Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:57:40.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding for robust cows that produce healthier milk: RobustMilk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2013

R. F. Veerkamp ,
L. Kaal ,
Y. de Haas  and
J. D. Oldham
R. F. Veerkamp*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
L. Kaal
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
Y. de Haas
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
J. D. Oldham
Affiliation:
SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
*
†E-mail: Roel.Veerkamp@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

For centuries, animal breeders have very effectively been selecting livestock species, making use of the natural variation that exists within the population. As part of the developments towards broader breeding goals, the RobustMilk project was designed to develop new practical technologies to allow breeders to re-focus their selection to include milk quality and dairy cow robustness and to evaluate the consequences of selection for these traits taking cognisance of various milk production systems. Here we introduce the background to robustness, the value of expanding milk quality analysis (including the possibility of using milk quality characteristics as proxy measures for robustness traits), interactions between robustness and milk quality traits and the need for different breeding tools to enable delivery of these concepts to the industry. Developing a database with phenotypes from research herds across Europe, phenotyping tools using mid-infrared red spectroscopic analysis of milk, and the development of statistical and genomic tools for robustness and milk quality formed the core of the project. In the following papers you will read the outcomes and developments that happened during the project.

Keywords

robustnessdairy cattlegenomic selectionmilk quality
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 4 , Issue 3: Proceedings of the ROBUSTMILK project, an EU wide programme which was financially supported by the European Commission under the Seventh Research Framework Program, Grant Agreement KBBE–211708 , July 2013 , pp. 594 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, EN 2005. Lactoferrin: a multi-tasking protein par excellence. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62, 2529–2530.Google Scholar
Banos, G, Brotherstone, S, Coffey, MP 2004. Evaluation of body condition score measured throughout lactation as an indicator of fertility in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 2669–2676.Google Scholar
Bastian, ED, Brown, RJ 1996. Plasmin in milk and dairy products: an update. International Dairy Journal 6, 435–457.Google Scholar
Beam, SW, Butler, WR 1998. Energy balance, metabolic hormones, and early postpartum follicular development in dairy cows fed prilled lipid. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 121–131.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Veerkamp, RF, Dillon, P 2006. Phenotypic profiles for body weight, body condition score, energy intake, and energy balance across different parities and concentrate feeding levels. Livestock Science 104, 1–12.Google Scholar
Berry, DP, Horan, B, O'Donovan, M, Buckley, F, Kennedy, E, McEvoy, M, Dillon, P 2007. Genetics of grass dry matter intake, energy balance and digestibility in grazing Irish dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4835–4845.Google Scholar
Calus, MPL 2006. Estimation of genotype × environment interaction for yield, health and fertility in dairy cattle. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 181p.Google Scholar
Calus, MPL, Veerkamp, RF 2003. Estimation of environmental sensitivity of genetic merit for milk production traits using a random regression model. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3756–3764.Google Scholar
Calus, MPL, Meuwissen, THE, de Roos, APW, Veerkamp, RF 2008. Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics 178, 553–561.Google Scholar
Carlén, E, Jansson, K, Strandberg, E 2006. Genotype by environment interaction for udder health traits studied by random regression models. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 13–18 August, 2006, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 25–10 pp.Google Scholar
Coffey, MP, Simm, G, Brotherstone, S 2002. Energy balance profiles for the first three lactations of dairy cows estimated using random regression. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2669–2678.Google Scholar
Collard, BL, Boettcher, PJ, Dekkers, JCM, Petitclerc, D, Schaeffer, LR 2000. Relationships between energy balance and health traits of dairy cattle in early lactation. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2683–2690.Google Scholar
D'Eath, RB, Conington, J, Lawrence, AB, Olsson, IAS, Sandoe, P 2010. Breeding for behavioural change in farm animals: practical, economic and ethical considerations. Animal Welfare 19, 17–27.Google Scholar
de Vries, MJ, van der Beek, S, Kaal-Lansbergen, L, Ouweltjes, W, Wilmink, JBM 1999. Modeling of energy balance in early lactation and the effect of energy deficits in early lactation on first detected estrus postpartum in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1927–1934.Google Scholar
Fajardo-Lira, C, Oria, M, Hayes, KD, Nielsen, SS 2000. Effect of psychrotrophic bacteria and of an isolated protease from pseudomonas flourescens M3/6 on the plasmin system of fresh milk. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 2190–2199.Google Scholar
Farnaud, S, Evans, RW 2003. Lactoferrin – a multifunctional protein with antimicrobial properties. Molecular Immunology 40, 395–405.Google Scholar
Fatehi, J, Stella, S, Shannon, JJ, Boettcher, PJ 2003. Genetic parameters for feet and leg traits evaluated in different environments. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 661–666.Google Scholar
Grufferty, MB, Fox, PF 1988. Functional-properties of casein hydrolyzed by alkaline milk proteinase. New Zealand Journal of Dairy science and Technology 23, 95–108.Google Scholar
Hayes, KC, Khosla, P 1992. Dietary fatty-acid thresholds and cholesterolemia. Faseb Journal 6, 2600–2607.Google Scholar
Hu, FB, Manson, JE, Willett, WC 2001. Types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a critical review. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 20, 5–19.Google Scholar
Hu, FB, Stampfer, MJ, Manson, JE, Ascherio, A, Colditz, GA, Speizer, FE, Hennekens, CH, Willett, WC 1999. Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70, 1001–1008.Google Scholar
Huth, PJ, Layman, DK, Brown, PH 2004. The emerging role of dairy proteins and bioactive peptides in nutrition and health – foreword. Journal of Nutrition 134, 961S–961S.Google Scholar
Kelly, GS 2001. Conjugated linoleic acid: a review. Alternative Medicine Review 6, 367–382.Google Scholar
Kitchen, BJ 1981. Review of the progress of dairy science – bovine mastitis – milk compositional changes and related diagnostic-tests. Journal of Dairy Research 48, 167–188.Google Scholar
Kolmodin, R, Strandberg, E, Jorjani, H, Danell, B 2003. Selection in the presence of a genotype by environment interaction: response in environmental sensitivity. Animal Science 76, 375–385.Google Scholar
Ma, Y, Ryan, C, Barbano, DM, Galton, DM, Rudan, MA, Boor, KJ 2000. Effects of somatic cell count on quality and shelf-life of pasteurized fluid milk. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 264–274.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL, Van Doormaal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.Google Scholar
Mulder, HA 2007. Methods to optimize livestock breeding programs with genotype by environment interaction and genetic heterogeneity of environmental variance. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Munro, GL, Grieve, PA, Kitchen, BJ 1984. Effects of mastitis on milk-yield, milk-composition, processing properties and yield and quality of milk-products. Australian Journal of Dairy Technology 39, 7–16.Google Scholar
Nauta, WJ, Veerkamp, RF, Brascamp, EW, Bovenhuis, H 2006. Genotype by environment interaction for milk production traits between organic and conventional dairy cattle production in the Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2729–2737.Google Scholar
Neeteson-van Nieuwenhoven, A-M, Knap, P, Avendaño, S 2013. The role of sustainable commercial pig and poultry breeding for food security. Animal Frontiers 3, 52–57.Google Scholar
Nielsen, HM, Olesen, I, Navrud, S, Kolstad, K, Amer, P 2011. How to consider the value of farm animals in breeding goals. A review of current status and future challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24, 309–330.Google Scholar
Oltenacu, PA, Broom, DM 2010. The impact of genetic selection for increased milk yield on the welfare of dairy cows. Animal Welfare 19, 39–49.Google Scholar
Pascal, G 1996. Recommended daily intake of lipids and fatty acids. OCL-Oleagineux Corps Gras Lipides 3, 205–210.Google Scholar
Petersson, K-J, Kolmodin, R, Strandberg, E 2005. Genotype by environment interaction for productive life in Swedish Red and White dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, A 55, 9–15.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Veerkamp, RF, Simm, G 1998a. Expected correlated responses in health and fertility traits to selection on production. In 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Science, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 283–286.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Esslemont, RJ, Thompson, R, Veerkamp, RF, Kossaibati, MA, Simm, G 1998b. Estimation of genetic parameters using health, fertility and production data from a management recording system for dairy cattle. Animal Science 3, 577–584.Google Scholar
Robinson, JJ 1986. Changes in body composition during pregnancy and lactation. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, UK 45, 71–80.Google Scholar
Rowe, SJ, White, IMS, Avendano, S, Hill, WG 2006. Genetic heterogeneity of residual variance in broiler chickens. Genetics Selection Evolution 38, 617–635.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, LR 2006. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 123, 218–223.Google Scholar
Singh, TK, Drake, MA, Cadwallader, KR 2003. Flavor of cheddar cheese: a chemical and sensory perspective. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2, 139–162.Google Scholar
Sorensen, D, Waagepetersen, R 2003. Normal linear models with genetically structured residual variance heterogeneity: a case study. Genetical Research 82, 207–222.Google Scholar
Soyeurt, H, Colinet, FG, Arnould, VM-R, Dardenne, P, Bertozzi, C, Renaville, R, Portetelle, D, Gengler, N 2007. Genetic variability of lactoferrin content estimated by mid-infrared spectrometry in bovine milk. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4443–4450.Google Scholar
Soyeurt, H, Dardenne, P, Dehareng, F, Lognay, G, Veselko, D, Marlier, M, Bertozzi, C, Mayeres, P, Gengler, N 2006. Estimating fatty acid content in cow milk using mid-infrared spectrometry. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 3690–3695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svendsen, M, Skipenes, P, Mao, IL 1994. Genetic correlations in the feed conversion complex of primiparous cows at a recommended and a reduced plane of nutrition. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1441–1449.Google Scholar
ten Napel, J, Calus, MPL, Mulder, HA, Veerkamp, RF 2009. Genetic concepts to improve robustness of dairy cows. In Breeding for robustness in cattle (ed. RR Marija Klopcic, J Philipsson and A Kuipers), p. 288, EAAP Scientific Series—ISSN 0071-2477 Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Oldenbroek, JK, van der Gaast, HJ, van der Werf, JHJ 2000. Genetic correlation between days until start of luteal activity and milk yield, energy balance and live weights. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 577–583.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, RF, Hill, WG, Stott, AW, Brotherstone, S, Simm, G 1995. Selection for longevity and yield in dairy cows using transmitting abilities for type and yield. Animal Science 61, 189–197.Google Scholar
Ward, PP, Paz, E, Conneely, OM 2005. Multifunctional roles of lactoferrin: a critical overview. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 62, 2540–2548.Google Scholar
Windig, JJ, Calus, MPL, Beerda, B, Veerkamp, RF 2006. Genetic correlations between milk production and health and fertility depending on herd environment. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1765–1775.Google Scholar