genetic selection for reproduction:
DESCRIPTION
Genetic selection for reproduction:. Current reproductive status of the national herd;. Application of selection indexes for dairy producers. 2007. Current reproductive status of the national herd. H.D. Norman. Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention ( 2 ). Bull fertility. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
H. Duane NormanAnimal Improvement Programs LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, [email protected]
Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (1)
2007
Genetic selection for reproduction:Current reproductive status
of the national herd;Application of selection
indexesfor dairy producers
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (2) H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (2)
Current reproductive status
of the national herd
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (3)
Bull fertility Estimated Relative Conception Rate
(ERCR) 70-day nonreturn rate (NRR) Phenotypic evaluation Source:− DRMS (Raleigh, NC), 1986−2005− USDA (Beltsville, MD), 2006−present
Western Bull Fertility Analysis 75-d veterinary-confirmed conception rate
Source: AgriTech (Visalia, CA), 2003 −present
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (4)
ERCR distribution (Aug. 2007)
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (5)
Survey of AI organizations Does your organization rate bulls on fertility from field data? Where do you obtain the data you use to evaluate them? How long a time period is included in your evaluation? What do you publish? How many nonreturn days are in your calculation? Is your evaluation derived from first or all services? Do you eliminate cows sold before a specific number of days
after insemination? Do you eliminate cows in herds that go off test before a
specific number of days after insemination? Is information on services from natural service bulls that
follow AI breedings available to you to document failures of those AI breedings?
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (6)
Survey results All had programs to monitor bull fertility, but few
relied completely on in-house information Most received some information from technician breedings
One purchased breeding records from a dairy records processing center
Another obtained breeding records directly from cooperating herds
Most common fertility measure was NRR Varied from 59 to 90 days for first breeding Some organizations used a range of days
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (7)
Survey results (cont.) Conception rate (CR) used by one because of
availability of pregnancy-check records
Time period for data included in a bull’s fertility evaluation varied from 1 year to no limit
Equal number included only first services compared with all services
Data from technician breedings Not adjusted for cow departures because of culling or when a herd discontinued production testing
No access to data that showed when natural service followed an AI mating
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (8)
New USDA service sire evaluation Based on conception rate rather than NRR
More accurate Inseminations from most of the United
States All services (not just first) Additional model effects included
Available early 2008
Documentation at ftp://aipl.arsusda.gov/pub/outgoing/BullFert/
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (9)
Cow fertility trends
Year
bred
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-d NRR for1st service
(%)1st service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y
1996
89 82
1997
91 84
1998
91 85
1999
92 85
2000
90 84
2001
92 85
2002
88 81
2003
88 83
2004
86 84
2005
86 84
2006
85 83
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (10)
Cow fertility trends
Year
bred
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-d NRR for1st service
(%)1st service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y
1996
89 82 54 57
1997
91 84 55 57
1998
91 85 54 56
1999
92 85 53 55
2000
90 84 53 55
2001
92 85 52 56
2002
88 81 50 53
2003
88 83 48 53
2004
86 84 48 53
2005
86 84 46 52
2006
85 83 … …
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (11)
Cow fertility trends
Year
bred
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-d NRR for1st service
(%)1st service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y
1996
89 82 54 57 36 39
1997
91 84 55 57 34 37
1998
91 85 54 56 32 36
1999
92 85 53 55 31 35
2000
90 84 53 55 31 35
2001
92 85 52 56 31 36
2002
88 81 50 53 29 35
2003
88 83 48 53 30 36
2004
86 84 48 53 31 36
2005
86 84 46 52 30 35
2006
85 83 … … … …
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (12)
Cow fertility trends
Year
bred
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-d NRR for1st service
(%)1st service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y
1996
89 82 54 57 36 39 2.1 2.0
1997
91 84 55 57 34 37 2.1 2.1
1998
91 85 54 56 32 36 2.2 2.1
1999
92 85 53 55 31 35 2.3 2.1
2000
90 84 53 55 31 35 2.3 2.1
2001
92 85 52 56 31 36 2.3 2.1
2002
88 81 50 53 29 35 2.5 2.2
2003
88 83 48 53 30 36 2.5 2.3
2004
86 84 48 53 31 36 2.5 2.3
2005
86 84 46 52 30 35 2.6 2.4
2006
85 83 … … … … … …
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (13)
Parity averages (2005 breedings)
Parity
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-day NRR for 1st
service (%)1st-service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y1 85 852 85 833 87 824 88 845 90 85
>5 92 88
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (14)
Parity averages (2005 breedings)
Parity
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-day NRR for 1st
service (%)1st-service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y1 85 85 48 542 85 83 45 523 87 82 45 524 88 84 45 505 90 85 45 51
>5 92 88 45 49
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (15)
Parity averages (2005 breedings)
Parity
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-day NRR for 1st
service (%)1st-service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y1 85 85 48 54 32 372 85 83 45 52 29 363 87 82 45 52 29 354 88 84 45 50 28 345 90 85 45 51 27 32
>5 92 88 45 49 25 30
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (16)
Parity averages (2005 breedings)
Parity
Calving to 1st
breeding (d)
70-day NRR for 1st
service (%)1st-service
CR (%)
Services perlactation
(no.)Holstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
yHolstei
nJerse
y1 85 85 48 54 32 37 2.6 2.32 85 83 45 52 29 36 2.7 2.33 87 82 45 52 29 35 2.6 2.44 88 84 45 50 28 34 2.6 2.45 90 85 45 51 27 32 2.6 2.4
>5 92 88 45 49 25 30 2.7 2.5
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (17)
Holstein NRR (2005 breedings)
Parity
70-day NRR (%)1st
service
2ndservice
3rd servi
ce4th
service
5th servi
ce1 48 46 43 41 392 45 43 41 40 383 45 44 42 41 394 45 44 43 41 395 45 43 42 41 40
>5 45 43 43 41 39
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (18)
Holstein CR (2005 breedings)
Parity
CR (%)1st
service
2ndservice
3rd servi
ce4th
service
5th servi
ce1 32 33 31 29 262 29 30 29 28 263 29 30 30 28 264 28 30 29 27 265 27 28 28 26 25
>5 25 26 26 25 25
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (19)
Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)
Region
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-
nancy
rate(%)
Mideast 92Midwest 86Mountain 93Northeast 85Northwest 76Southeast 89Southwest 73
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (20)
Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)
Region
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-
nancy
rate(%)
Mideast 92 47Midwest 86 46Mountain 93 48Northeast 85 46Northwest 76 42Southeast 89 44Southwest 73 36
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (21)
Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)
Region
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-
nancy
rate(%)
Mideast 92 47 29Midwest 86 46 30Mountain 93 48 27Northeast 85 46 31Northwest 76 42 29Southeast 89 44 23Southwest 73 36 27
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (22)
Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)
Region
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-
nancy
rate(%)
Mideast 92 47 29 2.7Midwest 86 46 30 2.7Mountain 93 48 27 2.8Northeast 85 46 31 2.6Northwest 76 42 29 2.8Southeast 89 44 23 3.0Southwest 73 36 27 2.8
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (23)
Pregnancy rate (PR) Percentage of nonpregnant cows that become pregnant
during each 21-day period Advantages over days open (DO)
Easily defined Information from nonpregnant cows included more
easily Larger (rather than smaller) values desirable
PR = [21/(DO − voluntary waiting period + 11)]100 Voluntary waiting period assumed to be 60 days Factor of +11 adjusts to middle day of 21-day cycle
Examples Herd with average of 133 DO has PR of 25% Herd with average of 154 DO has PR of 20%
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (24)
Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)
Region
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-
nancy
rate(%)
Mideast 92 47 29 2.7 19.0Midwest 86 46 30 2.7 21.5Mountain 93 48 27 2.8 19.6Northeast 85 46 31 2.6 22.4Northwest 76 42 29 2.8 23.4Southeast 89 44 23 3.0 17.3Southwest 73 36 27 2.8 23.7
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (25)
Herds with synchronized breeding
Synchroni-zationstatus
Calvingto 1st
breeding
(d)
70-dayNRR for
1st service(%)
CR(%)
Servicesper
lactation(no.)
Preg-nanc
y rate(%)
None 90 46 30 2.6 20.2Possible 78 40 27 2.9 21.8Probable 74 38 27 2.9 22.4Synchroniz
ed72 35 25 3.1 21.7
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (26)
Current breed averages
Breed PR (%) DO (d)Gestation length (d)
Calving interval
(d)Ayrshire 23.2 140 281.7 422Brown Swiss
20.3 152 287.5 440
Guernsey 19.1 157 285.8 443Holstein 22.0 145 279.5 425Jersey 26.4 127 280.0 407Milking Shorthorn
24.8 134 281.3 415
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (27)
USDA pregnancy rate Linear approximation
PR = 0.25 (233 − DO) 1% higher PR = 4 days fewer open
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (28)
Daughter pregnancy rate (DPR) First USDA genetic evaluations in 2003 Same across-breed animal model as for yield traits,
productive life (PL), and somatic cell score (SCS) Heritability of 4% Predicted transmitting abilities (PTAs) reported as
percentages Daughters of bull with PTA DPR of 1 expected to be 1%
more likely to become pregnant during estrous cycle than if bull had PTA DPR of 0
Each increase of 1% in PTA DPR equivalent to decrease of 4 days in PTA DO
PTA DO approximated by −4 × PTA DPR Example: Bull with PTA DPR of +2.0 would have PTA DO of
−8
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (29)
DPR trend (August 2007 base)
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (30)
Bull PTA DPR frequency (Aug. 2007)
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (31) H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (31)
Application of selection indexes
for dairy producers
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (32)
Lifetime merit indexes
Trait Units
Relative value (%)Netmeri
tCheese
merit
Fluid
merit
Protein Pounds 23 28 0Fat Pounds 23 18 23Milk Pounds 0 −12 24PL Months 17 13 17SCS Log −9 −7 −9Udder Composite 6 5 6Feet/legs Composite 3 3 3Body size Composite −4 −3 −4DPR Percent 9 7 8Calving ability Dollars 6 4 6
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (33)
Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls
Trait
All active
AI bulls
Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %
Top 50% of active AI
bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)
Top 50% of active AI
bullswith PTA DPR of ≥2.0%
based onPTA DPR(>2.3 %)
Bulls (no.) 684
PTA milk (lb) 838
PTA fat (lb) 32PTA protein (lb) 25PTA SCS 2.94PTA PL (mo) 1.1PTA DPR (%) −0.4PTA DO (derived) 1.6Net merit ($) 24
2Semen price ($/unit)
24
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (34)
Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls
Trait
All active
AI bulls
Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %
Top 50% of active AI
bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)
Top 50% of active AI
bullswith PTA DPR of ≥2.0%
based onPTA DPR(>2.3 %)
Bulls (no.) 684
41
PTA milk (lb) 838
287
PTA fat (lb) 32 14PTA protein (lb) 25 17PTA SCS 2.94 2.86PTA PL (mo) 1.1 4.2PTA DPR (%) −0.4 2.5PTA DO (derived) 1.6 −10.0Net merit ($) 24
2346
Semen price ($/unit)
24 25
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (35)
Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls
Trait
All active
AI bulls
Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %
Top 50% of active AI
bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)
Top 50% of active AI
bullswith PTA DPR of ≥2.0%
based onPTA DPR(>2.3 %)
Bulls (no.) 684
41 342
PTA milk (lb) 838
287 1,125
PTA fat (lb) 32 14 43PTA protein (lb) 25 17 34PTA SCS 2.94 2.86 2.88PTA PL (mo) 1.1 4.2 2.1PTA DPR (%) −0.4 2.5 −0.1PTA DO (derived) 1.6 −10.0 0.4Net merit ($) 24
2346 357
Semen price ($/unit)
24 25 25
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (36)
Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls
Trait
All active
AI bulls
Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %
Top 50% of active AI
bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)
Top 50% of active AI
bullswith PTA DPR of ≥2.0%
based onPTA DPR(>2.3 %)
Bulls (no.) 684
41 342 20
PTA milk (lb) 838
287 1,125 179
PTA fat (lb) 32 14 43 13PTA protein (lb) 25 17 34 16PTA SCS 2.94 2.86 2.88 2.84PTA PL (mo) 1.1 4.2 2.1 4.4PTA DPR (%) −0.4 2.5 −0.1 2.9PTA DO (derived) 1.6 −10.0 0.4 −11.6Net merit ($) 24
2346 357 350
Semen price ($/unit)
24 25 25 21
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (37)
Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls
Trait
All active
AI bulls
Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %
Top 50% of active AI
bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)
Top 50% of active AI
bullswith PTA DPR of ≥2.0%
based onlifetime net
merit (>$386)
Bulls (no.) 684
41 342 20
PTA milk (lb) 838
287 1,125 735
PTA fat (lb) 32 14 43 31PTA protein (lb) 25 17 34 30PTA SCS 2.94 2.86 2.88 2.84PTA PL (mo) 1.1 4.2 2.1 5.1PTA DPR (%) −0.4 2.5 −0.1 2.6PTA DO (derived) 1.6 −10.0 0.4 −10.4Net merit ($) 24
2346 357 476
Semen price ($/unit)
24 25 25 26
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (38)
DPR benefits over productive life Additional calves produced
Decreased units of semen needed per pregnancy
Decreased labor and supplies for heat detection, inseminations, and pregnancy checks
Higher yields because more ideal lactation lengths
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (39)
Lifetime value Factors in determining economic value
Loss of about $1.50/DO 2.8 lactations per cow No breedings for half of cows during final
lactation Correlation of heifer and cow fertility (0.3) Value of extra calves Other unmeasured health expenses
Total lifetime merit value of $21/PTA DPR unit
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (40)
Total Performance Index (TPI) Calculated by Holstein Association
USA (Brattleboro, VT)
Emphasis of 19% on early breeding 10% on PL 8% on DPR −1% on dairy form
95% correlation between USDA lifetime net merit and Holstein TPI
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (41) H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (41)
Conclusions
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (42)
Service sires Using bulls with higher conception rates returns
profit fairly quickly Premium of $2 could be paid for semen per
1% improvement in fertility Unit of semen from bull with ERCR of +2
worth $8 more than unit from bull with ERCR of −2
Little genetic improvement in male fertility expected over time
Use bull fertility as a secondary selection trait after production and economic indexes
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (43)
Selection for cow fertility Selection for improved fertility possible and
recommended
Most benefits delayed for 2 years or more
Select service sires for overall lifetime merit that includes daughter fertility rather than for daughter fertility alone
Producers with herd fertility problems may choose to emphasize DPR extensively, which can be done with little loss in overall net merit
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (44)
Benefits of improved reproduction Lower semen cost
Improved ability to optimize lactation and lifetime yields
Reduced culling due to delayed or failed conception
More herd replacements
H.D. Norman 2007Dairy Cattle Reproductive Council Convention (45)
Fertility emphasis Service-sire fertility and DPR important for
all management systems, but most important for grazing herds with seasonal calving
Use of a few bulls that average 3.0% for PTA DPR (equivalent to a decrease of 12 DO) could recover much of genetic decline in fertility from use of high-yield bulls for 40 years
General recommendation still is to select for overall merit based on genetic-economic index appropriate for current milk market