Genomic Selection as a Risk Management Tool for U.S. Dairies

Progress report for SW21-925

Project Type: Research and Education
Funds awarded in 2021: $349,876.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2024
Host Institution Award ID: G369-21-W8612
Grant Recipients: Washington State University; University of Idaho
Region: Western
State: Washington
Principal Investigator:
Dr. Holly Neibergs
Washington State University
Co-Investigators:
Dr. Amber Adams-Progar
Washington State University
Dr. Joseph Dalton
University of Idaho
J. Shannon Neibergs
Washington State University
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Washington and Idaho dairies, a leading commodity in the West, are experiencing difficult financial times, and need tools that can improve sustainability and profitability through enhanced production efficiency. After feed, the cost of raising replacement heifers (young female cattle to replace aging cows) is a dairy farm’s greatest expense. Genomic selection, the use of DNA technologies to make accurate predictions of the performance of crops, fruit and livestock, offers permanent improvement of agricultural yields. The improvement of yields with the same or even lower inputs improves environmental sustainability and results in higher profitability. Our proposal’s significance is that by undergoing the transformative change of using genomic selection to choose the “right” heifers, dairy farms will be more sustainable and profitable. Although this demonstration will be done in dairies, the benefits of genomic selection are also applicable to other agricultural enterprises.

Genomic selection is used predominantly in animals with high individual values, such as cattle, to offset the cost of DNA technology. This proposal is using demonstration dairies in Washington and Idaho to educate producers, veterinarians, allied health individuals, agricultural students and Extension agents about genomic selection and how it benefits dairies by: 1) reducing financial risk by predicting genetically superior females, thereby improving milk production while maintaining or reducing herd inventory; 2) resulting in a positive return on investment and increased profitability and; 3) reducing the dairy’s environmental impact through reduced manure production by improving herd efficiency. Traditional and genomic approaches have been used to predict performance to rank and select heifers. Heifers have been bred and will soon be calving and milking. Reproductive and health performance on each animal has been recorded. Predicted and actual reproductive, and health performance for the demonstration herds are beginning to be compared. Once the first lactation is complete, that information will be added to the reproductive and health information and serve as the basis for the analyses of profitability, financial risk, and return on investment for the six demonstration dairies.

The implementation of genomic selection has lagged on dairy farms due to a lack of education. This proposal focuses on educating producers, veterinarians and others about the financial benefits of genomic selection compared to traditional selection to overcome this hurdle. Producer and veterinarian Genomic Selection Workshops and university students will “select” replacement heifers using actual data from the demonstration farms based on genomic and traditional selection information. Educational outcomes have (and are) being measured for Workshops using pre- and post- workshop assessments to determine, if attendees have: 1) improved their knowledge of genomic selection and financial risk management; 2) plan to implement genomic selection to improve their (or their client’s) herd and their dairy's profitability; and 3) plan to share their knowledge with others. Outcomes for university classes regarding students' increased knowledge of genomic selection was measured by class testing. Profitability and production outcomes of the dairies will be measured through comparing cattle selected by genomic and traditional selection approaches. Environmental and sustainability outcomes will be measured by the reduction of cattle needed and the reduction in nutrients to meet the same level of production using genomic selection compared to traditional selection. Project information will be disseminated to agricultural stakeholders at state and national meetings, through Extension newsletters, and Extension and professional journal publications.

Project Objectives:

The research objectives are to:

Objective 1: Identify the profitability difference between replacement heifers chosen with genomic selection compared to those chosen with traditional selection on a per animal basis.

Objective 2: Identify return on investment for the cost of genomic selection on a per heifer, per dairy and across dairies basis.

Objective 3: Determine the reduction in financial risk (variability in profits) that results from an increased accuracy of prediction of replacement heifer performance through genomic selection on a per dairy and across all dairies basis.

Objective 4: Develop a model to project the one and ten-year difference in dairy farm profitability and nutrient (manure) load contributed to the environment between traditional versus genomic selection to determine the added sustainability of using genomic selection.

The educational objective is to:

Objective 1: Educate dairy producers, veterinarians, extension agents and undergraduate university students on the use of genomic selection to mitigate financial risk and enhance profitability while improving the genetics of the milking herd. This will be accomplished through:

    1. Producer Workshops and Veterinarian Workshops in central and northwestern Washington and southern Idaho. Pre- and post-Workshop assessments will determine the value of the educational sessions to the attendees. Online workshops will be held in addition to in-person workshops for those unable to attend the in-person events.
    2. Undergraduate courses in Animal and Veterinary Science at Washington State University. Students will be tested on the information provided in class to assess their understanding of genomic selection uses.
    3. Online course that provides information and demonstrations on genomic selection and a self-test for participants to gauge their understanding of genomic selection.
Timeline:

The timeline for the activities described in the Research Plan and Educational plan are outlined below.

Gantt Chart

ACTIVITY

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Choose 200 heifers/dairy as potential replacements

X

 

 

Graduate & Undergraduates take pictures of heifers

X

 

 

Obtain traditional predicted transmitting ability (PTA)

X

 

 

Graduate & Undergraduates collect tissue samples, extract DNA, to genotype heifers

X

 

 

Genotyping completed and genomic PTAs obtained

X

 

 

Develop and present Producer Genomic Selection Workshops

X

 

X

Develop and present Veterinary Genomic Selection Workshops

X

 

X

Collect economic data and perform Economic Analysis

X

X

 

Collect Health, Fertility and Milk Production Records

X

X

 

Develop Educational Materials for Web

X

X

X

Include Educational Material in WSU Undergraduate Classes

X

X

X

Web Education with Dairy Producers of Washington

 

X

X

Host Web Site

 

X

X

Present Results at Dairy Farmers of Washington Meeting

 

 X

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand/collapse or show everyone's info
  • Austin Allred - Producer
  • Adam Doleson - Producer
  • Peter Kasper - Producer
  • Terry Lenssen - Producer
  • Derek Teunissen - Producer
  • Case VanderMeulen - Producer

Research

Hypothesis:

Genomic selection is a more accurate predictor of future animal performance than the use of visual or pedigree information.

Genomic selection will reduce adverse financial consequences of choosing animals to remain in the herd that perform poorly.

Materials and methods:

Introduction

Genomic selection is based on finding associations of a DNA variant (SNP, see Figure 1) and a trait such as milk production. Once the association is made, animals are genotyped (their DNA identified at the region associated with a trait) to predict the performance of that animal and its offspring. For example, one animal may have the “A” nucleotide at a DNA position, and another animal may have a “C”. Through previous research, the “A” has been identified to be associated with an increase of 100 pounds of milk production and the “C” is associated with no additional milk production (above the average). Heifers that are genotyped and have received an “A” from both their dam and sire will produce 200 pounds more milk (two A’s × 100 lbs = 200 lbs), while those that only receive one “A” from one of their parents will produce 100 pounds more milk and those that receive no “A’s” will produce no more milk than average (Figure 2). These differences in performance from the average are called predicted transmitting abilities or PTA. Genomic selection is the use of PTA based on genotypes to estimate the performance of the heifers. Her offspring’s performance is estimated in the same way. In this proposal, several thousand SNP will be used to predict the performance of the heifers based on previous research that has linked the genotypes to heifer performance. The genotypes of each heifer will also be compared to the predicted performance of all Holstein heifers in the U.S. to assist the dairy producers, workshop participants and students to make decisions on which heifers to keep or cull. 

Genomic selection is much more accurate than basing the prediction of a heifer’s performance on the performance of her dam or her sire14-16,19. The increased accuracy of the heifer’s future milk production allows the dairy to identify heifers that are likely to produce more milk and therefore be more profitable over their lifetime. As the heifers will also produce the next generation of milking animals through their calves, this increase (or decrease) in milk production carries forward generation after generation. This proposal will measure the actual difference in milk and revenue produced from heifers selected using DNA genotypes (genomic selection) compared to heifers chosen using parent information and visual inspection (traditional selection). This real-life comparison will be used to educate present and future dairy producers, and veterinarians.

Material and Methods

For the educational workshops and financial analyses, we have collected pictures (front, side and rear views) of each of the 1200 heifers, a tissue sample, genotypes and reproductive and health records. As heifers finished their first lactation, milk yield and milk components were collected and summarized for each animal. The following provides an overview of that collection process.

Animal Data Collection. Each dairy producer collaborator provided access to approximately 200 heifers between 6 and 10 months of age (Figure 3). The age of heifers when replacement decisions are made vary by dairy, but the decision to keep or cull heifers was made prior to breeding at approximately one year of age. Pictures were taken of all heifers for use in workshops and in the undergraduate agricultural courses and were used for selection of heifers using traditional selection methods. Groups of heifers (10, 20 or 50) were given to participants/students and they ranked the heifers based on visual, pedigree information and individual information and compared how these rankings changed depending on how the animals were assessed. Participants/students were also given four bulls to evaluate and determine by using genomic information, which were to be used to mate to the heifers they chose to keep as replacements. Beef bulls were also provided as an option for offspring that will not be kept in the breeding herd. 

Following the pictures, an ear tissue sample was taken from each heifer (see Animal Assurance; WSU IACUC #6370). DNA was extracted from the tissue sample and genotyping was conducted using the Neogen Igenity Prime assay that contains over 50,000 DNA variants (SNP). The genotypes were used to predict the performance of each heifer as described in Figure 2. A graduate Animal Sciences student was involved with the sample collection needed for genotyping and data analysis.

Analysis of genotypes. The genotypes of the heifers was determined at the Neogen laboratory for three reasons: 1) Neogen donated the cost of DNA extraction required for the genotyping (a $4800 savings); 2) Neogen genotyped the animals at lower cost than we could have genotyped the animals; and 3) Neogen has a contractual relationship with the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding that allows them to compare and rank each heifer against all other Holstein heifers that have been genotyped in the US. Without this contractual agreement between Neogen and the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, we would not have the ability to compare and rank the demonstration herd heifers to all US Holstein heifers.

The genomic prediction information (PTA) was provided to us and to the dairy producers by Neogen for use in this project to choose replacement heifers using genomic selection. All heifers at each dairy were ranked by using pedigree information and genomic information. This allowed the comparison of the profitability of different percentiles (top 25% versus bottom 25%) using different sources of information. Replacement decisions to keep or cull heifers were made by the dairy producers prior to the heifers being bred. Replacement heifers were followed through one lactation. 

Financial Analysis

Objective 1: Identified the profitability difference between replacement heifers chosen with genomic selection compared to those chosen with traditional selection on a per heifer basis.

Profitability analysis included expenses (the cost of health events such as treatment costs, costs associated with the number of inseminations required to achieve pregnancy, and feed costs) and revenues (revenue from first lactation milk sales)(see Equation 1). Individual heifer production data was collected through each participating farm’s records database, which maintained all dairy production records. Feed costs, milk price and milk component premiums were determined through public reports and held constant across dairies to isolate and evaluate the net profitability attributed to selection. The total profit made for heifers ranked in the top 25% and bottom 25% based on Genomic Selection and Traditional Selection groups were compared.

Objective 2: Identify return on investment for the cost of genomic selection on a per heifer, per dairy and across dairies basis.

To calculate the return on investment, we first determined the difference in profitability from what the genomic predicted revenue was for milk  and what the actual milk income was, after correction for the heifer being in her first lactation. The return on investment was calculated to determine the value of using genomic selection for each dairy and across all dairies. The calculate the return on investment, we compared the difference in the actual and genomic predicted profits and divided it by the cost of genotyping to determine how much was returned in revenue for each dollar spent on genomic testing. A related analysis evaluated the difference in the profitability of the top and bottom 25% of heifers based on their genomic selection and on traditional selection predictions. 

Objective 3: Determine the reduction in financial risk (variability in profits) on a per dairy and across dairies basis that results from an increased accuracy of prediction of replacement heifer performance through genomic selection. Objectives 1 and 2 kept milk price constant to isolate the effects of genomic and traditional selection. The primary factor affecting dairy financial risk is variation in milk price. Equation 2 evaluates the effect of selection profit when milk prices vary. The range of milk prices producers have received over the past five years ranges from $13.00 to $21. Profits for each selection group will be calculated iteratively for the range of milk prices received over the past five years.

Objective 4: Develop a model to project the one and ten-year difference in dairy farm profitability and nutrient (manure) load contributed to the environment between traditional versus genomic selection to determine the added sustainability of using genomic selection.

Predicted dairy farm profitability. A model will be developed to predict the ten-year difference in dairy farm profitability and nutrient (manure) load contributed to the environment between traditional versus genomic selection to determine the added sustainability of using genomic selection. This model will be based on data collected on the first lactation. The hypothesis is that production efficiency gains from Genomic Selection heifers will result in less animals needed to meet a constant level of production, therefore, resulting in significantly less manure, thus improving economic sustainability while increasing profitability. This hypothesis is based on studies conducted and USDA statistics over the past 10 years that has shown that genomic selection has improved milk production with fewer cows8

The model will simulate milk production gain for each selection method and the projected milk production gains of the offspring over the ten-year period. Total milk production for each dairy will be held constant and herd inventory number will be adjusted to maintain this level of production. The net present value for genomic and traditional selection profits will be calculated to account for the time value of money. Total manure and nutrients produced over the 10-year period will be estimated using USDA NRCS manure characteristics21,22. For example, the average US Holstein cow produces 28,050 pounds of milk per lactation so 100 cows would produce 2.8 million pounds of milk in one lactation23. This analysis will identify how many heifers will be required to meet the average milk yield for 100 US Holstein cows in the Genomic Selection and Traditional Selection groups and how that number would impact the environment through the amount of nutrients (manure) in pounds that would be produced17,21,22,24.

 

 

 

Research results and discussion:

Hypothesis 1: Genomic selection is a more accurate predictor of future animal performance than the use of visual or pedigree information.

Objective 1: Identified the profitability difference between replacement heifers chosen with genomic selection compared to those chosen with traditional selection on a per heifer basis.

The income difference in the top 25% and the bottom 25% of heifers ranked by genomic predictions of milk revenue averaged $894.48 across all dairies for animals who completed the first lactation. When traditional (sire information) was used, the average milk revenue difference for the top and bottom quartiles was $712.10. The use of genomic selection for NM$ increased the milk revenue by $182.38 on average for each cow across all dairies compared to selection of heifers based on sire information. For the 716 heifers that finished their first lactation, that accounted for a collective increase of $130,584.08 in milk revenue. This represented an increase in revenue that was $99,796 above the collective cost of genomic testing or $139.38 additional revenue per heifer above the cost of testing for the 716 animals finishing their first lactation. If the cost of genomic testing for all 1200 was considered, the increased revenue (above testing costs) was $78,984.08. When considering that the average US Holstein cow is in production for 2.8 lactations, and that this was additional revenue generated from genomic selection for NM$ after  just the first lactation, it is quite likely that the benefits of genomic will be increased  as lifetime revenue is accrued over subsequent (second and third) lactations. 

When comparing the genomic prediction of the heifers to the traditional prediction of NM$, 38% of the heifers in the top genomic quartile were in the bottom selection quartile using the sire's information (traditional methods) and 23% of those in the genomic bottom quartile were predicted to perform well when ranked by sire information. 

Objective 2: Identify return on investment for the cost of genomic selection on a per heifer, per dairy and across dairies basis.

The return on investment was calculated to determine the value of using genomic selection for each dairy and across all dairies. To calculate the annual return on investment, we first determined the difference in profitability from what the average predicted genomic revenue was for milk for the annual production of milk for a mature cow ($6,198.39) for all dairies. As we only had information on the cow's first lactation, which is expected to be about 80% of a mature cow's annual milk production (Ishler, 2023), we  corrected that prediction by 80% for a first lactation genomic prediction for an average fluid milk revenue of $4,958.07. The actual average milk income was $5,271.21 for all dairies based on the October 2023 price for milk resulting in an average increased milk revenue of $313 beyond what was predicted for the six dairies. The return on investment for genomic testing was obtained by comparing the difference in the actual and genomic predicted profits ($313) and dividing it by the cost of genotyping ($43) to give an average return on investment of $7.3. So, for every dollar spent on genomic testing, over $7 was returned in milk revenue by selecting the best heifers or removing the heifers with the lowest predicted annual performance. 

Hypothesis 2: Genomic selection will reduce adverse financial consequences of choosing animals to remain in the herd that perform poorly.

Objective 3: Determine the reduction in financial risk (variability in profits) on a per dairy and across dairies basis that results from an increased accuracy of prediction of replacement heifer performance through genomic selection.

A related analysis to return on investment, evaluated the difference in the profitability of the top and bottom 25% of heifers based on their NM$ genomic selection and on traditional selection predictions. For heifers ranked by NM$, the income received for the actual milk produced was assessed. Costs for health events and additional breedings (if applicable) were also accounted for in the profit. For heifers that were ranked in the top 25% compared to those in the bottom 25%, there was a $894.48 difference (averaged $5,296.55 for top 25% and $4,401.52 for the bottom 25%) in income, whereas the traditional selection heifers had a profitability difference of $712.10 (averaged $5,162.52 for top 25%, and $4,450.42 for the bottom 25%) between the top and bottom quartiles. The revenue difference between the selection approaches demonstrates that the accuracy of the prediction of the "best" heifers was better with the genomic tool to assess the heifers than using the traditional approach.

The traditional approach predicted that milk production across all dairies for all heifers would exceed the average (+944 pounds of milk over the US average) by almost twice as much as the predicted milk production using genomic selection (+486 pounds of milk). The higher value estimated using the sire's information is reflective of the elite status of sires for production traits, while not accounting for the equal contribution of the dam to milk production. This higher prediction of future income, if relied upon for financing, could be problematic as it may put dairy producers at financial risk.  

Additionally, removing the lowest heifers predicted to perform poorly improved the overall income for the dairies. It was estimated that six poorly performing heifers could be removed for every 100 heifers without altering income. By removing heifers predicted to be unprofitable, the losses incurred by feeding and developing those heifers were avoided. The labor, crowding and environmental footprint of the dairy was also reduced.

Objective 4:  Develop a model to project the one and ten-year difference in dairy farm profitability and nutrient (manure) load contributed to the environment between traditional versus genomic selection to determine the added sustainability of using genomic selection.

The ten-year model to predict the difference in dairy farm profitability and nutrient load contributed to the environment is ongoing. With the levels of production that the six dairies demonstrated this past year, we identified the average milk revenue given milk price variability (by dollar) from $13/cwt to the price of $21.70/cwt in October of 2023. The average milk revenue ranged from $2673  ($13/cwt) to $4796 ($21.70) per cow for all cows who finished their first lactation for all dairies. Feed costs through the first lactation was estimated at $4,485 ($6/day for 60 days prior to weaning, A$1/day 3-6 months of age, $2/day for 7-22 months of age, $9/day for 305 days of lactation) and labor, health and veterinary costs was estimated at $405 for a total of $4,890 invested per cow finishing the first lactation. For the second lactation, a dry-off period of $2/day for 60 days and the feed associated with the second lactation adds another $2865 of investment for a total of $7,755 through the second lactation. At $21.70/cwt, the milk revenue would be $4796*2 (for 2 lactations) + $952 (a 20% increase for second lactation) = $10,551.2, and additional income would be generated from the two calves that could be sold. At this milk price, the cow would be profitable after her second lactation, but at $13/cwt for milk she would  not break even after her second lactation. One of the benefits of genomic selection is that by choosing cattle that are more healthy, it is predicted that they will also remain in the herd longer so that they will produce more milk per lactation than a young cow and will be more profitable over their lifetime. The modeling that we will complete this summer, will identify the profitability differences that may result with cattle staying in the herd for a longer period of time during price volatility and how that will impact dairy farms financial security. The current dairy producers have asked to be involved in a continuation of the current study to identify the actual increase in productive life their cattle experience and how that reflects the dairy's profit.

Initial work on the effect of genomic selection on reducing herd size while maintaining the same level of revenue has identified that a 6% reduction in the dairy herd by removing those from the genomic selection bottom quartile, would maintain revenues at the same levels while reducing methane, manure, labor and water resources (as described in objective 3). This is consistent with a recent study that determined that the top 25% of dairy cows identified by genomic prediction produced 35% more milk while producing 10% less methane than the lowest 25% of cows in a cohort of 13,000 cows https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.14094.

 

 

Participation Summary
6 Producers participating in research

Research Outcomes

Recommendations for sustainable agricultural production and future research:
  1. Genomic selection has a positive return on investment.

In this study, the return on investment was over $7 per dollar invested in genetic testing. This demonstrates that if genomic testing information is used to select heifers and to select bulls for mating, that profits will increase.

2. Genomic selection is a more accurate predictor of performance than traditional selection based on sire information, or sire and maternal grandsire information.

Comparing actual performance to predicted performance, genomic predictions are more accurate. The increase in accuracy of prediction reduces the likelihood of retaining animals that are unprofitable and allows the producer to reduce animal numbers while maintaining the same level of revenue. As accuracy of prediction increases, using this information to choose breeding strategies for the top, average and bottom females will increase the value of calves. Top females can be bred to top bulls with semen that is sexed for females to produce female replacements. Average and bottom females can be considered to be bred to beef bulls to produce beef cross calves that will bring higher revenues than dairy calves.

3. Genomic selection reduces financial risk.

As genomic selection is a more accurate predictor of performance, and has a positive return on investment, making financial decision based on that information provides a lower financial risk than using less accurate sire or sire and maternal grandsire information. In our study, the heifers outperformed their predicted performance when evaluated across all dairies. However, there were some dairies that did not exceed their predictions, and if the sire  information along had been used (which had an even higher estimate of production) for these dairies, the financial shortfall would have put them in a difficult financial position.

4. Genomic selection allows for a reduced environmental footprint.

In our study, we have done some initial calculations on the reduction of animals that could be implemented while maintaining the same level of profitability. These initial calculations will be augmented by the modeling of price volatility and productive life that may be extended with genomic selection. It is clear, even with our initial calculations that fewer animals can be raised and in production using the information gained by genomic selection. The reduced numbers will lead to reduced methane emissions, less manure output, less water used, and less use of feed inputs so that alternative uses for those feeds may be explored.  The reduction of the environmental footprint by reducing animal numbers while maintaining or increasing agricultural products enhances our rural economies and increases the sustainability of agriculture and our food security.

Education and Outreach

65 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools
6 On-farm demonstrations
3 Online trainings
5 Published press articles, newsletters
8 Webinars / talks / presentations
6 Workshop field days
12 Other educational activities: undergraduate college classes

Participation Summary:

32 Farmers participated
30 Ag professionals participated
Education and outreach methods and analyses:

Undergraduate courses:

  1. Animal Breeding & Genetics - 3 new lectures, 20 new educational group exercise packets (120 in course for 2 years)
  2. Dairy Production - 1 new lecture (45 students on average for 3 years)
  3. Agricultural Animal Health - 2 new lectures, 1 new educational group exercise (90 in course)

The educational approach has been to provide background information on genomics and selection of animals based on visual, pedigree or individual information to form a foundation for the hands-on exercise in the second step. The second step was to allow the students/participants to learn experientially by utilizing real cattle data to experience the differences these different approaches can have on accurately predicting the best animals, improving overall herd performance and reducing financial risk.  Undergraduates were taught about genomic selection and then provided real data to choose replacement females. First they chose Holstein animals (from the data collected in the summer of the first year of the study) based on appearance, then on sire information, sire and maternal grandsire information and finally the heifer's own genomic information. Comparisons were made on the heifers chosen based on the different selection criteria. A second data set from the Jersey Association was then evaluated based on pedigree and individual genomic information and lactation performance. Comparisons were made on the differences in the accuracy of predicted and actual performance using the different approaches and how this affected revenue received from milk sales. Undergraduate students were tested over this information in each class.

Veterinary students:

  1. Agricultural club - 1 new presentation, 5 new educational exercise materials (9 students)
  2. Veterinary students on dairy cattle rotation (6 students)

The Agricultural Animal Club is a club of veterinary students interested in caring for agricultural animals upon graduation. We presented a review of genomic selection and then followed it with the second data set used with the undergraduate students. Nine veterinary students participated in this activity.

Six veterinary students on a dairy cattle rotation in the central portion of Washington state joined us for an educational workshop with their faculty mentor. All of these fourth year students are planning on practicing in large animal practices throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Educational workshops: 2 new presentations and 20 new group exercise packets and two online workshops for the first - second year; and 3 new educational workshops, 6 producer workshops and 2 conference (American Society of Animal Science meeting in New Mexico, Washington State Dairy Federation in Grand Mound, WA) presentations over the last year.

  1. Central Washington (3 veterinarians, 4 producers; 2 allied health); second workshop (3 veterinarians, 6 students, 1 producer)
  2. Northwestern Washington (15 producers); second workshop (2 veterinarians, 3 producers, 1 Extension faculty)
  3. Southern Idaho (4 producers, 3 allied health, 3 veterinarians); second workshop (3 University of Idaho faculty - 2 Economics, Genetics, 3 allied health, 2 veterinarians, 3 producers, journalist)

All in-person educational workshops consisted of a dinner and a review of genetics/genomics. For the first year workshops, participants completed an exercise where they selected and mated heifers based on the pictures, sire information and genomic information of the heifers from the demonstration herds. A dairy magazine (Progressive Dairyman) was reported on our workshop after attending it.

Producers that participated in the study were all presented with their individual data as well as the collective data from all six dairies. Producers were very engaged and receptive to the results. All six dairies have now adopted genomic selection to reduce financial risk and to improve profitability. We are excited to report that we have 100% implementation or adoption of our genomic selection approach. In addition, the dairies are requesting that we continue to monitor their dairies to determine the long-term impacts of genomic selection in their herds. 

A journalist for Ag Proud Idaho and Progressive Dairyman attended our Southern Idaho workshop and has provided an initial draft for reporting on the workshop in  the magazine Ag Proud Idaho and wants to include our results in Progressive Dairymen after the acceptance of our drafted journal publication. We were also very excited to have a representative from the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding as well as the producer of the leading Holstein sire at both of our southern Idaho workshops!

Demonstration dairies - 6 dairies and 6 veterinarians

Ranking Spreadsheet - For Use In Educational Settings

Education and outreach results:

First-second year:

Pre- and post- workshop surveys were collected from workshop participants. Of the participants,52.6% reported using genomic selection previously and 78% reported that they would like additional information (post workshop). Altogether, participants represented 21,300 cows and 7,990 replacement heifers. From the WSARE survey, 100% responded that their awareness of genomics was improved and that they obtained new knowledge. Eighty-nine percent of participants obtained new skills, 75% modified their opinions or attitude toward genomic selection and 75% said that they would adopt new practices. The participants reported that they would likely share this information with a total of 39 others.

Past year:

Pre- and post workshop surveys were again collected from workshop participants. Of the participants, 57% reported using genomic selection previously and 96% reported that they will use genomics in the future for either selection of heifers or for mating. After the workshop, knowledge of genomics increased from 82% correct responses to 95% (p = 0.002) and 96% of participants were interested in receiving more information. Collectively, participants represented 308,130 cows and the selection of 39,990 replacement heifers, and that they would share this information (peer to peer communication)  with 568 others. All participants responded that their awareness of genomics was improved and that they learned new knowledge.

26 Farmers intend/plan to change their practice(s)
6 Farmers changed or adopted a practice

Education and Outreach Outcomes

19 Producers reported gaining knowledge, attitude, skills and/or awareness as a result of the project
Key areas taught:
  • Concepts of DNA and inheritance of DNA material from parents to offspring
  • Selection (choosing animals in breeding population) can be done visually, through pedigree-based information or an individual's own DNA (genomic selection).
  • Predicted transmitting abilities (PTAs) are predictions of the average performance of an animal's offspring and are available for individual traits and multiple traits (selection indexes).
  • Performance predictions are more accurate using the information from the individual's own DNA. This reduces the risk that the individual animal will be a bad investment.
  • Mating decisions can also be informed through the individual's predicted transmitting abilities.
  • Management decision can be informed through the individual's predicted transmitting abilities.
  • Genomic selection reduces financial risk and increases long-term profitability
  • When and which animals to genotype will depend on breeding goals and when females are sorted that will be culled or bred differently.

Information Products

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.