Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (ISVEE14, Merida, MX, 2015)
Similaire à Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (ISVEE14, Merida, MX, 2015) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (ISVEE14, Merida, MX, 2015)
- 1. HERD-LEVEL MANAGEMENT FACTORS AND CULLING RATES IN QUÉBEC DAIRY HERDS ISVEE14—Merida, MX—November 6, 2015 Denis Haine1 H. Delgado2 R. Cue2 A. Sewalem3 K. Wade2 R. Lacroix4 D. Lefebvre4 J. Arsenault1 É. Bouchard1 J. Dubuc1 1Université de Montréal 2McGill University 3Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 4Valacta
- 2. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion CULLING: RISK, ANALYSIS & INFERENCE “Usual” culling rate: >30% “Common recommendation”: 20–30% Culling risk health, reproduction Cow-level Herd-level Group—Herd Individual—Cow Ecological bias Atomistic bias
- 3. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion CULLING: RISK, ANALYSIS & INFERENCE Objectives To quantify culling rates To determine profiles of herds based on herd-level factors To describe relationship between these factors and herd culling rate
- 4. 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
- 5. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion DATA ANALYSIS Relationship between groups of herd indices: Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA)1 Test-value2 for culling rate as supplementary variable Culling incidence: GEE model All analyses with R version 3.2.2; packages geepack3 and FactoMineR4 1 Escofier and Pagès, 1994. 2 Morineau, 1984. 3 Højsgaard, Halekoh, and Yan, 2006. 4 Lê, Josse, and Husson, 2008.
- 6. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion CULLING INCIDENCE (PER COW-YEAR AT RISK) q q q q q q q q q q 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years of follow−up Cullingincidence(percow−yearatrisk) IRR SE LCI UCI Culling Incidence 0.32 1.007 0.316 0.325
- 7. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion MULTIPLE FACTOR ANALYSIS q 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 1.0 Dim. 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
- 8. 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 1.0 Dim. 1 (30.9%) Dim.2(26.7%) Management
- 9. 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 1.0 Dim. 1 (30.9%) Dim.2(26.7%) Management % cull rate % sales % L1 & autumn & herd size & cull rate & sales & L1
- 10. 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 1.0 Dim. 1 (53.9%) Dim.2(21.8%) Reproduction
- 11. 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 1.0 Dim. 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
- 12. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS decline, L2+ peak, L2+ peak, L1 305d fat 305d milk 305d protein decline, 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 1.0 Dim. 1 (50.8%) Dim.2(15.3%) Production
- 13. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS metritis cystic ovaries disease milk fever, L3+ milk fever, all parities retained placenta mastitis lameness dystocia displaced abomasum udder health index mortality −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Dim. 1 (29.2%) Dim.2(12.3%) Health
- 14. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS metritis cystic ovaries disease milk fever, L3+ milk fever, all parities retained placenta mastitis lameness dystocia displaced abomasum udder health index mortality −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 Dim. 1 (29.2%) Dim.2(12.3%) Health medium cull rate % MF
- 15. Introduction Material & Methods Results Conclusion CONCLUSION Herds could not be clustered based on multiple herd-level variables Each group of variables have to be considered separately Herd management and dynamics, reproduction indicators, 305-d and peak productions + MF incidence cow-level risk factors 6= herd-level contextual variables and multilevel analysis
- 16. Thank you! denis.haine@umontreal.ca Slides available on slideshare.net/dhaine Drawings: The Noun Project.