DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Somatic Cells Count and Its Genetic Association with Milk Yield in Dairy Cattle Raised under Thai Tropical Environmental Conditions

  • Jattawa, D. (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University) ;
  • Koonawootrittriron, S. (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University) ;
  • Elzo, M.A. (Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida) ;
  • Suwanasopee, T. (Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University)
  • Received : 2012.03.23
  • Accepted : 2012.05.28
  • Published : 2012.09.01

Abstract

Somatic cells count (SCC), milk yield (MY) and pedigree information of 2,791 first lactation cows that calved between 1990 and 2010 on 259 Thai farms were used to estimate genetic parameters and trends for SCC and its genetic association with MY. The SCC were log-transformed (lnSCC) to make them normally distributed. An average information-restricted maximum likelihood procedure was used to estimate variance components. A bivariate animal model that considered herd-yr-season, calving age, and regression additive genetic group as fixed effects, and animal and residual as random effects was used for genetic evaluation. Heritability estimates were 0.12 (SE = 0.19) for lnSCC, and 0.31 (SE = 0.06) for MY. The genetic correlation estimate between lnSCC and MY was 0.26 (SE = 0.59). Mean yearly estimated breeding values during the last 20 years increased for SCC (49.02 cells/ml/yr, SE = 26.81 cells/ml/yr; p = 0.08), but not for MY (0.37 kg/yr, SE = 0.87 kg/yr; p = 0.68). Sire average breeding values for SCC and MY were higher than those of cows and dams (p<0.01). Heritability estimates for lnSCC and MY and their low but positive genetic correlation suggested that selection for low SCC may be feasible in this population as it is in other populations of dairy cows. Thus, selection for high MY and low SCC should be encouraged in Thai dairy improvement programs to increase profitability by improving both cow health and milk yield.

Keywords

Dairy Cattle;Milk Yield;Selection;Somatic Cell Count;Tropics

References

  1. Ali, A. K. A. and G. E. Shook. 1980. An optimum transformation for somatic cell concentration in milk. J. Dairy Sci. 63:487-490. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82959-6
  2. Bishop, S., M. de Jong and D. Gray. 2002. Opportunities for incorporating genetic elements into the management of farm animal diseases: policy issues. Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO] study paper No. 18, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO Rome. pp. 1-36.
  3. Boonkum, W., I. Misztal, M. Duangjinda, V. Pattarajinda, S. Tumwasorn and J. Sanpote. 2011. Genetic effects of heat stress on milk yield of Thai Holstein crossbreds. J. Dairy Sci. 94: 487-492. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3421
  4. Carlen, E., E. Strandberg and A. Roth. 2004. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, and production in the first three lactations of Swedish Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci. 87:3062-3070. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73439-6
  5. Ceron-Munoz, M. F., H. Tonhati, C. N. Costa, D. Rojas-Sarmiento and C. S. Portilla. 2004. Variance heterogeneity for milk yield in Brazilian and Columbian Holstein herds. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 16(4):http://ftp.sunet.se/wmirror/www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd16/4/cero16020.htm.
  6. Chagunda, M. G. G. 2002. The importance of a national breeding policy-case for the Malawian dairy industry. Animal Genetics Training Resource: http://agtr.ilri.cgiar.org/agtrweb/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=180
  7. Colleau, J. J. and E. L. Bihan-Duval. 1995. A simulation study of selection methods to improve mastitis resistance of dairy cattle cows. J. Dairy Sci. 78:659-671. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76678-4
  8. Costa, C. N., R. W. Blake, E. J. Pollak, P. A. Oltenacu, R. L. Quaas and S. R. Searle. 2000. Genetic analysis of Holstein cattle populations in Brazil and United States. J. Dairy Sci. 83:2963-2974. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75196-4
  9. de Haas, Y., H. W. Barkema and R. F. Veerkamp. 2002. Genetic parameters of pathogen-specific incidence of clinical mastitis in dairy cows. Anim. Sci. 74:233-242.
  10. Elzo, M. A. 2000. Manual for multibreed editing program CSET (cset.f90, version 12/07/2000). Animal Breeding Mimeo Series, No. 42, University of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 1-6.
  11. Gilmour, A. R., B. R. Cullis, S. J. Welham and R. Thompson. 2000. ASREML reference manual. NSW Agric., Australia.
  12. Kadarmideen, H. N. and J. E. Pryce. 2001. Genetic and economic relationships between somatic cell count and clinical mastitis ad their use in selection for mastitis resistance in dairy cattle. Anim. Sci. 73:19-28.
  13. Koivula, M., E. A. Mäntysaari, E. Negussie and T. Serenius. 2005. Genetic and phenotypic relationships among milk yield and somatic cell count before and after clinical mastitis. J. Dairy Sci. 88:827-833. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72747-8
  14. Konig, S., N. Chongkasikit and H. J. Langholz. 2005. Estimation of variance components for production and fertility traits in Northern Thai dairy cattle to define optimal breeding strategies. Arch. Tierz. 48:233-246.
  15. Koonawootrittriron, S., M. A. Elzo and T. Thongprapi. 2009. Genetic trends in a Holsteinother breeds multibreed dairy population in Central Thailand. Livest. Sci. 122:186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2008.08.013
  16. Koonawootrittriron, S., M. A. Elzo and S. Tumwasorn. 2002a. Multibreed genetic parameters and predicted genetic values for first lactation 305-d milk yield, fat yield, and fat percentage in a Bos taurus Bos indicus multibreed dairy population in Thailand. Thai J. Agric. Sci. 36: 339-360.
  17. Koonawootrittriron, S., M. A. Elzo, S. Tumwasorn and K. Nithichai. 2002b. Estimation of covariance components and prediction of additive genetic effects for first lactation 305-d milk and fat yield in a Thai multibreed dairy population. Thai J. Agric. Sci. 35:245-258.
  18. Mrode, R. A. and G. J. T. Swanson. 1996. Genetic and statistical properties of somatic cell count and its suitability as an indirect means of reducing the incidence of mastitis in dairy cattle. Anim. Breed. Abst. 64:847-857.
  19. Mukisira, E. A. 1997. Dairy recording in Kenya. In: International workshop on animal recording for smallholders in developing countries. Anand (India), 20-23 October 1997, ICAR Technical Series No. 1. pp. 147-153.
  20. Odegard, J., G. Klemetsdal and B. Heringstad. 2002. Variance components and genetic trend for somatic cell count in Norwegian cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 79:135-144.
  21. Petersson, C. S., I. K. Mullarky and G. M. Jones. 2010. Staphylococcus aureus mastitis: cause, detection and control. Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication No. 404-229: http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/404/404-229/404-229_pdf.pdf
  22. Rhone, J. A., S. Koonawootrittriron and M. A. Elzo. 2008. Factors affecting milk yield, milk fat, bacterial score, and bulk tank somatic cell count of dairy farms in the central region of Thailand. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 40:147-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9074-5
  23. Rogers, G. W. 1993. Index selection using milk yield, somatic cell score, udder depth, teat placement and foot angle. J. Dairy Sci. 76:664-670. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77389-0
  24. Rupp, R. and D. Boichard. 1999. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis, somatic cell score, production, udder type trait and milking ease. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2198-2204. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75465-2
  25. Sanpote, J. and S. Buaban. 2003. Genetic evaluation of production traits for dairy cattle in Thailand. Thai J. Vet. Med. 33:80-90. (In Thai language).
  26. Sarakul, M., S. Koonawootrittriron, M. A. Elzo and T. Suwanasopee. 2011. Factors influencing genetic change for milk yield within farm in Central Thailand. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 24:1031-1040. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2011.10401
  27. Sarakul, M., S. Koonawootrittriron, T. Suwanasopee, A. Hirunwong and T. Tongprapi. 2009. Situation of production and attitude for sire selection of dairy farmers in Thailand (2008). In: Proceeding of the 47th Kasetsart University Annual Conference. Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 174-181. (In Thai language).
  28. SAS, 2003. SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3. SAS institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.
  29. Shook, G. E. and M. M. Schutz. 1994. Selection on somatic cell score to improve resistance to mastitis in the United States. J. Dairy Sci. 77:648-658. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)76995-2
  30. Thai Meteorological Department, 2006. The Thai Meteorological Department: Climate of Thailand: http://www.tmd.go.th/en/ archive/archive.php.
  31. The National Mastitis Council 2006. NMC mastitis control program checklist updated. The NMC Newsletter: Udder Tropics 29(6): http://nmconline.org/newsletters/UT29-06.pdf
  32. Tomaszewski, M. A. 1993. Record-keeping systems and control of data flow and information retrieval to manage large high producing herds. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3188-3194. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77657-2
  33. Yeamkong, S., S. Koonawootrittriron, M. A. Elzo and T. Suwanasopee. 2010. Milk quantity, quality and revenue in dairy farms supported by a private organization in Central Thailand. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 22(2):http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/2/yeam22033.htm.

Cited by

  1. Quarter, cow, and farm risk factors for intramammary infections with major pathogens relative to minor pathogens in Thai dairy cows vol.46, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-014-0603-8