

So what has genomics led to?

“Genomic selection and advanced reproductive technologies have substantially transformed the industry. When I left Canada in 1998, multiple ovulation transfer was already being used to increase the reproductive capacity of elite females. But there was no way to distinguish between full siblings in genetic potential which limited the value of this technology. Since then, it has been interesting to watch as the science around genomic selection evolved to solve that problem and become a reality in the dairy industry.

Simultaneously, ovum pick-up (OPU) and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) technologies became a more effective tool to rapidly produce large numbers of offspring from the most elite young females.

If you consider the rate of genetic gain, increasing selection accuracy, selection intensity and genetic variation help increase the genetic improvement per generation. By reducing the generation interval (the time required to replace parents with their progeny), one can increase the genetic improvement delivered per year. By combining OPU/IVF with genomic selection, we’ve been able to increase selection accuracy of females because of genomic information. With males, we’ve given up some accuracy for speed by decreasing the generational interval. The intensity of selection has also increased because, instead of buying young bulls, collecting semen and creating progeny, which is very expensive, you can simply collect a hair sample, extract the DNA and test it in the lab. This also means that yearling bulls can now be used confidently as mating sires, which has significantly reduced the generation interval. Genetic variation doesn’t change quickly, but we are carefully monitoring the impact of these technologies on levels of inbreeding and genetic variation in the breeding population. At this point, we’ve almost doubled the rate of genetic improvement with the combined use of genomic selection and advanced reproductive technologies.”

 

Genomics doesn’t happen in vacuum. What changes have taken place around it?

“Technological leaps can cause disruptions in the marketplace and often lead to consolidation. You always have early adopters and those that are more risk-averse. In this case, some groups caught on to genomic selection and advanced reproductive technologies early and have done well by it. The marketplace itself can be another disruptor. Retail powerhouse Wal-Mart has continually put pressure on food prices, and now Amazon wants to sell food as well. Large retailers have demanded lower production costs, and producers have had to accept less for their products because there are always farms learning how to do it more cheaply.”

 

And as a result?

“We have significantly commoditized farm products. In some ways, it’s good as it drives down food costs but the return to individual producers has shrunk. So farm size has to go up for producers to make a living. We now have fewer, larger farms that don’t need as many companies servicing them. They prefer one supplier to service more of their needs. In response, we see some companies diversifying and others just getting bigger.”

Can we blame globalization?

“Global trade and the internet makes it easy to sell globally and provide for farmers around the world. Frozen semen is already very transportable, and the larger producers do their own insemination instead of bringing in a technician. If they have their own semen tank on the farm, anybody can deliver semen to that tank. It provides great selection to choose from but there isn’t the same loyalty to the local semen provider.

What role do you think Gentec plays in the industry?

“I got to know Graham Plastow in about 2005 when he was responsible for research at PIC. I always respected his approach and how he worked with multiple academic partners. He would encourage academic partners to develop their research in a way that industry could use and, if they were successful, increase the investment in them. It’s a nice model for generating useful research because you never know where the best innovations will come from.

We take it for granted that academics know what we need. Gentec seems to bring all the parties together. It does a nice job of creating a flow of information both ways.”

A big Thank You to Mike Lohuis for this in-depth interview. Click here to enjoy Part 1 again.

The Path to New Zealand

At our 2017 Livestock Gentec conference William Torres of Cattleland Feedyards focused on Pursuing Evidence-based Outcomes in the Beef Industry. The obstacles can be many… and varied… and driven by producer and end-user perceptions. Often, adopting best evidence-based practices is slowed by not knowing what these best practices are and how to apply them, or by a lack of coordination as to how to share their implementation, costs, and benefits across the various links in the supply chain. Just as often, however, difficulties arise due to nostalgia on the part of the producer aiming to preserve tradition and operate the ranch like “Grandpa” did, and on the part of the consumer seeking “natural” food free of many of today’s productivity-improving technologies that are necessary for the producer to remain in business.

However, several forces are converging to spur change. Environmental pressures and an increasing desire to ensure sustainable production are opening the door slightly and allowing scientific advances to pass through, as is the need to farm in the most efficient manner to ensure that nutritious food is also affordable food.

Stepping back from the idea that industry integration is a requirement, William focused instead on coordination, outlining some of the conditions that facilitate the use of genomics technologies with respect to sorting and managing animals at the feedlot level, and on areas where there is consensus on the social and economic benefit of pursuing change. These areas include the use of pain management tools for castration and de-horning procedures and the appropriate use of antibiotics to ensure animal welfare while preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance. When used as part of a disciplined pre-conditioning protocol, these measures help industry address animal welfare concerns and help optimize producer efforts and profitability.

Although not completely reflected in the edited version, William also spoke of the need to engage with those who disagree with you or don’t necessarily think like you, if only because they are often your customer. At its very worst, evidence allows us as an industry to do what society expects of us (even when society is ill-informed or we don’t agree with the direction of change) in a manner that imposes the least burden on us as producers. On more moderate ground, evidence also allows us as an industry to defend practices that are poorly understood, such as making the case that the use of medications in treating sick animals is the humane thing to do. At their best, evidence-based practices allow producers to make informed decisions on how to collaborate within the system to deliver the best possible beef in the most efficient and sustainable manner.

That said (and as an editor’s aside), there are also instances when the public shines a light on an industry practice that, while historic in precedent, is hard to justify today. Two practices often mentioned in the lay press are dehorning and branding. Industry is responding through the use of pain control medication in dehorning procedures and the use of genomics to select for homozygous polled bulls. Genomics also has the potential to supplant branding through the combination of the existing animal ID practices with DNA-based traceability markers. To view a summary of William’s talk, please click here.

Pursuing Evidence-based Outcomes in the Beef Industry

At our 2017 Livestock Gentec conference William Torres of Cattleland Feedyards focused on Pursuing Evidence-based Outcomes in the Beef Industry. The obstacles can be many… and varied… and driven by producer and end-user perceptions. Often, adopting best evidence-based practices is slowed by not knowing what these best practices are and how to apply them, or by a lack of coordination as to how to share their implementation, costs, and benefits across the various links in the supply chain. Just as often, however, difficulties arise due to nostalgia on the part of the producer aiming to preserve tradition and operate the ranch like “Grandpa” did, and on the part of the consumer seeking “natural” food free of many of today’s productivity-improving technologies that are necessary for the producer to remain in business.

However, several forces are converging to spur change. Environmental pressures and an increasing desire to ensure sustainable production are opening the door slightly and allowing scientific advances to pass through, as is the need to farm in the most efficient manner to ensure that nutritious food is also affordable food.

Stepping back from the idea that industry integration is a requirement, William focused instead on coordination, outlining some of the conditions that facilitate the use of genomics technologies with respect to sorting and managing animals at the feedlot level, and on areas where there is consensus on the social and economic benefit of pursuing change. These areas include the use of pain management tools for castration and de-horning procedures and the appropriate use of antibiotics to ensure animal welfare while preventing the development of antimicrobial resistance. When used as part of a disciplined pre-conditioning protocol, these measures help industry address animal welfare concerns and help optimize producer efforts and profitability.

Although not completely reflected in the edited version, William also spoke of the need to engage with those who disagree with you or don’t necessarily think like you, if only because they are often your customer. At its very worst, evidence allows us as an industry to do what society expects of us (even when society is ill-informed or we don’t agree with the direction of change) in a manner that imposes the least burden on us as producers. On more moderate ground, evidence also allows us as an industry to defend practices that are poorly understood, such as making the case that the use of medications in treating sick animals is the humane thing to do. At their best, evidence-based practices allow producers to make informed decisions on how to collaborate within the system to deliver the best possible beef in the most efficient and sustainable manner.

That said (and as an editor’s aside), there are also instances when the public shines a light on an industry practice that, while historic in precedent, is hard to justify today. Two practices often mentioned in the lay press are dehorning and branding. Industry is responding through the use of pain control medication in dehorning procedures and the use of genomics to select for homozygous polled bulls. Genomics also has the potential to supplant branding through the combination of the existing animal ID practices with DNA-based traceability markers. To view a summary of William’s talk, please click here.