So I have just managed to view the recording of the webinar on the new BFI.   I found it interesting with some valuable information and graphs.   As previously stated, on face value there was potentially a lot to like about the BFI for people wanting something that helped with breeding decisions around herd development rather than just slaughter animals.   If you haven’t seen the webinar, then you would be well advised to take the time to have a look at it!!    

Link :  https://vimeo.com/918108499?share=copy

One of the main things I found from the webinar that continues to be perplexing was why there was no comparison at all to the Index the BFI has replaced …. The Wagyu Breeders Index.     There were many times during the presentation that the SRI was referred to as “the previous Index” or similar wording.   It makes me wonder if the original intent (or belief by the developers) was to actually replace the SRI?   Saying that the SRI and the WBI were both self-replacing indexes as if that was some sort of explanation is, to me, not at all a convincing explanation.   Anyway …. Be all that as it may – lets continue on …..

Thankfully, on one of the slides provided, there was a BreedObject Index Comparison which the small print explains provides “Indicative response to genetic selection expressed in genetic standard deviations.   This shows the relative selection pressure placed on each EBV by the four Wagyu Selection Indexes”.  

In that chart we can see a direct comparison of the weighting for each of the 4 Indexes, including the one which has been replaced by the BFI.   It seems very obvious from that chart that the now replaced WBI was the only Index of the 4 that placed weight on traits other than “the main” carcass traits – it placed weighting on BW, Growth, MCW, Milk, SS, CWT, and RBY with less emphasis on MS, Rump Fat, and GL…… So, sort of what the Index that has replaced it is designed to do (except for BW).   I agree that increased BW is something that should be managed very carefully and a high BW ebv if something I avoid where possible.   It would have been useful, and really interesting, to see the new WBI included in that chart I think … but it wasn’t so again, we will move on.

There seems to have been a lot of input and data provided to AbacusBio by the AWA, which is to be expected I suppose.   I couldn’t help wondering though, where information like the cost to feed cows and quality of feed provided to cows data came from that was used by Abacus in their inputs analysis.   I was also intrigued about what data would have been used to calculate the cost benefit of having a cow that produced milk against one that didn’t (seems an obvious cost saving) and if the cost benefit analysis included the cost of creep feeding a calf from a cow with little or no milk.   As previously mentioned, the milk ebv is probably speculative at best in many cases with no actual measure of “milk-ability” of Wagyu cows.   In short, there seems to have been a big emphasis on talking about weighting in favour of milk but the actual milk weighting on the new index doesn’t seem very high – you only need to have a look at the highest rated bulls under the BFI to see that!!   When you add to this the lack of data behind the milk ebv, it is fair to wonder how much actual effect this weighting from the index might translate to real world improvements for these types of traits.   To be fair, the same applies to the other indexes and could easily be said about some of the other ebvs as well.

I could continue with other observations but see no point really.   I think AbacusBio probably did a good job with the information they were provided with against the “objectives’ they were set.   The bottom line is that the AWA has decided to replace the only Index not weighted similarly to the other 3, with another index with highest weighting on MS (40%).   While MS is an indicator of profitability to some degree, as mentioned by AbacusBio during their presentation, Carcass Weight is “what you get paid for”.   You don’t generally breed heavy Carcass animals from small framed, high marbling cows.   If they have no milk and poor fertility, then the costs just keep rising.   It is far simpler, and arguably better, to use a high marbling bull over a cow that has size, frame, growth, fertility and maternal traits than to try to reverse those roles.   Breeding a quality herd requires a slightly different mindset to that of just creating a good steak.

 I like the theory behind the new index but I think it should have replaced the SRI (as it seems that it may have been intended to do) or maybe it should have replaced both the WBI and the SRI … if, as has been suggested, they are both “Self replacing indexes” – do we need 2?   It seems obvious that the SRI is the preferred index by some influential breeders so it should probably come as no surprise that there is no apparent intention to remove or replace the SRI.   Remember also, this is all based on ebvs and there also seems to be no consideration to the accuracy of any of the ebvs.   I also think this is (another) huge lost opportunity for potentially assisting breeders to improve the “breed”.  

I also can’t help but wonder why the WBI couldn’t simply have been “adjusted” to better reflect the “objectives” set by the AWA rather than to delete and totally replace it with an effectively similar Index with a completely different name? As previously mentioned - I for 1 had heard absolutely nothing out of the AWA about this proposed change until after it was done - others may have but they might be on a different email list. It is easy to speculate or theorise about reasons behind what has been done but, again, there seems to be no point – it’s done!!