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
16
Embed
Herd-Level Management Factors and Culling Rates in Québec Dairy Herds (AABP, New Orleans, 2015)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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