Genetic relationships between behavioral traits and feed efficiency traits in lactating Holstein cows.

The evaluation of dairy cow feed efficiency using residual feed intake accounts for known energy sinks. However, behavioral traits may also contribute to the variation in feed efficiency. Our objective was to estimate the heritability and repeatability of behavioral traits and their genetic correlations with feed efficiency and its components in lactating Holstein cows. The first data set consisted of 36,075 daily rumination and lying time records collected using a SMARTBOW ear tag accelerometer (Zoetis, Parsippany, NJ) and 6,371 weekly feed efficiency records of 728 cows from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The second data set consisted of 59,155 daily activity records, measured as number of steps, recorded by pedometers (AfiAct; S.A.E. Afikim, Kibbutz Afikim, Israel), and 8,626 weekly feed efficiency records of 635 cows from the University of Florida. Feed efficiency and its components included dry matter intake, change in body weight, metabolic body weight, secreted milk energy, and residual feed intake. The statistical models included the fixed effect of cohort, lactation number, and days in milk, and the random effects of animal and permanent environment. Heritability estimates for behavioral traits using daily records were 0.19 ± 0.06 for rumination and activity, and 0.37 ± 0.07 for lying time. Repeatability estimates for behavioral traits using daily data ranged from 0.56 ± 0.02 for activity to 0.62 ± 0.01 for lying time. Both heritability and repeatability estimates were larger when weekly records instead of daily records were used. Rumination and activity had positive genetic correlations with residual feed intake (0.40 ± 0.19 and 0.31 ± 0.22, respectively) while lying time had a negative genetic correlation with this residual feed intake (-0.27 ± 0.11). These results indicate that more efficient cows tend to spend more time lying and less time active. Additionally, less efficient cows tend to eat more and therefore also tend to ruminate longer. Overall, sensor-based behavioral traits are heritable and genetically correlated with feed efficiency and its components and, therefore, they could be used as indicators to identify feed efficient cows within the herd.

Liver and Muscle Transcriptomes Differ in Mid-Lactation Cows Divergent in Feed Efficiency in the Presence or Absence of Supplemental Rumen-Protected Choline.

Improving dairy cow feed efficiency is critical to the sustainability and profitability of dairy production, yet the underlying mechanisms that contribute to individual cow variation in feed efficiency are not fully understood. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify genes and associated pathways that are altered in cows with high- or low-residual feed intake (RFI) using RNA sequencing, and (2) determine if rumen-protected choline supplementation during mid-lactation would influence performance or feed efficiency. Mid-lactation (134 ± 20 days in milk) multiparous Holstein cows were randomly assigned to either supplementation of 0 g/d supplementation (CTL; n = 32) or 30 g/d of a rumen-protected choline product (RPC; 13.2 g choline ion; n = 32; Balchem Corp., New Hampton, NY, USA). Residual feed intake was determined as dry matter intake regressed on milk energy output, days in milk, body weight change, metabolic body weight, and dietary treatment. The 12 cows with the highest RFI (low feed efficient; LE) and 12 cows with the lowest RFI (high feed efficient; HE), balanced by dietary treatment, were selected for blood, liver, and muscle analysis. No differences in production or feed efficiency were detected with RPC supplementation, although albumin was greater and arachidonic acid tended to be greater in RPC cows. Concentrations of ß-hydroxybutyrate were greater in HE cows. Between HE and LE, 268 and 315 differentially expressed genes in liver and muscle tissue, respectively, were identified through RNA sequencing. Pathway analysis indicated differences in cell cycling, oxidative stress, and immunity in liver and differences in glucose and fatty acid pathways in muscle. The current work indicates that unique differences in liver and muscle post-absorptive nutrient metabolism contribute to sources of variation in feed efficiency and that differences in amino acid and fatty acid oxidation, cell cycling, and immune function should be further examined.

Impact of parity differences on residual feed intake estimation in Holstein cows.

Residual feed intake (RFI) has been used as a measure of feed efficiency in farm animals. In lactating dairy cattle, RFI is typically obtained as the difference between dry matter intake observations and predictions from regression on known energy sinks, and effects of parity, days in milk, and cohort. The impact of parity (lactation number) on the estimation of RFI is not well understood, so the objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate alternative RFI models in which the energy sinks (metabolic body weight, body weight change, and secreted milk energy) were nested or not nested within parity, and (2) estimate variance components and genetic correlations for RFI across parities. Data consisted of 72,474 weekly RFI records of 5,813 lactating Holstein cows collected from 2007 to 2022 in 5 research stations across the United States. Estimates of heritability, repeatability, and genetic correlations between weekly RFI for parities 1, 2, and 3 were obtained using bivariate repeatability animal models. The nested RFI model showed better goodness of fit than the nonnested model, and some partial regression coefficients of dry matter intake on energy sinks were heterogeneous between parities. However, the Spearman's rank correlation between RFI values calculated from nested and nonnested models was equal to 0.99. Similarly, Spearman's rank correlation between the RFI breeding values from these 2 models was equal to 0.98. Heritability estimates for RFI were equal to 0.16 for parity 1, 0.19 for parity 2, and 0.22 for parity 3. Repeatability estimates for RFI across weeks within parities were high, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57. Spearman's rank correlations of sires' breeding values were 0.99 between parities 1 and 2, 0.91 between parities 1 and 3, and 0.92 between parities 2 and 3. We conclude that nesting energy sinks within parity when computing RFI improves model goodness of fit, but the impact on the estimated breading values appears to be minimal.

Updating test-day milk yield factors for use in genetic evaluations and dairy production systems: a comprehensive review.

Various methods have been proposed to estimate daily yield from partial yields, primarily to deal with unequal milking intervals. This paper offers an exhaustive review of daily milk yields, the foundation of lactation records. Seminal advancements in the late 20th century concentrated on two main adjustment metrics: additive additive correction factors (ACF) and multiplicative correction factors (MCF). An ACF model provides additive adjustments to two times AM or PM milk yield, which then becomes the estimated daily yields, whereas an MCF is a ratio of daily yield to the yield from a single milking. Recent studies highlight the potential of alternative approaches, such as exponential regression and other nonlinear models. Biologically, milk secretion rates are not linear throughout the entire milking interval, influenced by the internal mammary gland pressure. Consequently, nonlinear models are appealing for estimating daily milk yields as well. MCFs and ACFs are typically determined for discrete milking interval classes. Nonetheless, large discrete intervals can introduce systematic biases. A universal solution for deriving continuous correction factors has been proposed, ensuring reduced bias and enhanced daily milk yield estimation accuracy. When leveraging test-day milk yields for genetic evaluations in dairy cattle, two predominant statistical models are employed: lactation and test-day yield models. A lactation model capitalizes on the high heritability of total lactation yields, aligning closely with dairy producers' needs because the total amount of milk production in a lactation directly determines farm revenue. However, a lactation yield model without harnessing all test-day records may ignore vital data about the shapes of lactation curves needed for informed breeding decisions. In contrast, a test-day model emphasizes individual test-day data, accommodating various intervals and recording plans and allowing the estimation of environmental effects on specific test days. In the United States, the patenting of test-day models in 1993 used to restrict the use of test-day models to regional and unofficial evaluations by the patent holders. Estimated test-day milk yields have been used as if they were accurate depictions of actual milk yields, neglecting possible estimation errors. Its potential consequences on subsequent genetic evaluations have not been sufficiently addressed. Moving forward, there are still numerous questions and challenges in this domain.