Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T02:12:41.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development and evaluation of the herd dynamic milk model with focus on the individual cow component

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2016

E. Ruelle ,
L. Delaby ,
M. Wallace  and
L. Shalloo
E. Ruelle*
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
L. Delaby
Affiliation:
INRA-Agrocampus-Ouest, UMR 1348, Physiologie, Environnement et Génétique pour l’Animal et les Systèmes d’Elevage, Domaine de la Prise, 35590 Saint Gilles, France
M. Wallace
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK
L. Shalloo
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The herd dynamic milk (HDM) model is a dynamic model capable of simulating the performance of individual dairy animals (from birth to death), with a daily time step. Within this study, the HDM model is described and evaluated in relation to milk production, body condition score (BCS) and BCS change throughout lactation by comparing model simulations against data from published experimental studies. The model’s response to variation in genetic potential, herbage allowance and concentrate supplementation was tested in a sensitivity analysis. Data from experiments in Ireland and France over a 3-year period (2009–11) were used to complete the evaluation. The aim of the Irish experiment was to determine the impact of different stocking rates (SRs) (SR1: 3.28 cow/ha, SR2: 2.51 cow/ha) on key physical, biological and economic performance. The aim of the French experiment was to evaluate over a prolonged time period, the ability of two breeds of dairy cows (Holstein and Normande) to produce and to reproduce under two feeding strategies (high level and low level) in the context of compact calving. The model evaluation was conducted at the herd level with separate evaluations for the primiparous and multiparous cows. The evaluation included the two extreme SRs for the Irish experiment, and an evaluation at the overall herd and individual animal level for the different breeds and feeding levels for the French data. The comparison of simulation and experimental data for all scenarios resulted in a relative prediction error, which was consistently <15% across experiments for weekly milk production and BCS. In relation to BCS, the highest root mean square error was 0.27 points of BCS, which arose for Holstein cows in the low feeding group in late lactation. The model responded in a realistic fashion to variation in genetic potential for milk production, herbage allowance and concentrate supplementation.

Keywords

modellingmodel evaluationdairy cowsmilk yieldbody condition score
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 12 , December 2016 , pp. 1986 - 1997
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baudracco, J, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Holmes, CW, Comeron, EA, Macdonald, KA and Barry, TN 2013. e-Dairy: a dynamic and stochastic whole-farm model that predicts biophysical and economic performance of grazing dairy systems. Animal 7, 870–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baudracco, J, Lopez-Villalobos, N, Holmes, CW, Comeron, EA, Macdonald, KA, Barry, TN and Friggens, NC 2012. e-Cow: an animal model that predicts herbage intake, milk yield and live weight change in dairy cows grazing temperate pastures, with and without supplementary feeding. Animal 6, 980–993.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazin, S, Augeard, P, Carteau, M, Champion, H, Chiliard, Y, Disenhaus, C, Durand, G, Espinasse, R, Gascoin, A, Godineau, M, Jouanne, D, Ollivier, O and Remond, B 1984. Grille de notation de l’etat d’engraissement des vaches pie noires. RNED bovin, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Bibby, J and Toutenburg, H 1977. Prediction and improved estimation in linear models. Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Bruce, JM, Broadbent, PJ and Topps, JH 1984. A model of the energy system of lactating and pregnant cows. Animal Science 38, 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, F, Dillon, P, Rath, M and Veerkamp, RF 2000. The relationship between genetic merit for yield and live weight, condition score, and energy balance of spring calving Holstein Friesian dairy cows on grass based systems of milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 1878–1886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, F, O’Sullivan, K, Mee, JF, Evans, RD and Dillon, P 2003. Relationships among milk yield, body condition, cow weight, and reproduction in spring-calved Holstein-Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2308–2319.Google Scholar
Cutullic, E, Delaby, L, Gallard, Y and Disenhaus, C 2011. Dairy cows’ reproductive response to feeding level differs according to the reproductive stage and the breed. Animal 5, 731–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Michel, G, Disenhaus, C and Peyraud, J 2009. Effect of different feeding strategies on lactation performance of Holstein and Normande dairy cows. Animal 3, 891–905.Google Scholar
Delaby, L, Horan, B, O’Donovan, MA, Gallard, Y and Peyraud, JL 2010b. Are high genetic merit dairy cows compatible with low input grazing systems? General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, 29 August to 2 September 2010, Kiel, DEU, pp. 928–930, http://www.europeangrassland.org/fileadmin/media/EGF2010_GSE_vol15.pdf.Google Scholar
Delaby, L, Leurent, S, Gallard, Y and Schmitt, T 2010a. Effet de la race, de la parité, du potentiel laitier et de l’état au vêlage sur l’évolution de l’état corporel des vaches laitières au cours de la lactation. 17èmes Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 8 and 9 December 2010, Paris, France, pp. 260, http://www.journees3r.fr/IMG/pdf/2010_08_13_Delaby.pdf.Google Scholar
Delaby, L, Peyraud, J-L, Foucher, N and Michel, G 2003. The effect of two contrasting grazing managements and level of concentrate supplementation on the performance of grazing dairy cows. Animal Research 52, 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delagarde, R, Faverdin, P, Baratte, C and Peyraud, JL 2011a. GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 2. Prediction of intake under rotational and continuously stocked grazing management. Grass and Forage Science 66, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delagarde, R, Valk, H, Mayne, CS, Rook, AJ, González-Rodríguez, A, Baratte, C, Faverdin, P and Peyraud, JL 2011b. GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 3. Simulations and external validation of the model. Grass and Forage Science 66, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faverdin, P, Delagarde, R, Delaby, L and Meschy, F 2010. Alimentation des vaches laitières. In Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins (ed. INRA), pp. 23–58. Quae, Versailles Cedex, France.Google Scholar
Faverdin, P, Baratte, C, Delagarde, R and Peyraud, JL 2011. GrazeIn: a model of herbage intake and milk production for grazing dairy cows. 1. Prediction of intake capacity, voluntary intake and milk production during lactation. Grass and Forage Science 66, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friggens, NC, Ingvartsen, KL and Emmans, GC 2004. Prediction of body lipid change in pregnancy and lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 988–1000.Google Scholar
Fuentes-Pila, J, DeLorenzo, MA, Beede, DK, Staples, CR and Holter, JB 1996. Evaluation of equations based on animal factors to predict intake of lactating Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1562–1571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fulkerson, WJ, Davison, TM, Garcia, SC, Hough, G, Goddard, ME, Dobos, R and Blockey, M 2008. Holstein-Friesian dairy cows under a predominantly grazing system: interaction between genotype and environment. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 826–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geweke, J 1991. Efficient simulation from the multivariate normal and student-t distributions subject to linear constraints and the evaluation of constraint probabilities. Proceeding of the 23rd Computing Science and Statistics, 22–24 April, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 571–578.Google Scholar
Hoden, A, Peyraud, J, Muller, A, Delaby, L, Faverdin, P, Peccatte, J and Fargetton, M 1991. Simplified rotational grazing management of dairy cows: effects of rates of stocking and concentrate. Journal of Agricultural Science 116, 417–428.Google Scholar
Horan, B, Dillon, P, Faverdin, P, Delaby, L, Buckley, F and Rath, M 2005. The interaction of strain of Holstein-Friesian cows and pasture-based feed systems on milk yield, body weight, and body condition score. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horan, B, Mee, JF, Rath, M, O’Connor, P and Dillon, P 2004. The effect of strain of Holstein-Friesian cow and feeding system on reproductive performance in seasonal-calving milk production systems. Animal Science 79, 453–467.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, I, Shalloo, L and Butler, S 2013. Expanding the dairy herd in pasture-based systems: the role of sexed semen use in virgin heifers and lactating cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 6742–6752.Google Scholar
INRA 2010. Alimentation des bovins, ovins et caprins. Quae, Versailles Cedex, France.Google Scholar
Jacquot, A-L 2012. Dynamilk: un simulateur pour étudier les compromis entre performances animales, utilisation des ressources herbagères et recherche d’autonomie alimentaire dans les systèmes bovins laitiers de montagne. Agricultural Science, Blaise Pascal University, Clermont-Ferrand II, France.Google Scholar
Jouven, M, Agabriel, J and Baumont, R 2008. A model predicting the seasonal dynamics of intake and production for suckler cows and their calves fed indoors or at pasture. Animal Feed Science and Technology 143, 256–279.Google Scholar
Lin, LIK 1989. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, O and Sauvant, D 2010a. A teleonomic model describing performance (body, milk and intake) during growth and over repeated reproductive cycles throughout the lifespan of dairy cattle. 1. Trajectories of life function priorities and genetic scaling. Animal 4, 2030–2047.Google Scholar
Martin, O and Sauvant, D 2010b. A teleonomic model describing performance (body, milk and intake) during growth and over repeated reproductive cycles throughout the lifespan of dairy cattle. 2. Voluntary intake and energy partitioning. Animal 4, 2048–2056.Google Scholar
Masselin, S, Sauvant, D, Chapoutot, P and Milan, D 1987. Les modèles d’ajustement des courbes de lactation. Annales de Zootechnie 36, 171–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride, GB 2005. A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin.s.concordance correlation coefficient. NIWA Client Report No. HAM2005-062. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from http://www.medcalc.org/download/pdf/McBride2005.pdf.Google Scholar
McCarthy, B, Delaby, L, Pierce, KM, Brennan, A and Horan, B 2013. The effect of stocking rate and calving date on milk production of Holstein–Friesian dairy cows. Livestock Science 153, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, B, Pierce, KM, Delaby, L, Brennan, A and Horan, B 2012. The effect of stocking rate and calving date on reproductive performance, body state, and metabolic and health parameters of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 1337–1348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, S, Berry, DP, Dillon, P, Rath, M and Horan, B 2007. Influence of Holstein-Friesian strain and feed system on body weight and body condition score lactation profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 1859–1869.Google Scholar
McEvoy, M, Kennedy, E, Murphy, JP, Boland, TM, Delaby, L and O’Donovan, M 2008. The effect of herbage allowance and concentrate supplementation on milk production performance and dry matter intake of spring-calving dairy cows in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1258–1269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, CAE 1997. A note on ‘a concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility’. Biometrics 53, 1503–1507.Google Scholar
Rotz, CA, Mertens, DR, Buckmaster, DR, Allen, MS and Harrison, JH 1999. A dairy herd model for use in whole farm simulations. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2826–2840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruelle, E, Shalloo, L, Wallace, M and Delaby, L 2015. Development and evaluation of the pasture-based herd dynamic milk (PBHDM) model for dairy systems. European Journal of Agronomy 71, 106–114.Google Scholar
Vérité, R and Delaby, L 2000. Relation between nutrition, performances and nitrogen excretion in dairy cows. Annales de Zootechnie 49, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Ruelle supplementary material

Ruelle supplementary material

Download Ruelle supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 141.8 KB