Archive for Mobility

Decoding the Impact of Housing Systems on Digital Dermatitis in Dairy Cows: A Genetic Study

Delve into the influence of housing systems on digital dermatitis in dairy cows. Could genetic evaluations pave the way for enhanced bovine health across varied living conditions? Uncover the research insights here.

Imagine walking barefoot on gravel daily; the discomfort of digital dermatitis (DD) in dairy cows feels similar. This painful hoof disease significantly hampers cows’ mobility, milk production, and the economic health of dairy farms. 

The environment in which cows are housed plays a critical role in DD’s incidence and severity. Housing systems such as conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB) have distinct impacts on disease management. Understanding these housing-related nuances is vital for farmers and researchers working to reduce DD’s impact. 

This research utilizes detailed phenotyping data from over 2,980 observations of Holstein-Friesian and Fleckvieh-Simmental cows on ten farms. It investigates the genetic variances linked to DD stages: sick, acute, and chronic. Through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), the study identifies potential candidate genes and assesses genotype × housing system interactions. This comprehensive analysis seeks to uncover genetic factors that can inform breeding programs and enhance animal welfare, regardless of their rearing environment. 

Introduction: Understanding Digital Dermatitis in Dairy Cows

Digital Dermatitis (DD) is an infectious disease impacting the bovine foot, particularly the plantar skin bordering the interdigital cleft. This condition ranges from initial lesions to chronic, painful wounds, affecting dairy cows‘ mobility and well-being. 

The development of DD involves a mix of environmental, genetic, and management factors. Housing systems, especially conventional cubicle barns, create conditions ripe for DD, with moisture and contamination fostering pathogen growth. Nutritional imbalances, poor foot hygiene, and milking routines further increase risk. Notably, genetic predispositions also play a role; some cattle lines are more susceptible, emphasizing the need for genetic research to combat DD. 

The economic and welfare impacts of DD are significant. Economically, it causes losses through reduced milk production, higher veterinary costs, and culling of severely affected cows. Welfare-wise, the pain and lameness from DD seriously affect cattle comfort and health, raising ethical concerns in livestock management. Therefore, addressing DD with better housing, management practices, and genetic selection is crucial for sustainable dairy farming.

Exploring Housing Systems: Cubicle Barns vs. Compost-Bedded Pack Barns

Housing systems play a pivotal role in dairy productivity and cow health and welfare. The primary systems include conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB), each impacting the Prevalence and severity of digital dermatitis (DD). 

In CON setups, cows rest on mats or mattresses over concrete floors. This controlled environment supports restful ruminating but can worsen claw disorders due to constant exposure to manure and poor ventilation. Conversely, CBPB systems offer cows a spacious environment with composting bedding of sawdust or wood shavings, which is more comfortable and supports better hoof health by reducing pathogens through microbial activity. 

The flooring material is crucial. Concrete floors in CON systems retain moisture and manure, fostering bacteria that cause DD. CBPB systems’ drier, more sanitary bedding leads to fewer DD incidences. 

Hygiene practices, essential for DD control, differ by system. CON systems require regular scraping and washing, while CBPB systems depend on managing bedding moisture and microbial activity. Both approaches aim to reduce bacterial loads and curb DD spread. 

Cow comfort, dictated by the housing system, also affects DD prevalence. CBPB’s spacious, free-roaming environment reduces stress and improves immune function, making cows less prone to DD. In contrast, CON systems’ restrictiveness can increase anxiety and susceptibility to claw disorders. 

In summary, the choice between cubicle barns and compost-bedded pack barns significantly impacts cow health and the incidence of DD. Prioritizing comfort and hygiene in housing systems leads to healthier, more productive cows with fewer claw disorders.

Unveiling Genetic Interactions Between Housing Systems and Digital Dermatitis in Dairy Cows

ParameterConventional Cubicle Barns (CON)Compost-Bedded Pack Barns (CBPB)Overall Dataset
Number of Observations1,4501,5302,980
Number of Cows8118991,710
DD-Sick Prevalence (%)HigherLower20.47%
DD-Acute Prevalence (%)HigherLower13.88%
DD-Chronic Prevalence (%)HigherLower5.34%
Heritability – DD-Sick0.160.160.16
Heritability – DD-Acute0.140.140.14
Heritability – DD-Chronic0.110.110.11
Genetic Correlation (CON and CBPB) – Same Traits~0.80N/A
Genetic Correlation – Within Traits (DD-Sick, DD-Acute, DD-Chronic)0.58 – 0.81
Significant Candidate Genes for DD-Sick and DD-Acute (SNP Main Effects)METTL25, AFF3, PRKG1, TENM4
Significant Candidate Genes (SNP × Housing System Interaction)ASXL1, NOL4L (BTA 13)

The genetic study on digital dermatitis (DD) in dairy cows examined the influence of different housing systems on the disease. This research aimed to understand the interaction between cow genotypes and their environments. It focused on DD stages—DD-sick, DD-acute, and DD-chronic—in conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB). Herds were selected to ensure similarities in climate, feeding, and milking systems. Still, they differed in housing setups to isolate housing-specific impacts on DD. 

Using 2,980 observations from 1,710 cows and 38,495 SNPs from 926 genotyped cows after quality control, the study employed single-step approaches for single-trait repeatability animal models and bivariate models to estimate genetic parameters and correlations. GWAS identified specific SNPs and their interactions with housing systems. Heritabilities for DD stages and genetic correlations between the same traits in different housing systems were also calculated. 

Results showed higher DD prevalence in CON systems compared to CBPB. Heritabilities were 0.16 for DD-sick, 0.14 for DD-acute, and 0.11 for DD-chronic, with a slight increase in CON. Genetic correlations between the same DD traits in different housing systems were around 0.80, indicating minimal genotype × housing system interactions. Correlations among DD stages ranged from 0.58 to 0.81, showing their interconnectedness regardless of the housing system. 

GWAS results were varied for DD-acute and DD-chronic, indicating complex pathogenesis. Candidate genes affecting disease resistance or immune response included METTL25, AFF3, PRKG1, and TENM4 for DD-sick and DD-acute. SNP × housing system interactions highlighted ASXL1 and NOL4L on BTA 13 for DD-sick and DD-acute. 

For dairy farmers, these findings underline the impact of housing systems on the Prevalence and progression of DD and the potential genetic implications. Our comprehensive study provides actionable insights for dairy farmers globally. 

Notably, DD prevalence was significantly higher in CON, highlighting the challenging environment of cubicle barns compared to the more welfare-oriented CBPB system. These insights are crucial as they affect animal health and have economic ramifications, including reduced milk production and increased treatment costs. 

We examined genetic evaluations across these environments and found that heritabilities for DD traits (DD-sick, DD-acute, DD-chronic) were slightly higher in the CON system. Still, overall genetic parameters remained consistent across both systems. Despite different housing practices, the genetic predisposition to DD remains relatively stable. 

Genetic correlations between different DD stages (ranging from 0.58 to 0.81) suggest a common underlying genetic resistance mechanism crucial for developing targeted breeding programs. Furthermore, GWAS pinpointed several candidate genes, such as METTL25, AFF3, PRKG1, and TENM4, with significant implications for disease resistance and immunology. 

This research underscores the importance of genotype-environment interactions, even though these were minimal in housing systems. Integrating genomic insights with practical management strategies can improve animal well-being and farm productivity as the dairy industry evolves. 

By applying these findings, dairy farmers can make informed decisions about housing systems and genetic selection, enhancing economic and animal health outcomes. This study calls for the industry to adopt evidence-based practices rooted in rigorous scientific research.

Genetic Evaluations: From Genotypes to Phenotypes

The research meticulously analyzed data from 1,311 Holstein-Friesian and 399 Fleckvieh-Simmental cows, totaling 2,980 observations across three digital dermatitis (DD) stages: DD-sick, DD-acute, and DD-chronic. This granular phenotyping clarifies how DD stages manifest in different environments. By categorizing it into conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB), the study highlights the environmental impact on genetic expressions related to DD. 

Quality control of 50K SNP genotypes refined the data to 38,495 SNPs from 926 cows. This dataset formed the basis for estimating genetic parameters through single-step approaches. The genetic correlations between DD traits and housing systems uncovered genotype × environment (G×E) interactions. 

Heritability estimates were 0.16 for DD-sick, 0.14 for DD-acute, and 0.11 for DD-chronic, indicating the genetic influence. Notably, these estimates and genetic variances slightly rose in the more stressful CON environment, indicating heightened genetic differentiation under challenging conditions. Genetic correlations between the same DD traits across different housing systems were around 0.80, showing minimal G×E interactions. 

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) revealed heterogeneous Manhattan plots for DD-acute and DD-chronic traits, indicating complex biological pathways. Despite this, several shared candidate genes like METTL25, AFF3, PRKG1, and TENM4 were identified, showing their potential role in managing DD through genetic selection. 

For SNP × housing system interactions, genes such as ASXL1 and NOL4L on chromosome 13 were relevant for DD-sick and DD-acute. These findings illustrate how specific genetic markers interact with environmental factors. Overall, the minimal impact of genotype × housing system interactions supports robust genetic evaluations for DD across diverse environments, aiding broader genetic selection strategies in dairy cow populations. 

The Bottom Line

This study highlights the importance of detailed phenotyping and genetic evaluations in understanding digital dermatitis (DD) in dairy cows. By examining 1,710 Holstein-Friesian and Fleckvieh-Simmental cows in conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB), the research provided crucial insights into the Prevalence and heritability of DD. It found slightly higher genetic differentiation in the more challenging CON environment but minimal genotype × housing system interactions, indicating a limited impact on genetic assessments. Essential genes like METTL25, AFF3, PRKG1, and TENM4 were identified as necessary for disease resistance and immunology. 

Understanding how housing systems affect DD is crucial. It helps improve management practices to reduce DD prevalence, enhancing cow welfare and farm productivity. It also improves genetic selection by identifying traits that enhance DD resistance in specific environments, benefiting long-term herd health and sustainability. This insight is vital for today’s dairy operations and future breeding programs. 

Future research should delve into the long-term impact of housing systems on genetic traits linked to DD resistance. Exploring other environmental and management factors, like nutrition and milking routines, would offer a fuller understanding of DD. Personalized genetic interventions tailored to specific farm environments could be a game-changer in managing this disease in dairy cows.

Key Takeaways:

  • The study analyzed 2,980 observations of DD stages, differentiating between DD-sick, DD-acute, and DD-chronic across two housing systems: conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB).
  • Heritabilities for DD were slightly higher in the CON environment, suggesting a stronger genetic differentiation of the disease in more challenging conditions.
  • Despite varying heritabilities, genetic correlations between the same DD traits in different housing systems were high, indicating minimal genotype × housing system interactions.
  • GWAS highlighted significant candidate genes such as METTL25, AFF3, and PRKG1, which play roles in disease resistance and immunology.
  • This research underscores the importance of considering housing systems in genetic evaluations to enhance disease management and improve cow welfare.


Summary: Digital Dermatitis (DD) is a severe hoof disease that affects dairy cows’ mobility, milk production, and farm economic health. Housing systems like conventional cubicle barns (CON) and compost-bedded pack barns (CBPB) have distinct impacts on disease management. CON setups, which support restful ruminating but can worsen claw disorders due to constant exposure to manure and poor ventilation, have higher DD-sick prevalence than CBPB systems (5.34%). Both approaches aim to reduce bacterial loads and curb DD spread. CBPB’s spacious, free-roaming environment reduces stress and improves immune function, making cows less prone to DD. A study found higher DD prevalence in CON systems compared to CBPB. Understanding how housing systems affect DD is crucial for improving management practices, enhancing cow welfare, and improving genetic selection.

Genomics – Opportunity is Knocking

With less than a week until the December 03 index release day I am thinking what more do I want or need to learn about genomics in the world of dairy cattle breeding. I have friends that entirely use genomic information to breed and market while others are riding along and using higher indexing young sires but otherwise remain in the prove it to me “I am from Missouri camp”.  Here at The Bullvine we have provided thoughts in the past on genomics (Read more: Genomics at Work – August 2013). Today we decided to further document some areas that we feel are important to watch for and questions we are searching for answers to so that you don’t miss this opportunity.

Verification

“Does it really work?” is the question most often asked. The verdict is still out for many breeders. (Read more: Is the Genomic System Really Working?, The Truth About Genomic Indexes – “show me” that they work! And What Happens If Genomics Doesn’t Work?)

Except for a few preliminary reports by a couple genetic evaluation centers little has been published verifying that using genomics actually works. Breeders need the truth and nothing but the truth based on scientific analysis. We can likely expect the report to say that it assists with increasing the rate of genetic advancement but that: i) on an individual animal basis it is not as accurate as a 99% reliable daughter proven A.I. bull;  ii) for young bulls, heifers and cows it increases the accuracy of indexes ; iii) for traits for which we have limited farm data it is still too early to make  an accurate assessment; and iv) it is in fact the most important step forward in breeding since we got broadly based proven sires.  The message to our scientist and industry leaders is that breeders need to know the facts. The industry depends on breeders being successful. (Read more: CANADIAN BULL PROOFS – You’ve Got to Prove It to Use It!)

With the indexes of young animals today exceeding their older counterparts by a significant amount, breeders need to know the facts so they can decide on the extent to which they should use genomic information in their breeding plan (Read more: What’s the plan?).

Intensity of Use

It is well known that concern exists among all players, from breeders to scientists, on the increased rate of inbreeding.  (Read more: Twenty Things Every Dairy Breeder Should Know About Inbreeding, 6 Steps to Understanding & Managing Inbreeding in Your Herd and INBREEDING: Does Genomics Affect the Balancing Act?)

A study of the sires of top ranking young animals shows the following:

  • Sires of top fifty August 2013 gTPI young bulls – Mogul (21); Uno (8); Supersire (7); McCutchen (3); Facebook (2); Lithium (2),..plus seven others
  • Sires of top fifty August 2013 NM$ young bulls – Mogul (13); Supersire (10); Uno (8); Robust (3); Shamrock (3); Epic (3); Lithium (2); Facebook (2); ..plus six others.
  • Sires of top fifty August 2013 gLPI young bulls – Mogul (17); Supersire (9), McCutchen (5); Bookem (5); Mixer (3); Epic (2); Lexor (2); Iota (2); ..plus five others.
  • Sires of top fifty gLPI heifers (Sept-Nov releases) – Supersire (11); McCutchen (6); Enforcer (5); Mogul (5); Liquid Gold (4); Munition (4); Morgan (3); Cashmoney (2); ..plus ten others

Even though most of these bulls are not themselves closely related it is concerning that only a few bulls come to the top on all these lists. 66% of the above lists are over 6.0% inbred and only one is below 5.0% inbred. Outcross sires (Read more: 12 Sires to Use in Order to Reduce Inbreeding and GOING OFF THE MAP: 14 Outcross Holstein Sires That Don’t Include GPS) has been recommended as a solution yet Oman, Planet, Shottle and Bolton are prominent is the ancestry of the bulls above. It is time that we stop worrying about inbreeding and start finding practical solutions. Do we need to designate breeding lines and then doing line crossing like is done in crops, poultry and swine?  Why are A.I. organizations not using alternate sires of sons? Is it that those alternates do not come up as high on total merit index ranking lists? If that is the case should total merit index be the criteria used when selecting young bulls to be sampled or marketed. Should the inbreeding coefficient of every bull be a required number to be published?  There are solutions but it takes effort and leadership to stop the runaway train.

Finding the Best

Breeders of very elite indexing animals want to know which bulls will ring the bell for them when they flush their top virgin heifers. Some of those breeders feel that there are certain sires more capable than others at leaving top of the list progeny? Put another way can two bulls be ranked the same for total merit but one leaves progeny that are very consistent for their genomic values while the other bull produces progeny that range more in value. Breeders are willing to gamble and use the bull that appears to be able to produce list toppers. Breeders are asking the question – have our scientists studied this and is their an answer to the question of why some families consistently throw the high outliers?

Which are the Future Parents

As well with more and more emphasis being given to management, health and fertility traits in dairy cattle selection the question becomes which are the young bulls or elite heifers for the future. Could it be that they should be 90%RK for Production and 99%RK for Durability and 99%Rk for Health & Fertility? Attention needs to be given to matter with a view to the needs for the next ten plus years. (Read more: Total Merit Indexes: Are they helping or hurting?, Does Your Breeding Program Save You Labor? and  Are Your Genetics Wasting Feed and Labor?)

Health / Disease Resistance

No doubt we have only scratched the surface on what the DNA profile of an animal can tell use about an animal’s ability to remain healthy and disease free.  Even though breeders would like to have the answers today, the absence of farm data to match to the DNA will likely mean that this area of breeding will be relatively inaccurate for some time into the future. That does not mean that we should not continue to study this area, it is just that we can not expect answers quickly.

Female Fertility

Here again we are dealing with an area where there is limited farm data, or the farm data is not in connected data bases that can be used to correlate female fertility with DNA profiles. Is there farm data out there that tells us when heifers reach puberty? No. Are there genetic differences in when heifers can be first bred? Likely but we do not know. To go even further what about female conception rates? Biologically up to 90% of the time a sperm fertilizes an egg, yet only 65% of heifers and 40% of cows in Holsteins actually become pregnant. The inability of a fertilized egg to implant is significant but knowing the genetics of that is still a long ways off. Maybe there is research in other species that might be useful for linking female fertility with DNA profiles.

Breeders who flush females know that to be financially successful a cow or heifer must give many viable embryos. And that there are differences amongst cow families in how many embryos produced. (Read more: What Comes First The Chicken Or The Egg? And Investing in Dairy Cattle Genetics – Think Outside the Box) One question yet to be answered is by using IVF on poor flushing families are we, in fact, hindering reproduction from a genetic perspective. Yes more questions than answers but remember that the most common reason for cows being culled is infertility. So we do not need bull dams being genetically inferior for reproduction.

Mobility

With lameness in dairy cattle being targeted as a big time problem in animal care circles, is it time that a mobility index be produced? Can we take our current DNA profiles and calculate such an index? It matters little that we know a host of traits about feet and legs when breeders are most concerned about a cow or heifer’s ability to move freely and comfortably in the environment is which she lives. (Read more: Cow Mobility: One Step Forward or Two Steps Back?)

Getting with the Program

Perhaps some of our ‘thought list’ will be possible in the next year or two. One thing we know is that for traits to be able to be evaluated we need more animals both recorded for performance and DNA profiled.  Of immediate concern is that without broad based field data for calf and heifer performance we are limited in what we can accurately know about this important cost center.  Any breeders not currently DNA profiling all their heifer calves are denying themselves future opportunities to advance their herds. Cost is frequently given as the reason for not DNA profiling, yet the cost is only about equal to officially milk recording a cow for a year. The information obtained can be used early in life including which heifers to keep, how to manage them and which sires to breed them to.

The Bullvine Bottom Line

Like almost everything else in genetic advancement, genomics does not have all the answers. It does not have 100% accuracy but it sure does shorten the generation interval in dairy cattle breeding.  Opportunity knocks for the breeders that do profile their animals. And every month with new facts coming out on genomics, the opportunity for greater return on investment increases for participating breeders.


The Dairy Breeders No BS Guide to Genomics

 

Not sure what all this hype about genomics is all about?

Want to learn what it is and what it means to your breeding program?

Download this free guide.

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend