H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 20705-2350, USA EAAP.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Safeguarding Animal Health Current levels of compliance with EU bulk- tank SCC standards and proposed (but rejected) US standards based on data from four.

Advertisements

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.

2004 H.D. Norman, A.H. Sanders,* R.H. Miller, and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricutural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD.

Impact of selection for increased daughter fertility on productive life and culling for reproduction H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright*, R. H. Miller Animal Improvement.

Use of cow culling to help meet compliance for somatic cell standards H. D. Norman and J. R. Wright * Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural.

2005 ADSA/ASAS/CSAS meeting (1) Historical examination of culling of dairy cows from herds in the United States H. DUANE NORMAN, E. HARE, and J.R. WRIGHT.

ADSA 2002 (HDN-P1) 2002 Comparison of occurrence and yields of daughters of progeny-test and proven bulls in artificial insemination and natural- service.

2012 ADSA-AMPA-ASAS-CSAS-WSASAS joint annual meeting (1)Norman Comparison of daughter performance of New Zealand and North American sires in US herds H.D.

But who will be the next GREAT one?. USA Bull Proofs * Bulls are ranked based upon their DAUGHTER’S (progeny) production and physical characteristics.

2007 Jana L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA

2003 Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker,* Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

Changes in the use of young bulls K. M. Olson* 1, J. L. Hutchison 2, P. M. VanRaden 2, and H. D. Norman 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,

2001 ADSA annual meeting, July 2001 (1) Timeliness of progeny-testing through AI and percentage of bulls returned to service (abstract 1020) H.D. NORMAN,*

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD NDHIA –

2007 ADSA 2007 (1)H.D. Norman Effect of service sire and cow sire on gestation length H.D. Norman,* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement.

Performance of Holsteins that originated from embryo transfer or twin births H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright* and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,

 Breeding Heifers Mark Carson Reproductive Specialist, EastGen.

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.

Norway (1) 2005 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Fertility Trait.

Assessment of voluntary waiting period and frequency of estrus synchronization among herds R.H. Miller, 1, * H.D. Norman, 1 M.T. Kuhn, 1 and J.S. Clay.

AFGC Convention 2004 (1) 2004 Possibilities for Improving Dairy Cattle Performance Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA San Antonio.

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Missouri Dairy Summit.

John B. Cole, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA The U.S. genetic.

2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Overview.

Genetic correlations between first and later parity calving ease in a sire-maternal grandsire model G. R. Wiggans*, C. P. Van Tassell, J. B. Cole, and.

2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.

2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Trends in Noncompliance with Milk Quality Standards for Dairy Herd Improvement Herds in the United States H. D. Norman*, J. R. Wright Animal Improvement.

Synchronization Effects on Parameters for Days Open M. T. Kuhn, J. L. Hutchison, and R. H. Miller* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural.

2003 Melvin Tooker, Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, and George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

Effect of temperature and humidity on gestation length H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright,* and J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.

Factors that affect abortion frequency in dairy herds in the United States R.H. Miller,* M.T. Kuhn, H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright Animal Improvement Programs.

2006 Mid-Atlantic Dairy Grazing Conference, 2006 (1) Is There a Need for Different Genetics in Dairy Grazing Systems? H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L.

2006 H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, and C. M. B. Dematawewa 2 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

XX International Grassland Conference 2005 (1) 2005 Genetic Alternatives for Dairy Producers who Practise Grazing H. D. Norman, J. R. Wright, R. L. Powell.

Dr. George R. Wiggans, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA

Norman, 2014ICAR / Interbull annual meeting, Berlin, Germany, May 20, 2014 (1) Dr. H. Duane Norman Interim Administrator Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding.

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.

H.D. Norman* and J.L. Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA 2009 meeting.

2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.

Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA Board – 2009 (1)

Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.

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,

Ashley H. Sanders and H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD California Dairy Herd.

2003 P.M. VanRaden* and M.E. Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Definition.

H.D. Norman* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and M.T. Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD DRMS annual.

Effects of dam’s dry period length on heifer development H. D. Norman and J. L. Hutchison* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research.

2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.

H.D. Norman*, J.L. Hutchison, and J.R. Wright Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

 The United States provided the most foreign sires of sons every year, as high as 86%.  Canada was second in most years.  Combined, North American contributed.

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Dairy Cattle Reproductive.

CRI – Spanish update (1) 2010 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.

Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.

2006 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (1) Trait Selection When Culling U.S. Holsteins H.D. Norman, J.L. Hutchison, J.R. Wright,

H.D. NORMAN,* R.L. POWELL, J.R. WRIGHT

Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity

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.

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.

Reproductive trends of dairy herds in the United States

Relationship of gestation length to stillbirth

Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy

Presentation transcript:

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA EAAP – 2010 (1) Recent trends in mastitis and fertility indicators in the United States and reasons for change Session 18 Abstr. 7375

Norman EAAP – 2010 (2) Mastitis indicators Source: Purdue Dairy Clipart Source: Dairy Herd Management

Norman EAAP – 2010 (3) International BT-SCC limits Country/groupLimit (cells/ml) Australia400,000 Canada500,000 European Union400,000 New Zealand400,000 Norway400,000 Switzerland400,000 United States750,000 California600,000

Norman EAAP – 2010 (4) U.S. milk quality measures l Bulk tank somatic cell count (BT-SCC) w Monitored by U.S. Department of Agriculture w Data from 4 of 10 Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMO) w Accounts for nearly 50% of US milk supply l Herd test-day somatic cell count (TD-SCC) w Herds in Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) somatic cell testing w Accounts for 97% of US DHI herds

Norman EAAP – 2010 (5) U.S. SCC (all breeds)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (6) U.S. herd size and SCC Year Cows/herd (no.) TD-SCC (1000s)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (7) U.S. herd milk yield and SCC 9,000 9,250 9,500 9,750 10,000 10, Year Milk (kg) TD-SCC (1000s)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (8) l SCS used by U.S. DHI as a mastitis indicator w Simplicity w Desirable statistical properties (nearly normal distribution) l Conversion equations w SCS = log 2 (SCC/100,000) + 3 w SCC = 2 (SCS − 3) (100,000) Somatic cell score (SCS) SCS SCC (cells/ml) 012, , , , , , ,000 71,600,000 83,200,000 96,400,000

Norman EAAP – 2010 (9) SCS and change in herd size

Norman EAAP – 2010 (10) U.S. and Canadian SCC U.S. TD-SCC Québec BT-SCC Ontario BT-SCC

Norman EAAP – 2010 (11) U.S. and New Zealand SCC U.S. TD-SCC New Zealand TD-SCC

Norman EAAP – 2010 (12) U.S. and Irish SCC U.S. TD-SCC Irish BT-SCC

Norman EAAP – 2010 (13) German SCC “No increase or decrease in SCC for German Holsteins across time” – Reinhard Reents (personal communication, 2010)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (14) U.S. versus E.U. SCC monitoring Individual farm SCC sample 2 consecutive 3-month means over limit 3 of 5 consecutive samples over limit Producer suspension Geometric mean of 3 monthly BT-SCC Consecutive monthly BT-SCC Value used 400,000 cells/ml750,000 cells/mlBT-SCC limit E.U.U.S. Program characteristic

Norman EAAP – 2010 (15) Export concerns l E.U. change in SCC sampling point from bulk truck or plant silo to individual farm (October 1, 2010, enforcement) l 3-month mean (E.U.) used as single reference for period, which allows more time to reduce future SCC l Geometric mean (E.U.) mathematically lower than arithmetic mean (U.S.) and requires recalculation

Norman EAAP – 2010 (16) Geometric versus arithmetic means SCC (cells/ml) Example 1Example 2 Month 1400,000300,000 Month 2500,000400,000 Month 3600,000700,000 Arithmetic mean500,000467,000 Geometric mean493,000438,000

Norman EAAP – 2010 (17) Fertility indicators Source: English Guernsey Cattle SocietySource: BBC (Louise Cassidy)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (18) Holstein Jersey U.S. days to 1st breeding

Norman EAAP – 2010 (19) U.S. Holstein days to 1st breeding – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (20) U.S. Jersey days to 1st breeding – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (21) Holstein – – – 1st breeding –––– All breedings Jersey – – – 1st breeding –––– All breedings U.S. non-return rates (70 days) Breeding year Non-return rate (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (22) Holstein – – – 1st breeding –––– All breedings Jersey – – – 1st breeding –––– All breedings U.S. conception rates Breeding year Conception rate (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (23) U.S. heifer and cow conception rates l Genetic evaluations implemented w Bulls – January 2009 w Cows – August 2010 l Single-trait BLUP evaluation within breed l Data w Calvings during 2003 or later w Parities 1–5 w Services 1–7 w Age: Heifers1 to <2.2 years Cows≥2 years

Norman EAAP – 2010 (24) U.S. Holstein conception rates Birth year Conception rate (%) Breeding value (%) –––– Heifer CR – – – Heifer BV –––– Cow CR – – – Cow BV

Norman EAAP – 2010 (25) Holstein Jersey U.S. numbers of services

Norman EAAP – 2010 (26) U.S. Holstein numbers of services – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (27) U.S. Jersey numbers of services – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (28) Pregnancy rate l Allows herd managers to measure how quickly their cows become pregnant again after having a calf l Defined as percentage of nonpregnant cows that become pregnant during each 21-day period

Norman EAAP – 2010 (29) U.S. pregnancy rates Jersey –––– PR – – – BV Holstein –––– PR – – – BV Birth year Pregnancy rate (%) Breeding value (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (30) Holstein Jersey U.S. calving intervals

Norman EAAP – 2010 (31) U.S. Holstein calving intervals – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (32) U.S. Jersey calving intervals – – – 1st parity –––– All parities

Norman EAAP – 2010 (33) Herd synchronization status l Identified through χ 2 analysis with herd size considered w Deviation of observed frequency of 1st inseminations by day of the week from expected equal frequency w Maximum percentage of cows inseminated on a particular day of the week l Status categories w Not synchronized w Possibly synchronized w Probably synchronized w Synchronized

Norman EAAP – 2010 (34) Year Not synchronized Possibly synchronized Probably synchronizedSynchronized U.S. herd synchronization (no.)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (35) Year Not synchronized Possibly synchronized Probably synchronizedSynchronized < < < U.S. herd synchronization (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (36) U.S. herd synchronization (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (37) Year Not synchronized Possibly synchronized Probably synchronizedSynchronized < < < U.S. cows by herd synchronization (%)

Norman EAAP – 2010 (38) Synchroni- zation status Days to 1st breeding (days) Concep- tion rate (%) Services (no.) CaIvin g interval (days) Not synchronized Possibly synchronized Probably synchronized Synchronize d U.S. Holstein synchronization and reproduction* *2008 breedings

Norman EAAP – 2010 (39) U.S. sexed-semen use Population Breeding year Breedings (no.) Percentage of total breedings Heifers20065, , , Cows20061, , ,1690.4

Norman EAAP – 2010 (40) U.S. sexed-semen conception rates Conception rate (%) Population Breeding year Conventional semen Sexed semen Heifers Cows

Norman EAAP – 2010 (41) Conclusions l Large decline in U.S. SCC during last decade while herd size and milk yield increased l In spite of less stringent legal standards, U.S. SCC comparable with SCC in other countries (probably because of incentives) l U.S. days to 1st breeding declined partly because of adoption of ovulation synchronization and timed AI

Norman EAAP – 2010 (42) Conclusions (continued) l Units of semen per conception increased somewhat in the U.S. l U.S. pregnancy rates decreased and calving intervals increased for decades but are improving l Use of synchronized breeding has grown in the U.S.

Norman EAAP – 2010 (43) Conclusions (continued) l Use of sexed semen for heifers has grown in the U.S. l Conception rate with sexed semen 20–30% less than with conventional semen in the U.S.

Norman EAAP – 2010 (44) Thank you! Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory staff – 2010