Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:39:14.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-parametric approaches to the impact of Holstein heifer growth from birth to insemination on their dairy performance at lactation one

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2012

C. SAUDER ,
H. CARDOT ,
C. DISENHAUS  and
Y. LE COZLER
C. SAUDER
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1348 PEGASE, Domaine de la Prise, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1348 PEGASE, 65 Rue de St-Brieuc, 35000 Rennes, France
H. CARDOT
Affiliation:
IMB, UMR CNRS 5584, Université de Bourgogne, 9 Avenue Alain-Savary, 21078 Dijon, France
C. DISENHAUS
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1348 PEGASE, Domaine de la Prise, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1348 PEGASE, 65 Rue de St-Brieuc, 35000 Rennes, France
Y. LE COZLER*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR 1348 PEGASE, Domaine de la Prise, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France Agrocampus Ouest, UMR 1348 PEGASE, 65 Rue de St-Brieuc, 35000 Rennes, France
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Parametric approaches have been used widely to model animal growth and study the impact of growth profile on performance. Individual variation is often not considered in such approaches. However, non-parametric modelling allows this. Such an approach, based on spline functions, was used to study the importance of growth profiles from age 0 to 15 months (i.e. insemination) on milk yield and composition in primiparous cows. A dataset of 447 heifers was used for analysis of growth performance; 296 of them were also used to study impact on lactation. All of them originated from a French experimental herd and were born between 1986 and 2006. Clustering methods were also tested. Comparison of spline methods showed that a cubic spline interpolation method, with no smoothing parameter, was best suited to studying heifer growth. Similarly, partitioning around medoids proved the most accurate clustering method for classifying heifer growth into groups. The results of these analyses agreed with those previously published, supporting the utility of these methods. A final study on the impact of breakdowns in the growth curves was performed. A breakdown was considered only when the derivative of the interpolation function was negative or zero. Of the 447 heifers initially used, 125 (Gr0), 175 (Gr1) and 147 (Gr2) had no, one, or two or more breakpoints during the 0–15 months of age period. Milk yield on a 305 d basis was significantly reduced with an increased number of breakpoints (6548 v. 6828 and 6905 kg for Gr2, Gr1 and Gr0 animals, respectively). Fat content was also higher in Gr2 than in Gr0 groups, but overall, no difference in total fat or protein-corrected milk production was noted. The intersection between groups for growth and groups for breakdowns confirmed that animals with two or more breakdowns belonged more frequently to the group with the lowest growth performance. These results offer the possibility of analysing large databases, originating from an automatic collecting system (e.g. milking robots) or from different herds, breeds, genetics, etc. These approaches could also be used for studies on body score index, girth development, lactation profiles, etc. and in other species, such as dairy goats or beef cattle. They could find use in the development of new models of prediction, e.g. the probability of heat appearance on an animal basis, which could be included among useful management tools.

Type
Animal Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 578 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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

REFERENCES

Aggrey, S. E. (2002). Comparison of three nonlinear and spline regression models for describing chicken growth curves. Poultry Science 81, 1782–1788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbat, A., Bonaiti, B. & Boichard, D. (1995). Comparaison de 2 méthodes de précorrection des lactations courtes pour l'évaluation des reproducteurs laitiers. Annales de Zootechnie 44, 161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastianelli, D. & Sauvant, D. (1997). Modelling the mechanisms of pig growth. Livestock Production Science 51, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Wall, E., Russell, G., Roberts, D. J. & Simm, G. (2010). Risk factors for culling in Holstein–Friesian dairy cows. Veterinary Record 167, 238–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. E., Fitzhugh, H. A. Jr & Cartwright, T. C. (1976). A comparison of nonlinear models for describing weight-age relationships in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 42, 810–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Codrea, M. C., Hojsgaard, S. & Friggens, N. C. (2011). Differential smoothing of time-series measurements to identify disturbances in performance and quantify animal response characteristics: an example using milk yield profiles in dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3089–3098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Mol, R. M., Keen, A., Kroeze, G. H. & Achten, J. M. F. H. (1999). Description of a detection model for oestrus and diseases in dairy cattle based on time series analysis combined with a Kalman filter. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 22, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, L. & Hitchcock, D. B. (2009). A comparison of hierarchical methods for clustering functional data. Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation 38, 1925–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. A. & Park, C. S. (2001). Nutritionally directed compensatory growth enhances heifer development and lactation potential. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 1669–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartigan, J. A. & Wong, M. A. (1979). A K-means clustering algorithm. Applied Statistics 28, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, L. & Rousseeuw, P. J. (1990). Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. p. 342. New York: John Wiley, chapter 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y., Lollivier, V., Lacasse, P. & Disenhaus, C. (2008). Rearing strategy and optimizing first calving targets in dairy heifers: a review. Animal 2, 1393–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Cozler, Y., Peyraud, J. L. & Troccon, J. L. (2009). Effect of feeding regime, growth intensity and age at first insemination on performances and longevity of Holstein heifers born during Autumn. Livestock Science 124, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y., Peccate, J. R. & Delaby, L. (2010). A comparative study of three growth profiles during rearing in dairy heifers: effect of feeding intensity during two successive winters on performances and longevity. Livestock Science 127, 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Cozler, Y., Gallard, Y., Dessauge, F., Peccate, J. R., Trommenschlager, J. M. & Delaby, L. (2011). Performance and longevity of dairy heifers born during winter 1 (W1) and reared according to three growth profiles during winter 2 (W2) in a strategy based on first calving at 36 mo of age. Livestock Science 137, 244–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M. & Hornik, K. (2012). Cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 1.14·2. Zurich, Switzerland: CRAN R Project.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. (2005). Random regression analyses using B-splines to model growth of Australian Angus cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 37, 473–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1 (Eds le Cam, L. M. & Neyman, J.), pp. 281–297. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. & Silverman, B. W. (2005). Functional Data Analysis. 2nd edn, p. 426. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Robert, P. E., Tessier, J. & Martin, O. (2010). Etudes des cinétiques de traite de chèvres au moyen de l'analyse fonctionnelle des données. Rencontres Rcherches Ruminants 17, 394.Google Scholar
Seegers, H., Bareille, N. & Beaudeau, F. (1998). Effects of parity, stage of lactation and culling reason on the commercial carcass weight of French Holstein cows. Livestock Production Science 56, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattiaux, M. (1997). Dairy Essentials. Madison, WI: Babcock Institute.Google Scholar
Velmurugan, T. & Santhanam, T. (2010). Computational complexity between K-means and K-medoids clustering algorithms for normal and uniform distributions of data points. Journal of Computer Science 6, 363–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of ‘Student's’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34, 28–35.Google ScholarPubMed