ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to derive factors to predict daily milk yield when milk is sampled once per d for cows milked three times (3x)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Multiple Regression.
Advertisements

2002 ADSA 2002 (GRW-1) (abstract 125) G.R. WIGGANS,* P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.C. PHILPOT Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,
Test of (µ 1 – µ 2 ),  1 =  2, Populations Normal Test Statistic and df = n 1 + n 2 – 2 2– )1– 2 ( 2 1 )1– 1 ( 2 where ] 2 – 1 [–
Kin 304 Regression Linear Regression Least Sum of Squares
Factors affecting milk ELISA scores of cows tested for Johne’s disease H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, and T. M. Byrem 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs.
6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models 6-1 Introduction To Empirical Models.
Regression Analysis Module 3. Regression Regression is the attempt to explain the variation in a dependent variable using the variation in independent.
Regression Analysis Once a linear relationship is defined, the independent variable can be used to forecast the dependent variable. Y ^ = bo + bX bo is.
Simple Linear Regression. G. Baker, Department of Statistics University of South Carolina; Slide 2 Relationship Between Two Quantitative Variables If.
Linear regression models
Relationship of somatic cell score with fertility measures Poster 1390 ADSA 2001, Indiannapolis R. H. Miller 1, J. S. Clay 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal.
Classical Regression III
LINEAR REGRESSION: Evaluating Regression Models Overview Assumptions for Linear Regression Evaluating a Regression Model.
LINEAR REGRESSION: Evaluating Regression Models. Overview Assumptions for Linear Regression Evaluating a Regression Model.
LINEAR REGRESSION: Evaluating Regression Models. Overview Standard Error of the Estimate Goodness of Fit Coefficient of Determination Regression Coefficients.
Chapter 10 Simple Regression.
Data Sources The most sophisticated forecasting model will fail if it is applied to unreliable data Data should be reliable and accurate Data should be.
Basic Mathematics for Portfolio Management. Statistics Variables x, y, z Constants a, b Observations {x n, y n |n=1,…N} Mean.
2005 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD AIPL Projects.
Week 14 Chapter 16 – Partial Correlation and Multiple Regression and Correlation.
Simple Linear Regression Analysis
Derivation of Factors to Estimate Daily Fat, Protein, and Somatic Cell Score from One Milking of Cows Milked Three Times Daily M. M. Schutz* 1 and H. D.
Introduction to Regression Analysis. Two Purposes Explanation –Explain (or account for) the variance in a variable (e.g., explain why children’s test.
Correlation and Regression
Chapter 15 Correlation and Regression
CHAPTER 15 Simple Linear Regression and Correlation
 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.
Simple Linear Regression One reason for assessing correlation is to identify a variable that could be used to predict another variable If that is your.
Comparison of Holstein service-sire fertility for heifer and cow breedings with conventional and sexed semen H. D. Norman*, J. L. Hutchison, and P. M.
2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.
Production Planning and Control. A correlation is a relationship between two variables. The data can be represented by the ordered pairs (x, y) where.
2003 G.R. Wiggans,* P.M. VanRaden, and J.L. Edwards Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
REGRESSION MODEL y ijklm = BD i + b j A j + HYS k + b dstate D l + b sstate S l + b sd (S×SD m ) + b dherd F m + b sherd G m + e ijklm, y = ME milk yield,
2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.
Multiple Regression and Model Building Chapter 15 Copyright © 2014 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
© Copyright McGraw-Hill Correlation and Regression CHAPTER 10.
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Best prediction.
J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, and C. M. B. Dematawewa 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
Factors affecting death rate of lactating cows in Dairy Herd Improvement herds R. H. Miller, H. Duane Norman, M. T. Kuhn* and J. R. Wright Animal Improvement.
Prediction of Service Sire Fertility M.T. Kuhn 1 *, J.L. Hutchison 1, and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agriculture Research Service,
Genetic and environmental factors that affect gestation length H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, M. T. Kuhn, S. M. Hubbard,* and J. B. Cole Animal Improvement.
Linear Prediction Correlation can be used to make predictions – Values on X can be used to predict values on Y – Stronger relationships between X and Y.
Idaho DHIA Field Supervisor Meeting Steven J. Sievert Technical Director, National DHIA Manager, Quality Certification Services Inc.
2007 John B. Cole USDA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 Data Collection Ratings and Best Prediction.
Essentials of Business Statistics: Communicating with Numbers By Sanjiv Jaggia and Alison Kelly Copyright © 2014 by McGraw-Hill Higher Education. All rights.
Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Simple Linear Regression Analysis Chapter 13.
 Milk fat composition varies with the season (summer vs. winter) but also with the milking time (AM vs. PM).  These observations could allow the diversification.
ADSA 2002 (RHM-P1) 2002 R.H. Miller, ,1 H.D. Norman, 1 and J.S. Clay 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
1 HETEROSCEDASTICITY: WEIGHTED AND LOGARITHMIC REGRESSIONS This sequence presents two methods for dealing with the problem of heteroscedasticity. We will.
1 1 Slide The Simple Linear Regression Model n Simple Linear Regression Model y =  0 +  1 x +  n Simple Linear Regression Equation E( y ) =  0 + 
G.R. Wiggans, T. A. Cooper* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
Forecast 2 Linear trend Forecast error Seasonal demand.
Statistics 350 Lecture 2. Today Last Day: Section Today: Section 1.6 Homework #1: Chapter 1 Problems (page 33-38): 2, 5, 6, 7, 22, 26, 33, 34,
Statistics 350 Review. Today Today: Review Simple Linear Regression Simple linear regression model: Y i =  for i=1,2,…,n Distribution of errors.
2001 ASAS/ADSA 2001 Conference (1) Simultaneous accounting for heterogeneity of (co)variance components in genetic evaluation of type traits N. Gengler.
The simple linear regression model and parameter estimation
Regression Analysis Part D Model Building
Kin 304 Regression Linear Regression Least Sum of Squares
Week 14 Chapter 16 – Partial Correlation and Multiple Regression and Correlation.
BPK 304W Regression Linear Regression Least Sum of Squares
Linear Regression.
No notecard for this quiz!!
Statistical Process Control
A National Sire Fertility Index
Abstr. M65 Test-day milk loss associated with elevated test-day somatic cell score R.H. Miller, H.D. Norman, G.R. Wiggans, and J.R. Wright Animal Improvement.
Abstr. M4 Merit of obtaining genetic evaluations of milk yield for each parity on Holstein bulls H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* R.L. Powell, and P.M. VanRaden.
Effectiveness of genetic evaluations in predicting daughter performance in individual herds H. D. Norman 1, J. R. Wright 1*, C. D. Dechow 2 and R. C.
Genetic Evaluation of Milking Speed for Brown Swiss Dairy Cattle
Multiplicative Factors
3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada
Presentation transcript:

ABSTRACT The objective of this research was to derive factors to predict daily milk yield when milk is sampled once per d for cows milked three times (3x) per d. Milk weights for all three milkings were recorded automatically by 8 herds and collected by Dairy Herd Improvement supervisors on test-day. Following edits, 196,725 daily milk weight records of 2235 first lactation (L1) cows and 346,508 records of 3385 later lactation (L2) cows remained. Factors currently in use to adjust single milking yields for milking interval (MINT) were applied. Also, 3 methods were compared to estimate factors or equations to predict daily milk yield. First, factors were estimated as the ratio of the sum of daily yield to the sum of partial yield within a parity-MINT class (13 intervals in 2 parities) [Method 1] or as the sum of the ratios of daily yield to partial daily yield for each cow-day divided by the number of cow-days within parity-MINT class [Method 2]. Resulting factors from both methods were smoothed, applied to data, and residuals were regressed on days in milk (DIM). Regression equations (n=112) were also developed within parity-MINT-DIM classes (2x7x8) [Method 3] to jointly account for MINT and DIM. Separate factors were derived for milking 1, 2, and 3 for each trait in L1 and L2. Method 3 resulted in consistently strongest correlations between estimated and actual yields, and smallest variances of estimates, and root mean squared errors (rMSE) for milkings 1, 2, and 3 in L1 and L2. Method 3 resulted in rMSE of 3.12 (Milking 1, L1), 3.26 (Milking 2, L1), 3.25 (Milking 3, L1), 4.52(Milking 1, L2), 4.72 (Milking 2, L2)and 4.57 (Milking 3, L2) kg; compared to rMSE of 3.58, 3.66, 3.59, 5.13, 5.41, and 5.09 kg, respectively, from current factors for the same milkings for L1 and L2. The multiple regression methodology (Method 3) appears to provide the most accurate prediction of daily milk weight from a single milking for herds milking 3x daily. KEYWORDS: milking interval, adjustment factor, milking frequency INTRODUCTION  Increasing number of 3x herds utilize testing plans requiring only one or two milkings to be sampled; and more herds have automatic milk recording for weights.  Factors presently in use to estimate daily milk from a single milking for milking interval (MINT) across parities in herds milked 3x (Wiggans, 1986).  Stage of lactation × MINT not used for milking frequency greater than 2x.  Single set of factors presently in use for all parities. OBJECTIVES 1. To derive preliminary factors to estimate daily milk yield from one milking in herds with automatic milk recording milked three times daily, and 2. To compare factors derived by three methods for their accuracy in predicting actual daily milk yields for Milking 1 (morning), 2 (mid-day), and 3 (evening). MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS Abbreviations AP = AM-PM testing plans, DIM = Days in Milk, L1 = Lactation 1, L2 Lactation 2 or more, MINT = Milking interval, MSE = Mean Squared Error, rMSE = root MSE W32 Observations Milking Interval (Hours) All Breeds Figure 1. Distribution of numbers of records in milking interval classes for Milkings 1(morning), 2 (daytime), and 3 (evening). Method 1: Factor = Σy / Σx [DeLorenzo and Wiggans Method] Method 2: Factor = Σ (y / x) / n [DeLorenzo and Wiggans Alternative]  For each MINT x Parity subclass.  26 MINT classes (approx h for 3x) and 2 parity classes (1, ≥2).  Factors smoothed by weighted regression of their reciprocals on MINT.  Residuals regressed on DIM to develop stage of lactation adjustment.  MD = daily value of milk component, MP = partial (Milking 1, 2, or 3) value of milk component.  For each Parity x MINT x DIM class).  2 Parity classes (1, ≥2).  7 MINT classes (approx h for 3x).  8 DIM classes (≤45, 46-90, … , ≥316).  Factors are not smoothed, so adjustment uses intercepts and regression coefficients. Method 3: MD = b0 + b1MP (by parity x MINT x DIM class) [Liu Method 6] Current Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Current Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Current Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Correlation With true SD of Est Abs. Error Abs. Diff. Current NA NA NA M1 M2 M3 Root MSE Correlation With true SD of Est Abs. Error Abs. Diff. Current NA NA NA Root MSE L1 L2 Factor Milking Interval (hours) Milking 1  Milk weights for individual milkings recorded from herds on Automatic Milk Recording (AMR) provided and compiled by DRMS, Raleigh, NC.  Edits were applied for reasonable data.  Following edits, 196,725 daily milk weight records of 2235 first lactation (L1) cows and 346,508 records of 3385 later lactation (L2) cows in 11 herds remained.  Previous results for 2x factors and paucity of records of other breeds (<1.5%), led to combining breeds for analysis.  Distribution of milking intervals for Milkings 1 (morning), 2 (daytime), and 3 (evening) are in Figure 1.  Three methods were tested for development of factors for fat and protein yields and SCS. Summary and Conclusions  Milking interval (AM-PM) factors, especially for L2, differ from factors presently in use for 3x milking.  While derived factors, especially from Method 3, performed better than current factors for these herds, testing on more herds would be beneficial before use. Factors to estimate daily yield when two milkings are weighed are being developed and verified.  From Method 1, factors for Milking 1 deviated least from those presently in use (Figure 2).  Estimates of factors for L1 were similar to those presently in use for Milkings 1, 2, and 3 (Figure 2).  Factors presently in use may overestimate daily yields from Milking 2 of L2 if the interval before that milking is long (Figure 2).  Factors presently in use may underestimate daily yields from Milking 3 L2 if the interval before that milking is short (Figure 2).  Factors estimated by Methods 1 and 2 performed similarly (Table 1).  Method 3 estimation of daily yield regularly resulted in stronger correlation with actual daily yields, less variation among estimates, smaller absolute errors compared to actual yields, and smaller root MSE.  Regression of residuals on DIM indicated need to reduce estimated daily yield with advancing DIM in most MINT classes for Milking 1 and increase estimated daily yield with advancing DIM in most MINT classes for Milking 3, with Milking 2 intermediate. Magnitude of lactation-stage co-factors were similar for L1 and L2 (Not shown). Figure 2. Method 1 factors to adjust fat, protein, somatic cell score (SCS), or milk yield for milking interval from Milking 1 for first (L1) and later (L2) parities. Current factors are indicated in black. Red dot indicates equal milking interval. Table 1. Measures of variation and goodness of estimation of daily yield from AM milking yields of fat (kg), protein (kg), and SCS by three methods for first (L1) and later (L2) parities. Factor Milking Interval (hours) Milking 2 Factor Milking Interval (hours) Milking 3 Derivation of Factors to Estimate Daily Milk Yield from One Milking of Cows Milked Three Times Daily M. M. Schutz* 1, J. M. Bewley 2, and H. D. Norman 3, 1 Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2 University of Kentucky, Lexington, 3 USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD.