Introducing CDCB Health Evaluations

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
TEMPLATE DESIGN © John B. Cole 1,*, Kristen L. Parker Gaddis 2, Francesco Tiezzi 2, John S. Clay 3, and Christian Maltecca.
Advertisements

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.
John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
Genetic Selection Tools in the Genomics Era Curt Van Tassell, PhD Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory & Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville,
Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.
J. B. Cole 1, P. D. Miller 2, and H. D. Norman 1 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2 Department.
How Genomics is changing Business and Services of Associations Dr. Josef Pott, Weser-Ems-Union eG, Germany.
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
Use of producer-recorded health data in determining incidence risks and relationships between health events and culling J. B. Cole 1, A. H. Sanders*,1,
Genetic Selection as a Tool for Battling the Decline in Reproductive Performance: A Dairy Perspective Kent A. Weigel, Ph.D. Department of Dairy Science.
WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
December 2014 Proof Changes
John B. ColeKristen L. Parker Gaddis Animal Genomics and ImprovementDepartment of Animal Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of Florida Agricultural Research.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.
 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.
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,
John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
Selection for Disease Resistance Gert Pedersen Aamand Nordic Cattle Genetic Evaluation.
All Dairy Producers Want More Healthy Cows The Problem Difficult to improve genetically – low heritability Poor data quality & inconsistency in disease.
Dr BE Mostert Geneticist SA Stud Book The Genetics of Longevity… A Quantitative Perspective.
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.
2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD An Example from Dairy.
2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.
Genetic Evaluation of Lactation Persistency Estimated by Best Prediction for Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Guernsey, and Milking Shorthorn Dairy Cattle J. B.
A data exchange format and national database for producer-recorded health event data from on-farm management software J. B. Cole, D. J. Null*, and L. R.
2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
2007 Paul VanRaden and Jan Wright Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2013 Measuring genomic pre-selection in theory.
2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Best prediction.
WiggansCDCB industry meeting – Sept. 29, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
2003 P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluations.
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
Disease Recording A Cross-Roads for the Dairy Industry David Kelton, DVM, PhD Department of Population Medicine University of Guelph.
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.
WiggansARS Big Data Computing Workshop (1) 2013 George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
1 Dairy Cattle Production (95314) Dr Jihad Abdallah Factors affecting milk composition.
2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.
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.
H.D. Norman* J.R. Wright, P.M. VanRaden, and M.T. Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
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.
John B. Cole Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD What direction should.
John B. Cole Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2016 AGIL Report.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Jan Wright, Gary Fok, and Mel Tooker Animal Genomics and Improvement Lab Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA
2005 P.M. VanRaden and M.E. Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Effect.
My vision for dairy genomics
2017 AGIL-AIP Update John B. Cole
Dairy Herd Health Chapter 44.
KETOSIS Acetonemia; Ketonemia
Genetic improvement programs for U.S. dairy cattle
How selection for better health impacts dairy profitability
How genetic selection can improve dairy profitability
DairyBio Animal Program
S. Vanderick1,2, F.G. Colinet1, A. Mineur1, R.R Mota1,
Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity
A National Sire Fertility Index
Use of a threshold animal model to estimate calving ease and stillbirth (co)variance components for US Holsteins.
Validation of genomic predictions and genomic reliability
Where AIPL Fits In Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the main research arm of USDA (8,000 employees with 2,000 scientists at >100 locations) Beltsville.
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.
Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.
Alternatives for evaluating daughter performance of progeny-test bulls between official evaluations Abstr. #10.
M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD
3Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON Canada
How selection for better health impacts dairy profitability
Presentation transcript:

Introducing CDCB Health Evaluations Kristen Parker Gaddis, CDCB Geneticist

Beginning in April 2018, CDCB will provide official genetic and genomic evaluations for six direct health traits.

What are the traits?

Selection of health events Based on several considerations Preliminary research Incidence rate Reporting consistency Cost Heritability

Health Event Definitions Hypocalcemia: typically results after calving due to low total blood calcium levels; also commonly referred to as milk fever Displaced abomasum: enlargement of the abomasum with fluid and/or gas which causes movement to the left or right side of the abdominal cavity, usually requiring veterinary intervention Ketosis: build up of ketone bodies typically occurring due to negative energy balance in early lactation

Health Event Definitions (continued) Mastitis: infectious disease causing inflammation of the mammary gland; one of the most common and costly diseases of dairy cattle Metritis: infection of the endometrium (lining of the uterus) after calving Retained placenta: retention of fetal membranes more than 24 hours after calving

Editing & Validating the data Producer-reported data from U.S. herds Editing procedures were researched and developed to ensure we are using the most accurate data General phenotypic edits developed by AGIL researchers Additional constraints put in place and outlined in peer-reviewed article* Compared the incidences with those found in designed and large-scale studies * Parker Gaddis et al., 2012

Trait statistics Calculated with research data from DRMS on Holsteins Event Incidence Heritability* Hypocalcemia 1.3% 0.6% Displaced abomasum 2.1% 1.1% Ketosis 3.9% 1.2% Mastitis 10.2% 3.1% Metritis 6.2% 1.4% Retained placenta 3.6% 1.0% * Heritability calculated on observed scale

How are these traits evaluated?

Genetic Evaluations Using the same tested methods as other CDCB genetic and genomic evaluations Developed by AGIL researchers International validation with Interbull

Genomic Evaluations Uses same methods and programs as other traits Same 60,671 markers used for routine genomic evaluations

How do these traits relate to current traits?

Current Traits We have been making progress in health traits Indirect selection with productive life, livability, etc. Correlations between PTAs for health traits and traits in NM$

PTA Correlations Event Protein PL LIV SCS DPR CCR HCR Hypocalcemia 0.18 0.15 0.19 -0.29* 0.003 0.01 0.02 Displaced abomasum 0.23 0.35* 0.47* -0.13 0.32* 0.28* 0.24 Ketosis 0.03 0.33 0.27 -0.19 0.59* 0.49* 0.07 Mastitis 0.06 0.39* 0.22* -0.68* 0.20* 0.21* Metritis 0.05 0.26* -0.09 0.46* 0.41* 0.23* Retained placenta -0.03 0.17* 0.13* -0.10 0.14* 0.12* * Significant P < 0.05

Relationships with current traits No significant correlation with yield trait Significant correlations with new health traits: Productive life and Livability Mastitis and SCS (-0.68) Fertility traits

How will the traits be presented?

Trait Presentation Traits will be presented as disease RESISTANCE Hypocalcemia resistance Displaced abomasum resistance Ketosis resistance Mastitis resistance Metritis resistance Retained placenta resistance

Trait Expression Percentage points of event incidence above or below the breed average Higher, positive values = more resistant Lower, negative values = less resistant

Examples Resistance of clinical mastitis ≈ 90% Bull A PTA = + 3.0 Incidence rate ≈ 10% Bull A PTA = + 3.0 Bull B PTA = - 4.0 Expect 93% resistance of clinical mastitis among Bull A’s daughters (7% incidence rate) Expect 86% resistance of clinical mastitis among Bull B’s daughters (14% incidence rate)

Economic Value Utilizing the most recent estimates of direct treatment costs from literature NM$ already accounts for related losses (e.g., decreased production and fertility) Abnormal & sick test day adjustments Liang categories: veterinary and treatment costs, producer labor, milk loss, discarded milk, culling cost, extended days open, and on-farm death

Estimated direct cost per case* Economic estimates Event Liang et al., 2017 Donnelly Adjusted test day Estimated direct cost per case* Hypocalcemia - $38 - $4 $34 Displaced abomasum $82 $275 + $19 $197 Ketosis $23 $33 + $0 $28 Mastitis $104 $39 + $3 $75 Metritis $94 $117 + $7 $112 Retained placenta $47 $80 + $4 $68

Average Genomic Reliability Event Young bulls Proven bulls Hypocalcemia 40.0 44.2 Displaced abomasum 41.8 47.1 Ketosis 41.2 46.2 Mastitis 49.4 56.3 Metritis 42.2 48.1 Retained placenta 41.6 46.7

How can we keep improving?

No man…or cow?…is an island

Accurate health evaluations Research Dairy Records Providers Dairy Records Processing Centers Producer-reported health events CDCB Working Groups Collaboration with AGIL

Dairy Producers The most critical component by actively reporting health events Develop a robust national database Collection of more data will improve evaluations

Data Security Security of raw data is of the utmost importance Several levels of IT security put in place Only PTAs will be published by CDCB based on data contributed to the cooperator database Raw data or related information will never be released to third parties Herd-based statistics will not be published

Dairy Records Providers & Processing Centers Building a robust national database depends on transfer of the data to CDCB Not a simple process Collaboration & cooperation

Research & Development AGIL – provided support, consultation, and countless hours of help in the process of development and testing CDCB Working Groups – discussions and recommendations for critical decisions

Thank you! Dairy Producers DRPC’s and DRP’s CDCB committee members AGIL

Thank You!