Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (AABP, New Orleans, 2015)
16
HERD-LEVEL MANAGEMENT FACTORS AND CULLING RATES IN QUÉBEC DAIRY HERDS AABP—New Orleans—September 19, 2015 Denis Haine 1 H. Delgado 2 R. Cue 2 A. Sewalem 3 K. Wade 2 R. Lacroix 4 D. Lefebvre 4 J. Arsenault 1 É. Bouchard 1 J. Dubuc 1 1 Université de Montréal 2 McGill University 3 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 4 Valacta
Transcript of Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (AABP, New Orleans, 2015)
HERD-LEVEL MANAGEMENT FACTORS AND
CULLING RATES IN QUÉBEC DAIRY HERDS
AABP—New Orleans—September 19, 2015
Denis Haine1H. Delgado2 R. Cue2 A. Sewalem3
K. Wade2 R. Lacroix4 D. Lefebvre4
J. Arsenault1 É. Bouchard1
J. Dubuc1
1Université de Montréal2McGill University3Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada4Valacta
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
CULLING: RISK, ANALYSIS & INFERENCE
“Usual” culling rate: >30%“Common recommendation”: 20–30%Culling risk health, reproductionCow-level Herd-level
Group—Herd
Individual—Cow
Ecological bias Atomistic bias
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
CULLING: RISK, ANALYSIS & INFERENCE
Objectives
To quantify culling ratesTo determine profiles of herds based on herd-levelfactorsTo describe relationship between these factors andherd culling rate
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
DATASET
DHI and health data, 01/01/2001—12/31/2010:
432 733 lactations,156 409 cows,763 herds
Management indicators
Herd size,% first lactation,% livestock sales,% fall calvings
Reproduction indicators
Calving interval,Days to first service,21-d pregnancy rate,Age at first calving
Production indicators
305-d milk, fat, protein,For heifers and cows:Peak milk,Persistency,Peak variation,Persistence variation
Health indicators
MF, RP, metritis, DA,COD,Lameness, Mastitis,Dystocia,Mortality,Udder health index
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
DATA ANALYSIS
Relationship between groups of herd indices:Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA)1
Test-value2 for culling rate as supplementaryvariableCulling incidence: GEE modelAll analyses with R version 3.2.2; packagesgeepack3 and FactoMineR4
1Escofier and Pagès, 1994.2Morineau, 1984.3Højsgaard, Halekoh, and Yan, 2006.4Lê, Josse, and Husson, 2008.
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
CULLING INCIDENCE (PER COW-YEAR AT RISK)
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
0.28
0.30
0.32
0.34
0.36
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Years of follow−up
Cul
ling
inci
denc
e (p
er c
ow−
year
at r
isk)
IRR SE LCI UCI
Culling Incidence 0.32 1.007 0.316 0.325
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
MULTIPLE FACTOR ANALYSIS
●
management
reproduction
productionhealth
culling0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Dim. 1 (13.7%)
Dim
. 2 (
12.6
%)
Contribution of groups of indicators to the 2 first dimensions of the MFA,according to their squared loadings
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
livestock sales
proportion of
first lactation
herd size
proportion of calvings in the fall
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (30.9%)
Dim
. 2 (
26.7
%)
Management
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
livestock sales
proportion of
first lactation
herd size
proportion of calvings in the fall
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (30.9%)
Dim
. 2 (
26.7
%)
Management
% cull rate% sales% L1& autumn& herd size
& cull rate& sales& L1
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
days to
first service
calving
interval
21d pregnancy
rate
age at
first calving
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (53.9%)
Dim
. 2 (
21.8
%)
Reproduction
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
days to
first service
calving
interval
21d pregnancy
rate
age at
first calving
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (53.9%)
Dim
. 2 (
21.8
%)
Reproduction
% cull rate (and vice versa)% calving interval% days to 1st service& pregnancy rate& age at 1st calving
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
decline, L2+peak, L2+peak, L1305d fat305d milk
305d proteindecline, L1
decline variation, L2+decline variation, L1
peak covariance, L2+peak covariance, L1
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (50.8%)
Dim
. 2 (
15.3
%)
Production
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
metritis
cystic
ovaries disease
milk fever,
L3+
milk fever,
all parities
retained placentamastitis
lamenessdystocia
displaced abomasum
udder health
index
mortality
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (29.2%)
Dim
. 2 (
12.3
%)
Health
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS
metritis
cystic
ovaries disease
milk fever,
L3+
milk fever,
all parities
retained placentamastitis
lamenessdystocia
displaced abomasum
udder health
index
mortality
−1.0
−0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
−1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Dim. 1 (29.2%)
Dim
. 2 (
12.3
%)
Health
medium cull rate% MF
Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion
CONCLUSION
Herds could not be clustered based on multipleherd-level variablesEach group of variables have to be consideredseparatelyHerd management and dynamics, reproductionindicators, 305-d and peak productions + MFincidencecow-level risk factors 6= herd-levelcontextual variables and multilevel analysis
