title: Genetic analysis of mastitis data with different models.
abstract: The aim of this study was to analyze different mastitis data sets with different statistical models and compare results. Data recording took place on 3 commercial milk farms with an average herd size of 3,200 German Holstein cows. Recording started in February 1998 and was completed in December 2005. During this period, 63,540 treatments for clinical mastitis were recorded. Five different data sets were analyzed and the number of cows varied between 12,972 and 13,618, depending on the data set. Data collection periods contained either the first 50 or the first 300 d of lactation. When the data-recording period ended after 50 d of lactation, data sets were analyzed with a lactation threshold model (LTM), a multiple threshold lactation model (MTLM), and a test-day threshold model (TDTM). In the LTM analysis, mastitis was treated as a binary trait coded as 0 (no mastitis) or 1 (mastitis), whereas in MTLM mastitis, codes were between 0 and 4, depending on the number of estimated days with mastitis. The TDTM treated each day as a single observation coded similarly to that of the LTM. When the data collection period included the first 300 d of lactation, data sets were analyzed with the LTM or MTLM only, because the TDTM was computationally infeasible. Mastitis frequencies in LTM data sets were 25.8 and 39.2%, and 26.9 and 39.2% in MTLM data sets, when data recording ended after 50 and 300 d of lactation, respectively. The mastitis frequency in the TDTM data set was 5.2%. Respective heritability estimates of liability to clinical mastitis were 0.08 and 0.09 using the LTM, and 0.08 and 0.11 using the MTLM. When the TDTM was used, the estimated heritability was 0.15. Rank correlation between breeding values of the different data sets ranged between 0.40 and 0.97. Rank correlation between the LTM and MTLM were higher (0.78 to 0.97) than those between these 2 models and the TDTM (0.40 to 0.59).The MTLM combined the positive effects of both the LTM, with respect to the size of the data sets, and the TDTM, with respect to the lack of information.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts-University, D-24098 Kiel, Germany. dhinrichs@tierzucht.uni-kiel.de
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hinrichs
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bennewitz
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Stamer
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Junge
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Kalm
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Thaller
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002417:Cattle; D005260:Female; D020022:Genetic Predisposition to Disease; D007774:Lactation / Q000235:genetics; D008414:Mastitis, Bovine / Q000235:genetics*; D008954:Models, Biological; D015233:Models, Statistical