Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:32:53.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic parameters for production, health, fertility and longevity traits in dairy cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2012

T. Pritchard ,
M. Coffey ,
R. Mrode  and
E. Wall
T. Pritchard*
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scottish Agricultural College, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
M. Coffey
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scottish Agricultural College, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
R. Mrode
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scottish Agricultural College, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
E. Wall
Affiliation:
Animal & Veterinary Sciences, Scottish Agricultural College, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Milk production, fertility, longevity and health records, were extracted from databases of two milk recording organisations in the United Kingdom for the first three lactations of the Holstein–Friesian breed. These included data related to health events (mastitis and lameness), voluntarily recorded on a proportion of farms. The data were analysed to calculate disease incidence levels and to estimate genetic parameters for health traits and their relationships with production and other functional traits. The resulting dataset consisted of 124 793 lactations from 75 137 animals of 1586 sires, recorded in 2434 herds. Incidence of health events increased with parity. The overall incidence of mastitis (MAS) and lameness (LAM), defined as binary traits, were 17% and 16%, respectively. Heritability estimates for MAS and LAM were 0.04 and 0.02, respectively, obtained from repeatability linear sire models. Heritability estimates of mastitis and lameness as count traits were slightly higher, 0.05 and 0.03, respectively. Genetic correlations were obtained by bivariate analyses of all pair-wise combinations between milk 305-day yield (MY), protein 305-day yield (PY), fat 305-day yield (FY), lactation average loge transformed lactation average somatic cell count (SCS), calving interval (CI), days to first service (DFS), non-return at 56 days (NR56), number of inseminations (NINS), mastitis (MAS), number of mastitis episodes (NMAS), lameness (LAM), number of lameness episodes (NLAM) and lifespan score (LS). As expected, MAS was correlated most strongly with SCS (0.69), which supports the use of SCS as an indicator trait for mastitis. Genetic correlations between MAS and yield and fertility traits were of similar magnitude ranging from 0.27 to 0.33. Genetic correlations between MAS with LAM and LS were 0.38 and −0.59, respectively. Not all genetic correlations between LAM and other traits were significant because of fewer numbers of lameness records. LAM had significant genetic correlations with MY (0.38), PY (0.28), CI (0.35), NINS (0.38) and LS (−0.53). The heritability estimates of mastitis and lameness were low; therefore, genetic gain through direct selection alone would be slow, yet still positive and cumulative. Direct selection against mastitis and lameness as additional traits should reduce incidence of both diseases, and simultaneously improve fertility and longevity. However, both health traits had antagonistic relationships with production traits, thus genetic gain in production would be slower.

Keywords

mastitislamenessfunctional traitsdairy cattle
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 34 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

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

Andersen-Ranberg, IM, Heringstad, B 2006. Genetic associations between female fertility, mastitis and protein yield in Norwegian Red. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Appuhamy, JADR, Cassell, BG, Cole, JB 2009. Phenotypic and genetic relationships of common health disorders with milk and fat yield persistencies from producer-recorded health data and test-day yields. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1785–1795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banos, G, Coffey, MP, Wall, E, Brotherstone, S 2006. Genetic relationship between first-lactation body energy and later-life udder health in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2222–2232.Google Scholar
Bar, D, Gröhn, YT, Bennett, G, González, RN, Hertl, JA, Schulte, HF, Tauer, LW, Welcome, FL, Schukken, YH 2007. Effect of repeated episodes of generic clinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4643–4653.Google Scholar
Barkema, HW, Westrik, JD, van Keulen, KAS, Schukken, YH, Brand, A 1994. The effects of lameness on reproductive performance, milk production and culling in Dutch dairy farms. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 20, 249–259.Google Scholar
Barker, ZE, Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Bell, NJ, Main, DCJ 2010. Assessment of lameness prevalence and associated risk factors in dairy herds in England and Wales. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 932–941.Google Scholar
Bennett, R 2003. The ‘direct costs’ of livestock disease: the development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54, 55–71.Google Scholar
Boelling, D, Pollott, GE 1998. Locomotion, lameness, hoof and leg traits in cattle II: Genetic relationships and breeding values. Livestock Production Science 54, 205–215.Google Scholar
Brickell, JS, Wathes, DC 2011. A descriptive study of the survival of Holstein–Friesian heifers through to third calving on English dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1831–1838.Google Scholar
Brotherstone, S, Veerkamp, RF, Hill, WG 1998. Predicting breeding values for herd life of Holstein–Friesian dairy cattle from lifespan and type. Animal Science 67, 405–411.Google Scholar
Buch, LH, Sørensen, AC, Lassen, J, Berg, P, Eriksson, JÂ, Jakobsen, JH, Sørensen, MK 2011. Hygiene-related and feed-related hoof diseases show different patterns of genetic correlations to clinical mastitis and female fertility. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1540–1551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlén, E, Strandberg, E, Roth, A 2004. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, and production in the first three lactations of Swedish Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3062–3070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlén, E, Schneider, MdelP, Strandberg, E 2005. Comparison between linear models and survival analysis for genetic evaluation of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 797–803.Google Scholar
Chang, YM, Gianola, D, Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G 2004. Longitudinal analysis of clinical mastitis at different stages of lactation in Norwegian Cattle. Livestock Production Science 88, 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, H, Walker, SL, Morris, MJ, Routly, JE, Smith, RF 2008. Why is it getting more difficult to successfully artificially inseminate dairy cows? Animal 2, 1104–1111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duhem, K, Bendali, F 2006. Quality requirements for milk production at the farm level. In Proceedings of the 24th World Buiatrics Congress (ed. H Navetat and F Schelcher), pp. 442–452. International veterinary Information Service (IVIS), Nice, France.Google Scholar
Espejo, LA, Endres, MI, Salfer, JA 2006. Prevalence of lameness in high-producing Holstein Cows housed in freestall barns in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3052–3058.Google Scholar
Essl, A 1998. Longevity in dairy cattle: a review. Livestock Production Science 57, 79–89.Google Scholar
Esslemont, RJ, Kossaibati, MA 1997. Culling in 50 dairy herds in England. Veterinary Record 140, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) 2009. Opinion on the Welfare of the Dairy Cow. Retrieved July 29, 2011, from http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/dcwelfar-091022.pdfGoogle Scholar
Garnsworthy, P 2004. The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 211–223.Google Scholar
Gianola, D 1982. Theory and analysis of threshold characters. Journal of Animal Science 54, 1079–1096.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR, Thompson, R 2006. ASReml user guide, release 2.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.Google Scholar
Goddard, M 2009. Fitness traits in animal breeding programs. In Adaptation and fitness in animal populations (ed. J Werf, HU Graser, R Frankham and C Gondro), pp. 41–52. Springer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Green, LE, Hedges, VJ, Schukken, YH, Blowey, RW, Packington, AJ 2002. The impact of clinical lameness on the milk yield of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2250–2256.Google Scholar
Gröhn, YT, Wilson, DJ, González, RN, Hertl, JA, Schulte, H, Bennett, G, Schukken, YH 2004. Effect of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on milk yield in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3358–3374.Google Scholar
Hagnestam, C, Emanuelson, U, Berglund, B 2007. Yield losses associated with clinical mastitis occurring in different weeks of lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2260–2270.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M, Goddard, ME 2010. Preliminary genetic analyses of voluntarily supplied disease data in Australian dairy herds. Animal Production Science 50, 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G, Ruane, J 2000. Selection for mastitis resistance in dairy cattle: a review with focus on the situation in the Nordic countries. Livestock Production Science 64, 95–106.Google Scholar
Huszenicza, G, Jánosi, S, Kulcsár, M, Kóródi, P, Reiczigel, J, Kátai, L, Peters, AR, De Rensis, F 2005. Effects of clinical mastitis on ovarian function in post-partum dairy cows. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 40, 199–204.Google Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN 2004. Genetic correlations among body condition score, somatic cell score, milk production, fertility and conformation traits in dairy cows. Animal Science 79, 191–201.Google Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN, Rekaya, R, Gianola, D 2001. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis in Holstein–Friesians in the United Kingdom: a Bayesian analysis. Animal Science 73, 229–240.Google Scholar
Kadarmideen, HN, Thompson, R, Simm, G 2000. Linear and threshold model genetic parameters for disease, fertility and milk production in dairy cattle. Animal Science 71, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelton, DF, Lissemore, KD, Martin, RE 1998. Recommendations for recording and calculating the incidence of selected clinical diseases of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2502–2509.Google Scholar
Knott, L, Tarlton, JF, Craft, H, Webster, AJF 2007. Effects of housing, parturition and diet change on the biochemistry and biomechanics of the support structures of the hoof of dairy heifers. The Veterinary Journal 174, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kossaibati, MA, Esslemont, RJ 1997. The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England. The Veterinary Journal 154, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laursen, MV, Boelling, D, Mark, T 2009. Genetic parameters for claw and leg health, foot and leg conformation, and locomotion in Danish Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1770–1777.Google Scholar
Leach, KA, Whay, HR, Maggs, CM, Barker, ZE, Paul, ES, Bell, AK, Main, DCJ 2010. Working towards a reduction in cattle lameness: 1. Understanding barriers to lameness control on dairy farms. Research in Veterinary Science 89, 311–317.Google Scholar
Lucey, S, Rowlands, GJ 1984. The association between clinical mastitis and milk yield in dairy cows. Animal Production 39, 165–175.Google Scholar
Lund, MS, Jensen, J, Petersen, PH 1999. Estimation of genetic and phenotypic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell production deviance, and protein yield in dairy cattle using Gibbs Sampling. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1045–1051.Google Scholar
Lui, Z, Jaitner, J, Reinhardt, F, Pasman, E, Rensing, S, Reents, R 2008. Genetic evaluation of fertility traits of dairy cattle using a multiple-trait animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4333–4343.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL, Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.Google Scholar
Moore, DA, Overton, MW, Chebel, RC, Truscott, ML, Bondurant, RH 2005. Evaluation of factors that affect embryonic loss in dairy cattle. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 226, 1112–1118.Google Scholar
Morris, MJ, Kaneko, K, Walker, SL, Jones, DN, Routly, JE, Smith, RF, Dobson, H 2011. Influence of lameness on follicular growth, ovulation, reproductive hormone concentrations and estrus behavior in dairy cows. Theriogenology 76, 658–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, R, Pritchard, T, Coffey, M, Wall, E 2012. Joint estimation of genetic parameters for test-day somatic cell count and mastitis in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science (In press).Google Scholar
Mulligan, FJ, Doherty, ML 2008. Production diseases of the transition cow. The Veterinary Journal 176, 3–9.Google Scholar
Negussie, E, Strandén, I, Mäntysaari, EA 2008. Genetic analysis of liability to clinical mastitis, with somatic cell score and production traits using bivariate threshold–linear and linear–linear models. Livestock Science 117, 52–59.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, PA, Broom, DM 2010. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19, 39–49.Google Scholar
Onyiro, OM, Brotherstone, S 2008. Genetic analysis of locomotion and associated conformation traits of Holstein–Friesian dairy cows managed in different housing systems. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 322–328.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cabal, MA, de los Campos, G, Vazquez, AI, Gianola, D, Rosa, GJM, Weigel, KA, Alenda, R 2009. Genetic evaluation of susceptibility to clinical mastitis in Spanish Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3472–3480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinedo, PJ, Melendez, P, Villagomez-Cortes, JA, Risco, CA 2009. Effect of high somatic cell counts on reproductive performance of Chilean dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1575–1580.Google Scholar
Pösö, J, Mäntysaari, EA 1996. Relationships between clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, and production for the first three lactations of Finnish Ayrshire. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1284–1291.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Royal, MD, Garnsworthy, PC, Mao, IL 2004. Fertility in the high-producing dairy cow. Livestock Production Science 86, 125–135.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Veerkamp, RF, Thompson, R, Hill, WG, Simm, G 1997. Genetic aspects of common health disorders and measures of fertility in Holstein Friesian dairy cattle. Animal Science 65, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, JE, Esslemont, RJ, Thompson, R, Veerkamp, RF, Kossaibati, MA, Simm, G 1998. Estimation of genetic parameters using health, fertility and production data from a management recording system for dairy cattle. Animal Science 66, 577–584.Google Scholar
Risco, CA, Donovan, GA, Hernandez, J 1999. Clinical mastitis associated with abortion in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1684–1689.Google Scholar
Sogstad, ÅM, Østerås, O, Fjeldaas, T 2006. Bovine claw and limb disorders related to reproductive performance and production diseases. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2519–2528.Google Scholar
Sordillo, LM, Streicher, KL 2002. Mammary gland immunity and mastitis susceptibility. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 7, 135–146.Google Scholar
Van Dorp, TE, Boettcher, P, Schaeffer, LR 2004. Genetics of locomotion. Livestock Production Science 90, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dorp, TE, Dekkers, JCM, Martin, SW, Noordhuizen, JPTM 1998. Genetic parameters of health disorders, and relationships with 305-day milk yield and conformation traits of registered Holstein Cows. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2264–2270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vazquez, AI, Gianola, D, Bates, D, Weigel, KA, Heringstad, B 2009. Assessment of Poisson, logit, and linear models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Norwegian Red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 739–748.Google Scholar
Visscher, P, Thompson, R, Yazdi, H, Hill, WG, Brotherstone, S 1999. Genetic analysis of longevity data in the UK: present practice and considerations for the future. Interbull Bulletin 21, 16–28.Google Scholar
Walker, SL, Smith, RF, Routly, JE, Jones, DN, Morris, MJ, Dobson, H 2008. Lameness, activity time-budgets, and estrus expression in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4552–4559.Google Scholar
Wall, E, Coffey, MP, Pollott, GE 2012. The effect of lactation length on greenhouse gas emissions from the national dairy herd. Animal - First View Article: 1-11, doi:10.1017/S1751731112000936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, E, Brotherstone, S, Woolliams, JA, Banos, G, Coffey, MP 2003. Genetic evaluation of fertility using direct and correlated traits. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4093–4102.Google Scholar
Whay, HR, Main, DCJ, Webster, AJF, Green, LE 2003. Assessment of the welfare of dairy cattle using animal-based measurements: direct observations and investigation of farm records. Veterinary Record 153, 197–202.Google Scholar
Whitaker, DA, Macrae, AI, Burrough, E 2004. Disposal and disease rates in British dairy herds between April 1998 and March 2002. Veterinary Record 155, 43–47.Google Scholar
Wilson, DJ, Grohn, YT, Bennett, GJ, González, RN, Schukken, YH, Spatz, J 2008. Milk production change following clinical mastitis and reproductive performance compared among J5 vaccinated and control dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 3869–3879.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL, Veerkamp, RF 2005. High milk yields and the risk of mastitis in different herd environments. In Mastitis in dairy production: current knowledge and future solutions (ed. H. Hogeveen), pp. 254–259. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar