Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:54:34.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling and analysis of incomplete and short lactations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

F Jaffrézic  and
P Minini
F Jaffrézic*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK INRA Quantitative and Applied Genetics, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas Cedex, France
P Minini
Affiliation:
INSERM U472, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 16 Avenue Paul Vaillant-Couturier, 94807 Villejuif, France
*
†E-mail:Jaffrezic@dga2.jouy.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Advantages of the use of test-day records for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle are now widely accepted. In particular, longitudinal models such as random regression avoid using ad hoc extrapolation procedures to reconstruct complete lactations as they provide individual predictions even for incomplete data. However, these predictions and parameter estimates obtained in the model do not take into account the lactation length. This can be an important drawback for phenotypic and genetic analysis of milk production of cows with shorter lactations. The aim of this paper is to propose a methodology that would correct these predictions, weighting them by the probability at each point in time of each cow being dried off. The proposed procedure is easy to implement and calculations are fast to compute. A simulation study and an application on real data for daily milk records show that the proposed methodology provides a more accurate estimation for individual cumulative production as well as genetic values, and avoids predicting negative productions at the end of the lactation as is often the case with random regression models.

Keywords

lactation curveregression analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 76 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2003

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

Diggle, P.J. and Kenward, M.G. 1994. Informative dropout in longitudinal data analysis. Applied Statistics 43: 49–93.Google Scholar
Jaffrézic, F. and Pletcher, S.D. 2000. Statistical models for estimating the genetic basis of repeated measures and other function-values traits. Genetics 156: 913–922.Google Scholar
Jamrozik, J. and Schaeffer, L. 1997. Estimates of genetic parameters for a test day model with random regressions for yield traits of first lactation Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 762–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laird, N.M. 1988. Missing data in longitudinal studies. Statistics in Medicine 7: 305–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidauer, M., Mantysaari, E.A. and Stranden, I. 2002. Comparison of test-day models for genetic evaluation of production traits in dairy cattle. Livestock Production Science In press.Google Scholar
Little, R.J.A. 1995. Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated measures study. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90: 1112–1121.Google Scholar
Little, R.J.A. and Rubin, D.B. 1987. Statistical analysis with missing data. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Pletcher, S.D. and Geyer, C.J. 1999. The genetic analysis of age dependent traits: modelling a character process. Genetics 153: 825–833.Google Scholar
Pool, M.H. and Meuwissen, T.H.E. 1999. Prediction of daily milk yields from a limited number of test days using test day models. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 1555–1564.Google Scholar
Wilmink, J.B.M. 1987. Adjustment of test day milk, fat and protein yield for age, season and stage of lactation. Livestock Production Science 16: 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, M.C. and Carroll, R.J. 1988. Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informative right censoring by modelling the censoring process. Biometrics 44: 175–188.Google Scholar