AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of The Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Ala. . . V. SMITH, Director . . . Report of Herd Improvement by Crossbre di 141955 K. M. AUTREY, Head, Department of Dairy Husbandry MOST ALABAMA milk cows produce too little milkto be profitable. The average annual produc- tion of all milk cows in the State is less than 3,500 pounds. In many cases an improved feeding program could result in an increase of 30 to 50 per cent in produc- tion level. An example of this is the production per- formance of the A.P.I. College dairy herd. In 1947 it averaged 5,120 pounds of milk per cow. A year later average production of the herd rose to 6,640 pounds, while concentrate consumption dropped 1,000 pounds per cow. The difference was the better sup- ply of good pasture and other roughage than in the previous year. Another example is the 1952 and 1953 performance of nine mature Jersey cows in an experi- mental herd at the A.P.I. Agricultural Experiment Station's Dairy Management unit (North Auburn area). In each case they calved about the first of the calen- dar year. In 1953, a relatively good roughage and pasture year on this unit, these cows averaged 9,070 pounds of milk, or 2,040 pounds more than the 1952 production average. Even under the best feeding and management con- ditions, however, it is impossible to get profitable production from many of Alabama's milk cows. Studies at several Substations of the A.P.I. Agricultural Ex- periment Station System (1, 2, 3,) show that in some cases grade Jersey herds with better-than-average pasture and feeding conditions average no more than 6,000 to 7,000 pounds of milk. PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL HERD Late in 1949 a herd was assembled at the dairy management unit. Most of the animals were grade Jerseys and Guernseys, and were obtained from farm- ers in the Piedmont Area of Alabama. A few purebred Jersey cows from the College dairy herd were added to the experimental herd. Given in Table 1 are the production data, level of feed consumption, and es- timated returns above feed cost of this herd from 1950, the first full year of operation, through 1954. Most of the milk from this unit was sold as Grade A; the highest price received was $6.65 per hundred- weight in 1951, and the lowest was $5.42 per hundred- weight in 1954. The variation reflects an increased amount of surplus milk in the past 2 or 3 years. This so-called surplus was sold to an evaporated milk plant at a price of approximately $3 per hundredweight. In addition to actual returns, presented in Table 1 are the calculated returns above feed cost with milk valued at $4 per hundred pounds. Variations in weather conditions experienced dur- ing the period were as follows: 1950 was a reasonably good feed year until a severe November freeze elimi- nated all winter pastures; 1952 was a relatively poor feed year in comparison with 1953. The severe drought of 1954, probably the worst in the history of this se.c- tion, practically eliminated all summer pastures. As a result, there was little supplemental forage grown or harvested on the unit. Consequently, an abnormally large amount of concentrate was fed the milking herd. TABLE I. PERFORMANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL HERD, 1950-1954 Av. Av. Av. Av. Total I No. milk fat hay equiv. concentrate feed Return above feedcost Years cows prod. test consumption consumption cost Actua 2 Milk at $ L b. Pct. Lb. Lb. Dol. Dol. Dol. 1950 29 4,540 5.0 1, 900 1, 600 I09 165 73 1951 30 4,390 4.9 1, i 50 1, 5 87 190 89 1952 42 5,870 4.6 1,850 I ,.610 715 274 20 1953 47 7,090 4.5 2,690 1,570 124 273 160 1954 59 6,740 4.5 1,970 2,300 131 234 139 'Data from DHIA records. 2 Based on price of milk varying, from $5.42 percwt. in 195g t$6.65 in 1951. Filv~nln~Pr th-95 - tdT $6. 65 i-11 h 1- 9 1.. ~~n PrgrssReo t eresNo 5 Octo-ber., 1955 PROGRESS THROUGH IMPROVED BREEDING In Table 2 are compared the dairy herd operations for 1950-51 and 1953-54. The considerable increase in milk production and in returns above feed cost re- flect primarily an improvement in productive capacity of the cows in the herd. Use of proved Holstein bulls on Jersey cows and Jersey bulls on Holstein cows at the Agricultural Research Center of U.S.D.A., Belts- ville, Maryland (4) and results from similar programs at state experiment stations have shown some of the possibilities of crossbreeding. At this Station several cows in the dairy herd were bred to Holstein bulls. A few crossbred heifers came into milk in 1952; the herd of 47 cows included about 15 crossbred heifers that completed full lactation periods in 1953. It is pointed out that from 1950 to 1954 the number of cows in the herd was doubled. This was necessary in de- veloping a herd for feeding experiments and precluded a normal culling program. Even so, by 1954 there re- mained only a few animals from the original grade herd purchased for the management unit. At the pres- ent time, the milking herd consists of about 1/3 Hol- stein-Jersey crossbred animals, about 1/3 purebred Jerseys, and the remainder, grade Jerseys and Guern- seys. TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF HERD IN 1950-51 AND 1953-54 Av. Value of Total Returns above Ratio of concen- Milk product feed cost feed cost trates consumed to Years Prod. . ($4 per cwt.) per cow per cow milk produced Lb. Dol. Dol. Dol. 1950-51 4,460 179 98 81 1:3.2 1953-54 6,920 277 127 150 1:3.6 Difference +2,460 +98 +29 +69 1Data from DHIA records. PROOF OF GOOD BULLS each crossbred animal and also the same record con- verted to a mature equivalent basis. The records for the dams are the highest made while they were in Production records on the 12 Holstein-Jersey cross- production and are computed to a mature equivalent breds that have completed records and that have dams basis. In most cases these records were made on with completed records for comparison are given in DHIA tests and in a few instances on Register of Table 3. Given are the highest actual milk record for Merit tests. TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF THE BEST RECORDS OF 12 HOLSTEIN-JERSEY CROSSBREDS WITH THEIR DAMS Daughters' best records I Dams' best records' Actual Mature equivalent Mature equivalent Dau. Sire Milk Fat Age Milk Fat No. Milk Fat Lb. Lb. Years Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb. H-3 Inka 12,800 521 5 12,900 529 529 8,440 389 H-7 " 11,510 485 4 11,860 500 214 6,910 311 H-8 " 12,000 485 4 12,640 511 564 7,580 328 H-9 " 9,070 344 3 9,910 376 201 8,950 428 H-10 " 12,240 549 4 12,890 578 574 8,190 363 H-Il " 11,830 467 3 13,490 532 217 8,390 365 H-14 " 11,390 478 3 12,980 545 464 5,750 325 H-44 " 16,030 570 3 18,270 650 242 6,250 285 H-2 " 5,000 234 2 5,950 278 563 6,310 309 H-70 Aide 7,660 343 2 9,730 436 464 5,750 325 1H1-75 " 8,110 340 2 9,410 394 33 2,310 137 H-90 " 9,820 407 2 12,470 517 I 5,920 233 Mean = 10,620 435 11i,880 487 Mean of 12 Dams M.E. 6,730 317 Difference = + 5,150 +170 1 Each record here was made in 305 days, and on twice-daily milking. In the 12 comparisons, the daughters produced an average of 5,150 pounds more milk and 170 pounds more fat than did their dams. It is also pointed out that the average actual production of 10,620 pounds of milk and 435 pounds of fat is based on performance by immature cows. Only one crossbred in this group was as old as 5 years when these records were started. Since no Holstein females were in the herd when this breeding study was started, Holstein bulls were used on Jersey cows in all cases. Also, it must be noted that the daughters of only two bulls were in- volved in this comparison. The Station had two bulls of excellent transmitting ability, Penstate Marksman Inka 963021, and B.D.I. Dugline Aide 1042560. Inka is from the Holstein herd at Pennsylvania State Uni- versity. Aide is from the herd of the DairyBranch, A.R.S., Beltsville, Maryland. The average performance of 16 crossbred females as compared with that of the remaining 43 animals in milk during 1954 is given in Table 4. From the data in this table, it is obvious that the daughters of good Holstein bulls produced at a much more profitable level than did the other animals in the herd. Based on milk selling at $4 per hundredweight, returns per cow above feed costs were $122 greater for cross- breds than for the others. TABLE 4. COMPARISON OF AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF 43 COWS (NOT CROSSBRED) AND 16 CROSSBRED HEIFERS IN 1954 1 Returns above MilIk Concentrates Total feed cost Group prod. Fat fed feed cost (mi 1k @ 4/cwt.) Lb. Lb. Lb. Dol. Dol. 16 crossbred animals 2 9,480 410 2,450 152 227 43 other animals in herd 5,720 262 2,239 124 105 (chiefly Jersey and grade Jersey) Difference +3,760 +1148 +211 + 28 + 122 'Actual DHIA records during calendar year of 1954. 20f these 16 cows, 8 were first-calf heifers in 1954. All are Holstein-Jersey crossbreds. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This is a report of an informal test, involving the use of good bulls on mediocre cows. It appears that hybrid vigor contributed to the superior performance of the crossbred cows. Evidence of this was found, not only in the amount of milk and fat produced, but in the greater persistency of milk flow. When comparing the average level of milk produc- tion during the first 3 months in milk (45 pounds daily) with that of the last 3 months (27 pounds daily), it was found that the crossbreds were producing almost 60 per cent as much milk the last 3 months as the first 3. The comparable figure for the dams was 30 per cent, (32 pounds daily to 10 pounds daily). While interpreting these results, it should be pointed out that the crossbred daughters averaged 100 to 150 pounds heavier in body weight than their Jersey-bred dams. A question is often raised about difficulties of a Jersey dam dropping a Holstein-sired calf. This has not been a problem in the course of this study, be- cause small, immature cows and Jersey heifers were not bred to Holstein bulls. During much of the time between 1950 and 1954, several cows in the herd were on feeding tests that had a bearing on milk production level. This is one reason the study reported here is considered a test rather than a controlled breeding experiment. How- ever, from time to time most of the animals in the herd were subjected to feeding experiments involving poor quality forages; hence, this handicap was no greater for one group (in these comparisons) than for another. Tables 1 and 4 give the level of concen- trates fed and Table 1 gives the estimated hay con- sumption by the herd. APPLICATION OF RESULTS Where a farmer has a low-producing herd of cows, whether grade or purebred, his greatest need from the standpoint of herd improvement is to get the service of a good proved bull. Often this can be done through an artificial breeding association. When using a well- bred bull, the most rapid progress probably can be made by crossbreeding. If the milk produced by a dairyman's herd tests more than the market demands and if high test milk does not command a good premium for extra fat, he may wish to develop cows producing at a fat level in line with market demands. Crossing cows of Jersey or Guernsey breeding with a well-bred Holstein male should result in offspring that produce a greater volume of milk testing around 4 per cent :butterfat. The 12 daughters referred to in Table 3 produced milk averaging 4.1 per cent. Regardless of the system of herd improvement used, a complete record of milk production and feed consumption is very important if a dairyman is to accurately measure his progress. The DHIA testing program enables him to keep such records. REFERENCES 1. Baker, K. G. A System for Process Milk Pro- duction in the Black Belt. API Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Progress Report Series No. 45, Aug., in the Alabama Tennessee Valley. API Agricultural 1946. Experiment Station, Progress Report Series No. 9, 2. Brown, Otto. Summaries of Some Experiments Apr., 1947. at the Gulf Coast Substation. API Agricultural Ex- periment Station, Mimeographed Sheet, Feb., 1948. 4. Fohrman, M. H., et al. A Crossbreeding Ex- 3. Stewart, Fred and Boseck, John. Feed and periment with Dairy Cattle. USDA Tech. Bul. No. Fbrage Cropping System for Process Milk Production 1074, Feb., 1954.