Newsletter – 2020 – August

President's message

From the DCRC President’s Desk
By Julio Giordano

I hope you’re planning to attend the DCRC Annual Meeting in November. Registration will open later this month. Watch your e-mail inbox for notices regarding this valuable event.

Given the current status of  the COVID-19 pandemic, related travel restrictions and our concern for you and your family’s health and safety, we are exploring options beyond an in-person meeting for DCRC’s 2020 Annual Meeting. Please read your e-mail messages from DCRC. A decision regarding the meeting’s format will be shared with DCRC members in mid-August.

Program Chair Eduardo Ribeiro and Program Vice Chair Ralph Bruno have developed an excellent program. Confirmed speakers include Milo Wiltbank, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Don Niles, Dan Reuter, Luke Hopkin and Tiffany Paulus Schneider, Wisconsin dairy producers; John Cole, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Peter Hansen, University of Florida; Michael Ferris and Victor Cabrera, UW-Madison; Michael Steele, University of Guelph; Mike Overton, Zoetis; Brian Miller, Merck Animal Health; Klibs Galvão, University of Florida; John Wenz, Washington State University; Richard Pursley, Michigan State University; Daniela Demetrio, Maddox Dairy; Ricardo Chebel, University of Florida; Bruno Amaral, Progressive Dairy Solutions; Kelly Sporer, CentralStar Cooperative; Molly Sloan, URUS; and Steven Roche, ACER Consulting.

Ask the Expert video

DCRC just posted another Ask the Expert video on its website. This time, Fabio Lima, a member of DCRC’s Strategic Planning Content Committee, visits with Alison Van Eenennaam, an animal biotechnology and genomics extension specialist at the University of California-Davis, about genome editing. Van Eenennaam also addressed this topic at the 2019 DCRC Annual Meeting. During the video, she explains the fascinating science behind genome editing. In an understandable way, she shares the complicated science behind hornless/polled gene editing, which could benefit dairy producers in several ways. Also, she discusses current and future genome-editing research that is exploring disease-resistance applications. In general, consumers like the concept of polled dairy cattle, but genome editing “raises eyebrows.” Public and regulatory acceptance are big challenges facing the commercial application of this technology.

Next webinar is August 7

As a reminder of DCRC’s webinar series, our next guest presenter is Mark Kirkpatrick, Zoetis managing veterinarian, Dairy Technical Services, and Iowa State University adjunct faculty, with a talk about organizing farm data to help boost returns. This webinar will be held Aug. 7, starting at 2 p.m. Central time.

During the webinar, Kirkpatrick will help attendees :

  • Organize disease recording based on nine major economic conditions of dairy cattle.
  • Create protocols to record all health interactions with dairy cattle, including beef and no treat decisions.
  • Track outcomes of conditions.
  • Evaluate protocols.

Click here to register.

DCRC Education Chair Paula Basso is in the process of lining up at least two more webinars for 2020. Stay tuned for the topics, presenters, dates and times.

To help us spread the “good word” of DCRC through social media, follow us on Twitter (@DCRCouncil), Facebook and LinkedIn. Your retweets, likes and comments help extend the reach of DCRC’s information and programs. This is an easy way for you to get involved in DCRC and requires no money and very little time. Sharing DCRC events, programs and dairy cattle reproduction information benefits the industry as a whole and helps DCRC with its mission to raise awareness of issues critical to reproductive performance.

I wish all of you a great rest of the summer and look forward to you joining us for the DCRC Annual Meeting – whether that’s in person or through the World Wide Web.

Research Summaries

A reproductive management program aimed at increasing reinsemination of nonpregnant dairy cows at detected estrus resulted in similar reproductive performance to a program that favored timed artificial insemination

Masello, B. Ceglowski, M.J. Thomas, and J.O. Giordano

Dairy farm profitability depends on timing and proportion of cows that become pregnant during lactation. The reproductive efficiency of dairy herds depends on the proportion of cows becoming pregnant at first service and timely re-insemination of those that do not. Re-insemination protocols vary from farm to farm, with some farms prioritizing strategies that maximize insemination of cows following estrous detection. For this reason, the author’s main goal was to compare time to pregnancy and proportion of cows not pregnant by 210 days after first service when comparing strategies that promote re-insemination following estrous detection (AIER) and strategies relying on timed artificial insemination (D32R).

Treatments

All cows were synchronized using a Presynch-Ovsynch protocol for first breeding. Pregnancy diagnosis and evaluation of ovarian structures after non-pregnancy diagnosis (NPD) were performed by transrectal ultrasonography at 32 ± 3 days and 39 ± 3 days after previous breeding. Cows were blocked by parity (primiparous vs. multiparous) and then randomly allocated to two treatment groups:

  • D32R (n = 464): Cows in the D32R group received gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) at 32 ± 3 days post breeding. Seven days later, another transrectal ultrasonography was performed and ovarian structures were evaluated for non-pregnant cows. Cows with a corpus luteum (CL) ≥15 mm (CL cows) received prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) and completed the Resynch protocol. Cows without a CL present received another dose of GnRH and were enrolled in a PreG-Ovsynch protocol to receive timed AI (TAI).
  • AIE Resynch (AIER; n = 512): Cows in AIER groups that had a CL ≥15 mm when ultrasonography was performed at 32 ± 3 days received a PGF2α treatment to induce estrus. Cows not inseminated in estrus within 7 days were enrolled in Resynch. Cows in the AIER group that did not have a CL present at the time of NPD (32 ± 3 days post-breeding) were enrolled in PreG-Ovsynch.

Results

  • The proportion of animals re-inseminated following estrous detection was greater (P < 0.001) for the AIER (36.0%; n = 755) than for the D32R (11.9%; n = 658) treatment.
  • Overall pregnancy per AI for cows that received the experiment treatments did not differ when comparing both treatment groups (pregnancy at 68 ± 3 days after AI: 34.7% for D32R vs. 35.5% for AIER).
  • Mean time to pregnancy was 88 ± 3 days and 86 ± 3 days for the D32R and AIER treatments, respectively.
  • The hazard of pregnancy from enrollment up to 210 days after first service was similar (P = 0.96) for the D32R and AIER treatments (HR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.19).
  • At 210 days after first service, the proportion of non-pregnant cows did not differ (P = 0.20) for the D32R (16.4%; n = 308) and AIER (13.1%; n = 349) treatments and was not affected by milk production (P = 0.11).

As hypothesized, the authors concluded that re-insemination strategies designed to increase breeding following estrous detection resulted in more cows being inseminated after estrous detection when compared with protocols that prioritize TAI. Furthermore, the authors did not describe differences in the time to pregnancy nor percentage of cows open by 210 days after first service when comparing the two treatment groups. Lastly, the authors stated that farms that are efficient at detecting estrus can implement re-insemination strategies designed to increase re-insemination following estrous detection, rather than by TAI without any loss to reproductive performance.

Access the paper at: https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(20)30126-0/pdf

 

Recombinant protein subunit vaccine reduces puerperal metritis incidence and modulates the genital tract microbiome

E.B.S. Meira Jr., R.D. Ellington-Lawrence, J.C.C. Silva, C.H. Higgins, R. Linwood, M.X. Rodrigues, L. Bringhenti, H. Korzec, Y. Yang, M. Zinicola, and R.C. Bicalho

Puerperal metritis is a high prevalence (25-40%) postpartum cow disorder associated with economic losses associated with treatment costs, impaired reproductive performance and increased involuntary culling (Overton and Fetrow, 2008Sheldon et al., 2008). Antibiotics are the main therapy for metritis. However, the extensive use of antibiotics in food animals is of growing concern related to widespread emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogenic bacteria and public health (Dolejska et al., 2011Aust et al., 2013). Preventive therapies, such as a vaccine against metritis, would improve animal welfare, reduce economic losses, and potentially limit the use of antibiotics and shedding of resistant bacteria. Therefore, the authors’ objective in this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three vaccine formulations containing proteins (FimH, leukotoxin, and pyolysin), inactivated whole cells (Escherichia coliFusobacterium necrophorum, and Trueperella pyogenes), or both in the prevention of postpartum uterine diseases.

Treatments

  • 800 heifers were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups:
    • Control
    • Vaccine 1: Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium necrophorum, Trueperella pyogenes, FimH, leukotoxin, and pyolysin (bacterin and recombinant subunit proteins)
    • Vaccine 2: Escherichia coli, Fusobacterium necrophorum, and Trueperella pyogenes (bacterin)
    • Vaccine 3: FimH, leukotoxin, and pyolysin (recombinant subunit proteins)
  • Each heifer received a subcutaneous injection of its respective treatment at 240 ± 3 and 270 ± 3 days of gestation.

Results

  • Vaccination significantly reduced the incidence of puerperal metritis when compared with control (9.1% vs. 14.9%, respectively).
  • Vaccine 3 was found to reduce the incidence of puerperal metritis when compared with the control (8.0% vs. 14.9%, respectively).
  • In general, vaccination decreased the total vaginal bacterial load and decreased the vaginal load of F. necrophorum by 9 days in milk.
  • Vaccinated cows had 4.1 higher hazard to conceive than controls. Cows that received vaccine 3 had 2.7 times higher hazards to conceive than controls.

The authors concluded that prepartum subcutaneous injections with vaccines containing bacterial proteins (FimH, Lkt, Plo) and inactivated whole cells (E. coli, F. necrophorum, and T. pyogenes) reduces the prevalence of puerperal metritis, but the formulation containing subunit proteins FimH, Lkt, and Plo was the most effective in reducing the prevalence of puerperal metritis. The vaccines effectively modulated the vaginal microbiome by decreasing the total bacteria load and significantly suppressing one of their primary targeted microorganisms (F. necrophorum).

Access the paper at: https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(20)30416-1/fulltext

 

Fertility and 305-day production of Viking Red-, Montbéliarde-, and Holstein-sired crossbred cows compared with Holstein cows during their first 3 lactations in Minnesota dairy herds

A.R. Hazel, B.J. Heins, and L.B. Hansen

Crossbreeding dairy cows has been one of the strategies used by dairy producers to improve fertility because of higher heterosis for fertility traits and the substantial economic impact of improved reproductive performance. However, no controlled studies have compared crossbred animals with Holsteins for fertility and production, fat, and protein, in high-production confinement environments.

Therefore, the authors’ objectives in this study were to analyze phenotypes of cows for fertility and 305-day production in two-breed crossbreds and three-breed crossbreds, compared with their Holstein (HO) herdmates during their first three lactations in high-input commercial herds. Also, the phenotypes of HO-sired crossbreds in the subsequent generation were compared with their HO herdmates for only the first lactation.

Treatments

  • A three-breed rotation of the Viking Red (VR), Montbéliarde (MO), and HO breeds were compared with HO herdmates for three generations in seven Minnesota commercial dairy herds.
  • The study started in 2008 with the enrollment of 3,550 HO females and data collection ceased in December 2017. Sires of cows were proven artificial insemination bulls and high ranking for genetic merit within each of the VR, MO, and HO breeds.
  • The first generation of cows consisted of 644 VR × HO and 616 MO × HO two-breed crossbreds, and their 1,405 HO herdmates. The second generation consisted of 615 VR × MO/HO and 568 MO × VR/HO crossbreds, and their 1,462 HO herdmates. The third generation was composed of 466 HO × VR/MO/HO and HO × MO/VR/HO crossbreds, combined and their 736 HO herdmates.
  • The two-breed and three-breed crossbreds, and their HO herdmates completed at least three lactations, whereas the HO-sired crossbreds and their HO herdmates completed one lactation.

Results

  • The two-breed and three-breed crossbred cows had higher first service and overall conception rates, and fewer times bred than their HO herdmates in all lactations. Age at first calving was significantly lower for the three-breed crossbreds, compared with their HO herdmates.
  • The two-breed crossbreds had -9, -17, and -15 fewer days open (DO) than their HO herdmates during first, second, and third lactation, respectively. The three-breed crossbreds had -15, -19, and -20 fewer DO than their HO herdmates during first, second, and third lactation, respectively.
  • The two-breed crossbreds had +2% higher fat plus protein production during first lactation but did not differ during second and third lactation from their HO herdmates. The three-breed crossbreds had -3% to -4% lower fat plus protein production than their HO herdmates in each of their first three lactations.
  • During first lactation, the HO-sired crossbreds did not differ for fat plus protein production from their HO herdmates.

The authors concluded that crossbred cows have better fertility during the first three lactations, two-breed (-12.0 days fewer DO) and three-breed crossbred (-16.5 days fewer DO), compared with their HO herdmates. The 305-day production of milk solids was 1% to 2% higher for the two-breed crossbreds, 3% to 4% lower for the three-breed crossbreds, and similar for the HO-sired crossbreds, compared with their respective HO herdmates. However, total fat plus protein production for VR, MO, and HO three-breed crossbreds were lower compared with their HO herdmates.

Access the paper at: https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(20)30505-1/fulltext

Featured Column
August genetic evaluations: Significant changes for calving traits

Takeaways

  • Calving traits that previously were problematic for many U.S. dairy farmers have been successfully improved through better genetics and management.
  • In August, Predicted Transmitting Evaluations (PTAs) for Holstein sires will average 2.2 percent for sire calving ease (SCE) and 2.7 percent for daughter calving ease (DCE).
  • The range of all calving traits will significantly decrease. In August, most Holstein bulls will range from 1 percent to 4 percent SCE. In the April evaluations, most Holstein bulls fell between 4 percent and 12 percent SCE.
  • Selection thresholds, such as “no bull over 8 percent calving ease,” are no longer necessary.
  • The stillbirth traits will now be expressed as percent stillbirths to heifers, similar to calving ease.

Genetic evaluations for calving ease will appear significantly different with the next proof run on Aug. 11, announced the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) and partner organizations.

Fundamental to this change is the fact that calving traits, which previously were problematic for many U.S. dairy farmers, have been successfully improved through better genetics and management.

Figure 1 demonstrates that the actual rate of difficult births to Holstein heifers on U.S. farms has decreased substantially since 1980. This is exciting; selection for better genetics and improvements in calving management practices have resulted in less dystocia and fewer stillbirths! Cows and calves are healthier, and producers obtain more realized income from investing in better genetics.

As calving difficulty has been steadily decreasing, dairy producers were surprised to see higher genetic evaluations for calving ease for some familiar bulls. Some bulls had PTAs of 8 percent to 10 percent, yet producers saw only 2 percent to 3 percent difficulty after many calvings on their own farms.

The April 2020 genetic evaluations sparked an industry-wide dialogue about the best way to express PTAs for calving ease and stillbirth. In April, all traits were adjusted to a new genetic base to account for genetic progress over the last five years, a practice that has occurred every five years since 1980. The phenotypic base has been kept constant for several years due to an industry strategy to focus on genetics. After the April 2020 base update, it was clear this strategy created confusion. While the bull rankings in April were correct, there was a mismatch between the calving trait PTAs and the actual rate of dystocia and stillbirth on most farms.

As a result, CDCB and industry partners decided to adjust the phenotypic base to match the observed incidence rates, effective in August. In future base changes, both the genetic and the phenotypic bases will be updated.

How will Calving Ease be impacted?

SCE and DCE evaluations will appear significantly different, starting Aug. 11. Holstein sire PTAs will average 2.2 percent SCE and 2.7 percent DCE, and Brown Swiss will average 3.0 percent SCE and 2.8 percent DCE.

The variation in the data – and the range of all calving traits – will decrease as well. Figure 2 shows the distribution of traditional PTAs (without genomics) for sire calving ease in Holsteins for April and August. In August, most Holstein bulls will range from 1 percent to 4 percent SCE, while in April most Holstein bulls fell between 4 percent and 12 percent SCE. The range of all calving traits will decrease for both Holstein and Brown Swiss. (Calving ease is not reported for other breeds.) There will be fewer bulls with extreme PTAs, reflecting the widespread progress made across the population.

Reliabilities of evaluations will remain the same. The number of available daughter and granddaughter records does not change when the base changes.

Are stillbirth evaluations affected?

Before August, stillbirth was expressed as the percentage of stillbirths to both heifers and cows – different from the calving ease PTAs that are based only on first-calf heifers. CDCB is changing stillbirth from all births to only first-calf heifers, for consistent interpretation.

Average PTAs for sire stillbirth (SSB) and daughter stillbirth (DSB) will also decrease in August, although to a lesser extent than calving ease.

How does this impact on-farm breeding decisions?

The ranking of bulls has always been correct, even with the April mismatch. However, there may be a change in the differences between bulls in August.

Selection thresholds, such as “no bull over 8 SCE,” are no longer necessary. Producers that have used a hard cutoff for calving traits, along with a selection index like Net Merit or TPI™, can stop using that calving threshold to exclude undesirable bulls. The selection index will ensure that the calving traits are given proper emphasis when ranking bulls.

Does this mean that calving difficulty is “solved”?

No, not at all! We have successfully worked together for many years – with management and genetic solutions – to get control of a situation that was problematic for many farms. But we cannot be complacent. The genetic control of calving traits is fairly small (heritability of 3 percent to 8 percent), which means that sire selection, as well as proper staff training and care in the maternity pen, are important to keep dystocia and stillbirth rates low. The stillbirth rate has decreased, so the phenotypic bases will decrease from 8.0 percent for both sire and daughter stillbirth to 5.7 percent and 6.6 percent, respectively. It is unlikely that anyone considers a stillbirth rate of 6 percent as acceptable, so it remains important that we select for animals with favorable calving traits. Selection on genetic indices, such as Net Merit $ or TPI, will ensure that calving traits are properly considered.

For more information

Refer to these sources for further details from CDCB and its partner organizations, USDA AGIL1, National Association of Animal Breeders2 and Holstein Association USA3.

Calving Ease Improvements: August 2020. July 2020 webinar recording

What Is Going on with Calving Ease?. May 2020. John B. Cole1 and Sophie A.E. Eaglen2

–June 2020. Cole,1 Eaglen,2 Thomas J. Lawlor,3 and Ezequiel L. Nicolazzi4

CDCB Changes to Evaluation System (August 2020). Cole,1 Paul VanRaden,1 Nicolazzi4

Sources

1USDA Animal Genomics & Improvement Laboratory. Beltsville, Md.

2National Association of Animal Breeders, Madison, Wis.

3Holstein Association USA, Brattleboro, Vt.

4Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, Bowie, Md.

The Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) provides premier dairy genetic information services through industry collaboration centered on a mission to help optimize cow health and productivity in herds worldwide. CDCB drives continuous improvement and maintains the integrity of the world’s largest animal database, building on a quality foundation with more than eight decades of recorded U.S. dairy animal performance.

 

Featured Member

(Editor’s Note: For each issue, DCRC interviews a member to learn more about his/her career, involvement with DCRC and thoughts about dairy cattle and reproduction. We encourage you to recommend someone for this feature by contacting JoDee Sattler at: JoDee@dcrcouncil.org)

 

Glaucio Lopes
Alta Genetics
Madison, Wisconsin
DCRC member since 2011

 

For nearly a decade, Glaucio Lopes has immersed himself in the Dairy Cattle Reproduction Council, with responsibilities ranging from Education Committee chair to President to Sponsorship Committee chair to Strategic Planning Committee member. While several of his colleagues grew up on dairy farms, that wasn’t the case for Lopes. He earned a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree in Brazil. Thus, his animal science background was all built through education.

“I fell in love with dairy cows while working with the dairy unit on my university farm,” said Lopes. After veterinary school graduation, he practiced on small family dairies in Brazil. “The work ethic found with those working in agriculture was hard to find, so I wanted to be around those people.”

In 2008, Lopes seized the opportunity to venture to the United States and continue his education. “Since then, I knew the United States would be my place to stay and build my career,” he stated. Lopes became a U.S. citizen last year.

Four years ago, Lopes joined Alta Genetics and managed the Alta University program, which is an external training course for progressive dairy owners and managers. Last year, he took on a new role and is now in charge of the global People Development department – managing all internal staff training, in addition to the external audience.

Vet school rotation sparks repro interest

Dairy cattle reproduction became a passion for Lopes after starting his rotation work during veterinary school. “At that time, I was really amazed with the opportunities in this field,” he said. “After studying more, the importance of this topic became clear. Reproductive performance plays a key role in driving management decisions and profitability on dairies.”

With reproduction being so important, Lopes sees significant value in DCRC membership and involvement in the organization. “DCRC is the hub of all information related to dairy cattle reproduction,” he stated. “By being an autonomous organization that relies on voluntary work from distinct members of the dairy industry and academia, DCRC brings the most reliable, independent and applicable information for dairy farmers and consultants to use around the globe. By bringing dairy farmers, consultants, professors and industry allies together, DCRC provides the most up-to-date information that can be immediately implemented on any dairy.”

Webinars provide valuable info

As a DCRC member, Lopes has gained invaluable information and significantly increased his professional network. He especially finds value in DCRC’s webinars.

“The webinars are a great learning opportunity for those who did not attend the DCRC Annual Meeting,” he explained. “There is always something great being presented, with most topics related to practical implementation ideas from those professors and consultants who are living and practicing day in and day out what they say. I also learn a lot from the dairy producers who come to the annual meeting to receive their awards for outstanding reproductive efficiency. Listening to those producers, understanding their challenges and seeing how they implement plans on their dairies to be successful is always rewarding.”

Global perspective on repro challenges

Regarding reproductive challenges facing today’s dairy industry, Lopes said the answer varies by country/region. “In the United States, we have done a great job elevating the bars on reproductive efficiency,” he said. “Now, the challenge is to maintain the great results that were achieved with fertility programs and conventional semen use in a new reality of using beef semen and sexed (dairy) semen.”

Regarding Canada, Lopes said that, on average, he sees great opportunities to increase pregnancy rates by incorporating programs to improve fertility. In South America and China, he feels there are great opportunities to use estrous synchronization programs and estrous detection aids to increase the rate in which cows are serviced, therefore giving them more chances to conceive. In Europe, Lopes witnessed a great technology evolution over the past five years. “Managing people has become one of the biggest challenges on most European dairies,” he said.

Growing diversity

Regarding DCRC’s future, Lopes commented that the organization is already growing in different directions by offering webinars in Spanish and Portuguese. “The next step is to incorporate more cultures as we grow and potentially take a DCRC event overseas,” he said. “DCRC is implementing a strategic plan to become more robust, provide more information and become more interactive with our members. Our social media presence is growing as well, so I encourage you to read and share our online content in your personal social media channels.”

Lopes noted he would like to see DCRC grow and help more people. “If you are a DCRC member and reading this column, I cannot express in words how thankful I am for your involvement and engagement with our organization,” he stated. “Please make sure you share your enthusiasm with your colleagues – in your company, within your students and with your clients. Let’s grow this organization together. And if you are still not a member and thinking about joining, please think no further. I am absolutely positive you will not regret being part of this great organization.”

DCRC Webinar Series

August 7 webinar addresses organizing farm data

Join us for DCRC’s next webinar with Mark Kirkpatrick, Zoetis managing veterinarian, Dairy Technical Services, and Iowa State University adjunct faculty, with a talk about organizing farm data to help boost returns. This webinar will be held Aug. 7, starting at 2 p.m. Central time.

One Registry of Approved Continuing Education (RACE) credit for this DCRC webinar was granted by the American Association of Veterinary State Boards. This a simple way for veterinarians to earn a continuing education credit.

Kirkpatrick will address dairy health condition and protocol recording, which represents the next step in precision dairy management. “This provides information on health incidence prevalence or risk and treatment protocol outcomes,” said Kirkpatrick. “Consistency and accuracy are hallmarks of a highly functional record system. Treatment entries can now be made cow side using cell phones, which will improve accuracy.”

During the webinar, Kirkpatrick will help attendees :

  • Organize disease recording based on nine major economic conditions of dairy cattle.
  • Create protocols to record all health interactions with dairy cattle, including beef and no treat decisions.
  • Track outcomes of conditions.
  • Evaluate protocols.

Click here to register.

DCRC webinars are free for DCRC members. The cost for non-members is $25. Students, who aren’t DCRC members, pay $10 to attend a DCRC webinar. For more details about DCRC membership, go to: https://www.dcrcouncil.org/membership.

DCRC Education Chair Paula Basso is in the process of lining up at least two more webinars for 2020. Stay tuned for the topics, presenters, dates and times.

Industry Calendar