Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:57:26.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimation of economic values and financial losses associated with clinical mastitis and somatic cell score in Holstein dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2010

A. Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi ,
M. Moradi-Shahrbabak ,
A. Nejati-Javaremi ,
S. R. Miraei-Ashtiani  and
P. R. Amer
A. Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, PO Box 3158711167-4111, Karaj, Iran
M. Moradi-Shahrbabak
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, PO Box 3158711167-4111, Karaj, Iran
A. Nejati-Javaremi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, PO Box 3158711167-4111, Karaj, Iran
S. R. Miraei-Ashtiani
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, University of Tehran, PO Box 3158711167-4111, Karaj, Iran
P. R. Amer
Affiliation:
Abacus-Bio Limited, PO Box 5585, Dunedin, New Zealand
*
†E-mail: sadeghism@ut.ac.ir
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to develop a method for calculating economic values of clinical mastitis (CM) and somatic cell score (SCS) for inclusion in a dairy cattle breeding goal in the context of a country where farm production and economic data are scarce. In order to calculate the costs and derive economic values for SCS, a new model, ‘milk collection method’, has been developed and was compared with the Meijering model with individual and average SCS distributions. For the population, estimated economic values using the milk collection method were 1.3 and 2.4 times higher than those of Meijering method with average and individual SCS, respectively. The milk collection method needs no assumptions about normality of the distribution of SCS and because of a lack of normality in Iranian data for SCS, the Meijering method resulted in economic values that were biased downwards. Failing to account for the fact that milk price penalties for SCS are applied at milk collection rather than individual cow level resulted in a further large downward bias in the economic value of SCS. When the distribution of data is unknown or difficult to approximate or when a transformation to normality is not straightforward, the milk collection method would be preferable. Inclusion of SCS and CM in the breeding goal for Iranian dairy cattle is justified based on these results. The model to calculate mastitis costs proposed here could be used to estimate economic values for CM in other developing countries where farm production and economic data are generally poor.

Keywords

somatic cell scoremastitiseconomic value and breeding goal
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 33 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Ali, AKA, Shook, GE 1980. An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 487–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar, D, Tauer, LW, Bennett, G, González, RN, Hertl, JA, Schukken, YH, Schulte, HF, Welcome, FL, Gröhn, YT 2008. The cost of generic clinical mastitis in dairy cows as estimated by using dynamic programming. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2205–2214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boettcher, PJ, Dekkers, JCM, Kolstad, BW 1998. Development of an udder health index for sire selection based on somatic cell score, udder conformation, and milking speed. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1157–1168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charfeddine, N, Alende, R, Groen, AF, Carabana, MJ 1996. Genetic parameters and economic values of lactation somatic cell score and production traits. Interbull Bulletin 15, 84–91.Google Scholar
Coffey, EM, Vinson, WE, Pearson, RE 1986. Potential of somatic cell concentration in milk as a sire selection criterion to reduce mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 2163–2172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, JB, VanRaden, PM 2010. Net merit as a measure of lifetime profit: 2006 revision. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://aipl.arsusda.gov/reference.htm.Google Scholar
Emanuelson, U, Danell, B, Philipsson, J 1988. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell counts, and milk production estimated by multiple-trait restricted maximum likelihood. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 467–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groen, AF, Steine, T, Colleau, J, Pedersen, J, Pribyl, J, Reinsch, N 1997. Economic values in dairy cattle breeding, with special reference to functional traits. Report of an EAAP-working group. Livestock Production Science 49, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heringstad, B, Klemetsdal, G, Steine, T 2003. Selection responses for clinical mastitis and protein yield in two Norwegian dairy cattle selection experiments. Journal Dairy Science 86, 2990–2999.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houben, EH, Dijkhuizen, AA, Van Arendonk, JAM, Huirne, RBM 1993. Short-term and long-term production losses and repeatability of clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 2561–2578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huijps, K, Lam, JGMT, Hogeveen, H 2008. Costs of mastitis: facts and perception. Journal of Dairy Research 75, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadarmideen, HN, Pryce, JE 2001. Genetic and economic relationships between somatic cell count and clinical mastitis and their use in selection for mastitis resistance in dairy cattle. Animal Science 73, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kossaibati, MA, Esslemont, RJ 1997. The costs of production diseases in dairy herds in England. Veterinary Journal 154, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meijering, A 1986. Dystocia in dairy cattle breeding with special attention to sire evaluation for categorical traits. PhD, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Muir, BL, Van Doormal, BJ 2005. Selection indices in Holstein cattle of various countries. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, US 1994. Economic weights in Danish total merit index. The Workshop on ‘Economic Weights in Dairy Cattle’, Futterkamp, Germany, 9pp.Google Scholar
Ødegard, J, Jensen, J, Klemetsdal, G, Madsen, P, Heringstad, B 2003. Genetic analysis of somatic cell score in Norwegian cattle using random regression test-day models. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 4103–4114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Cabal, MA, de los Campos, G, Vazquez, AI, Gianola, D, Rosa, GJM, Weigel, KA, Alenda, R 2009. Genetic evaluation of susceptibility to clinical mastitis in Spanish Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3472–3480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryce, JE, Brotherstone, S 1999. Estimation of lifespan breeding values in the UK and their relationship with health and fertility traits. Interbull Bulletin 21, 166–169.Google Scholar
Raubertas, RF, Shook, GE 1982. Relationship between lactation measures of somatic cell concentration and milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 65, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A, Moradi-Shahrbabak, M, Nejati-Javaremi, A, Shadparvar, A 2009. Estimation of economic values in three breeding perspectives for longevity and milk production traits in Holstein dairy cattle in Iran. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasidhar, PVK, Reddy, YR, Rao, SB 2002. Economics of mastitis. Indian Journal of Animal Science 72, 439–440.Google Scholar
Schepers, JA, Dijkhuizen, AA 1991. The economics of mastitis control in dairy cattle: a critical analysis of estimates published since. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 10, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schukken, YH, Leslie, KE, Weersink, AJ, Martin, SW 1992. Ontario bulk milk somatic cell count reduction program. I impact on somatic cell counts and milk quality. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 3352–3358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seegers, H, Fourichon, C, Beaudeau, F 2003. Production effects related to mastitis and mastitis economics in dairy cattle herds. Veterinary Research 34, 475–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stott, AW, Coffey, MP, Brotherstone, S 2005. Including lameness and mastitis in a profit index for dairy cattle. Animal Science 80, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svensson, C, Hultgren, J 2008. Associations between housing, management, and morbidity during rearing and subsequent first-lactation milk production of dairy cows in southwest Sweden. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1510–1518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toivakka, M, Nousiainen, JI, Maantysaari, EA 2005. Estimation of economic values of longevity and other functional traits in Finnish dairy cattle. In Book of abstracts of the 56th Annual Meeting European Association Animal Production, Uppsala, Sweden (ed. Y van der Honing), p. 54. Wageningen Academic Publication, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Weller, JI, Saran, A, Zeliger, Y 1992. Genetic and environmental relationships among somatic cell count, bacterial infection, and clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2532–2540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfova, M, Stipkova, M, Wolf, J 2006. Incidence and economics of clinical mastitis in five Holstein herds in the Czech Republic. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 77, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfova, M, Wolf, J, Kvapilik, J, Kica, J 2007. Selection for profit in cattle. I. Economic weights for purebred dairy cattle in the Czech Republic. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2442–2455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yalcin, C, Stott, AW 2000. Dynamic programming to investigate financial impacts of mastitis control decisions in milk production systems. Journal of Dairy Research 67, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed