h. duane norman animal improvement programs laboratory agricultural research service, usda,...

H. Duane NormanAnimal Improvement Programs LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

[email protected] San Antonio (1) 2008

AIPL Report: We’re from the government and we’re here to help you!

H.D. Norman 2008NDHIA San Antonio (2)

Trend in days open

100

120

140

160

65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00

Year

Day

s open

12345

Lactation

H.D. Norman 2007NDHIA San Antonio Convention (3)

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



Year

bred

Calving to 1st

breeding (d)


(%)1st service

CR (%)


(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 … …



Year

bred

Calving to 1st

breeding (d)


(%)1st service

CR (%)


(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 … … … …



Year

bred

Calving to 1st

breeding (d)


(%)1st service

CR (%)


(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 … … … … … …


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


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


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 20.2

Possible 78 40 27 2.9 21.8

Probable 74 38 27 2.9 22.4

Synchronized

72 35 25 3.1 21.7


US regions


Holstein regional averages (2005 breedings)

Region

Calvingto 1st

breeding

(d)

70-dayNRR for

1st service(%)

CR(%)

Servicesper

lactation(no.)

Mideast 92Midwest 86Mountain 93Northeast 85Northwest 76Southeast 89Southwest 73



Region

Calvingto 1st

breeding

(d)

70-dayNRR for

1st service(%)

CR(%)

Servicesper

lactation(no.)

Mideast 92 47Midwest 86 46Mountain 93 48Northeast 85 46Northwest 76 42Southeast 89 44Southwest 73 36



Region

Calvingto 1st

breeding

(d)

70-dayNRR for

1st service(%)

CR(%)

Servicesper

lactation(no.)

Mideast 92 47 29Midwest 86 46 30Mountain 93 48 27Northeast 85 46 31Northwest 76 42 29Southeast 89 44 23Southwest 73 36 27



Region

Calving

to 1st breedi

ng(d)

70-dayNRR for

1st service

(%)CR(%)

Servicesper

lactation(no.)

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


Benefits of improved reproduction

Lowers your semen cost

Optimizes cows lifetime yields

Reduced culling due to delayed or failed conception, i.e. less need for herd replacements

Provides more herd replacements


Two tall tales

Reproduction is only a management issue

Genetics cannot help solve fertility problems


Reproductive evaluations

Fertility of bull as a service sire

Fertility of bulls’ daughters when they reach breeding age


Bull fertility evaluations

Estimated Relative Conception Rate (ERCR) 70-day nonreturn rate (NRR) 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


ERCR distribution (Aug. 2007)


New service sire evaluation coming

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 in late Spring/Summer 2008


Pregnancy rate (PR)

Percentage of open cows between 50 and 250 days in milk that become pregnant during each 21-day period

Advantages over days open (DO), the days from calving to conception

Easily defined Information from nonpregnant cows included

Larger values preferable


Pregnancy rate (PR)

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 70 DO has PR of 100% Herd with average of 91 DO has PR of 50% Herd with average of 133 DO has PR of 25% Herd with average of 154 DO has PR of 20%


USDA pregnancy rate

Linear approximation

PR = 0.25 (233 − DO)

1% higher PR = 4 days fewer open


Reproductive evaluations

Fertility of bulls’ daughters when they reach breeding age


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%


DPR (continued)

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 equals a 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


Current breed averages

Breed PR (%) DO (d)Gestation length (d)

Calving interval

(d)Ayrshire 23.2 140 282 422Brown Swiss

20.3 152 288 440

Guernsey 19.1 157 286 443Holstein 22.0 145 280 425Jersey 26.4 127 280 407Milking Shorthorn

24.8 134 281 415


DPR trend (August 2007 base)


Bull PTA DPR frequency (Aug. 2007)


Lifetime merit indexes

Trait Units

Relative value (%)

Netmeri

t

Cheese 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


Lifetime value

Factors in determining economic value to DPR

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


Genetic merit of high-DPR Holstein bulls

Trait

All active

AI bulls

Bulls (no.) 684

PTA milk (lb) 838

PTA fat (lb) 32PTA protein (lb) 25PTA SCS 2.94

PTA PL (mo) 1.1PTA DPR (%) −0.4PTA DO (derived) 1.6Net merit ($) 24

2Semen price ($/unit)

24



Trait

All active

AI bulls

Active AIbulls withPTA DPRof ≥2.0 %

Bulls (no.) 684

41

PTA milk (lb) 838

287

PTA fat (lb) 32 14PTA protein (lb) 25 17PTA SCS 2.94 2.86

PTA 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



Trait

All active

AI bulls


Top 50% of active AI

bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)

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 2.88

PTA 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


24 25 25



Trait

All active

AI bulls



bulls based on lifetime net merit(>$245)


bullsbased on net merit with PTA DPR of ≥2.0%

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 2.84

PTA 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


24 25 25 26


What if I follow the Recommendations… Question: What happens if folks selects

for one of those fitness traits we provide?

Issue: Before 1994 there was an academic discussion on what happens if we lower the SCS too much, and then cows have to face a mastitis challenge?

We proceeded providing PTA SCS and built it into Net Merit so theoretically there is potential for this issue to still be questioned!


Research the potential problem

Using field data less costly; using research herds would be expensive

Group all AI Holstein bulls with 35 or more daughters into 5 equal groups based on PTA SCS

Look at data across 2 generations (sire and maternal grandsire (MGS))


Mean daughter 1st lactation age-adjusted SCS by sire-mgs PTA SCS group

Sire PTA SCSMGS PTA SCS

≤2.85

2.86 to

2.94

2.95 to

3.02

3.03 to

3.13 ≥3.1Age-adjusted SCS

≤2.85 2.77 2.89 2.97 3.05 3.222.86 to 2.94

2.82 2.96 3.03 3.12 3.29

2.95 to 3.02

2.88 3.00 3.08 3.18 3.35

3.03 to 3.13

2.89 3.04 3.13 3.22 3.40

≥3.14 2.96 3.08 3.19 3.29 3.46


Productive life mean (mo) by sire-mgs PTA SCS group


≤2.85

2.86 to

2.94

2.95 to

3.02

3.03 to

3.13 ≥3.1PL (mo)

≤2.85 28.2 28.0 27.4 27.2 26.42.86 to 2.94

28.3 28.0 27.4 27.3 26.3

2.95 to 3.02

27.9 27.5 27.0 26.8 25.9

3.03 to 3.13

28.0 27.4 26.9 26.6 25.8

≥3.14 27.4 27.1 26.6 26.4 25.2


Productive life deviation (mo) by sire-mgs PTA SCS group


≤2.85

2.86 to

2.94

2.95 to

3.02

3.03 to

3.13 ≥3.1PL (mo)

≤2.85 +3.2 +2.8 +2.3 +2.2 +1.22.86 to 2.94

+3.1 +2.7 +2.1 +2.1 +1.0

2.95 to 3.02

+2.9 +2.3 +1.9 +1.8 +0.8

3.03 to 3.13

+2.9 +2.3 +1.8 +1.6 +0.6

≥3.14 +2.4 +1.8 +1.4 +1.2 0.0


Percent of cows culled for mastitis by sire-mgs PTA SCS group


≤2.85

2.86 to

2.94

2.95 to

3.02

3.03 to

3.13 ≥3.14

(% culled)≤2.85 8.6 9.2 9.6 10.5 11.62.86 to 2.94

8.9 9.4 10.3 11.0 11.9

2.95 to 3.02

9.0 9.8 10.0 11.3 12.3

3.03 to 3.13

9.6 9.9 10.7 11.6 12.8

≥3.14 9.9 10.6 11.0 12.1 13.4


Productive life mean (mo) by sire-mgs PTA DPR group

Sire PTA DPRMGS PTA DPR ≤-1.2

-1.1 to -0.4

-0.3 to 0.3

0.4 to 1.1 ≥1.2

PL (mo)≤-1.2 25.0 26.2 26.4 27.3 28.7-1.1 to -0.4

25.6 26.8 26.9 27.8 29.0

-0.3 to 0.3

25.6 26.8 26.9 27.9 29.0

0.4 to 1.1 26.1 27.5 27.4 28.2 29.4≥1.2 26.4 27.8 27.9 28.7 29.5


Productive life deviation (mo) by sire-mgs PTA DPR group

Sire PTA DPRMGS PTA DPR ≤-1.2

-1.1 to -0.4

-0.3 to 0.3

0.4 to 1.1 ≥1.2

PL (mo)≤-1.2 -4.2 -3.0 -2.9 -2.1 -0.8-1.1 to -0.4

-3.8 -2.5 -2.5 -1.7 -0.6

-0.3 to 0.3

-3.7 -2.5 -2.5 -1.6 -0.6

0.4 to 1.1 -3.3 -1.9 -2.2 -1.4 -0.3≥1.2 -2.8 -1.5 -1.7 -0.9 0.0


Percent of cows culled for reproductive reasons by sire-mgs PTA DPR group

Sire PTA DPRMGS PTA DPR

≤-1.2

-1.1 to -0.4

-0.3 to 0.3

0.4 to 1.1 ≥1.2

(% culled)≤-1.2 13.3 12.8 12.5 11.8 11.3-1.1 to -0.4

12.8 12.3 12.2 11.4 10.9

-0.3 to 0.3 12.7 12.2 12.0 11.2 10.80.4 to 1.1 12.2 11.7 11.6 10.8 10.4≥1.2 11.8 11.3 11.0 10.6 10.0

H.D. Norman 2008NDHIA San Antonio (45) H.D. Norman 2008NDHIA San Antonio (45)

Conclusions


Recommendations to breeders Usual recommendation: Don’t select bulls

solely on one trait because many traits have economic value

Consider economic value of all performance traits in your own market when making genetic choices

Dairies with seasonal calving should find an index that puts more weight on daughter fertility than those recommended for the general industry


Selection for bull fertility

Breeding to bulls with higher conception rates returns a profit fairly quickly

Premium of $2 could be paid for semen per 1% improvement in fertility

Thus, a unit of semen from bull with ERCR of +2 is worth $8 more than a unit from bull with ERCR of −2

Use bull fertility as a secondary selection trait after picking bulls on their economic indexes


Selection for cow fertility

Selection for improved fertility will pay off, even though the benefit is delayed for 3 years

Choose your sires based on lifetime economic merit that includes daughter fertility, rather than for daughter fertility alone

However, producers with herd fertility problems could emphasize DPR extensively with little loss in overall net merit


Fertility emphasis

Service-sire fertility and DPR especially 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 neutralize much of genetic decline in fertility from use of high-yield bulls for 40 years

Select for overall merit based on genetic-economic index appropriate for your situation


Thank you!

h. duane norman animal improvement programs laboratory agricultural research service, usda,...

Documents