field service advisory committee (fsac) meeting · 2014-08-14 · field service advisory committee...

2014 FSAC Agenda 3.4.2014 1

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting

Monday, March 10, 2014

Hilton – St. Louis at the Ballpark St. Louis, MO

Salon C

8:00 a.m. – 4:15 p.m.

8:00 a.m. Call to Order – Terry Hopper (Dairy Lab Services), Chair-FSAC Introductions

Agenda Review Approval of Minutes from 2013 FSAC Meeting (attached)

8:20 a.m. QCS Field Service Program Update – Steven Sievert (QCS)

8:50 a.m. QCS Meter Center & Technician Program Update – Steven Sievert

9:00 a.m. DHI Supervision Codes – Terry Hopper & Steven Sievert

• AMS (Robot) herds • Electronic Meter Herds • Partial or Alternating Supervision • Changing Test Plans

Data Collection Concerns and Challenges

9:20 a.m. New Training Resources – Susan Lee (Idaho DHIA) & Steven Sievert

• Field Service Affiliate Personnel • Meter Technicians • Laboratory Personnel • ELISA Testing

9:45 a.m. Health Break

10:15 a.m. DeLaval VMS Systems – Nick Kunkel (DeLaval USA)

11:45 a.m. Proposed Changes to Auditing Guidelines – Steven Sievert 12:00-1:00 p.m. Lunch

2014 FSAC Agenda 3.4.2014 2

1:00 p.m. Keeping You on the Frontline – Jay Mattison (National DHIA)

• Animal ID • Collection of Health Trait Data • Release and Use of Records

2:00 p.m. Lely AMS Systems – Ben Smink (Lely USA Inc.) 3:15 p.m. Health Break 3:30 p.m. Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding Update – Pat Baier (CDCB Board of

Directors) & Duane Norman (CDCB Interim Administrator) 4:15 p.m. Adjourn/Close Meeting

2014 March 10 FSAC Minutes 3.12.2014 1

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting March 10, 2014 Hilton at the Ballpark, St. Louis, MO Attendees Terry Hopper, Dairy Lab Services & Chair, FSAC Bill verBoort, AgriTech Analytics Robert Albrecht, Indiana State Dairy Association Bruce Dokkebakken, Minnesota DHIA Brian Winters, DHI Cooperative Inc. Alfred Duran, DHIA West Chris Tucker, Rocky Mountain DHIA Daniel Lefebvre, Valacta Tony Nunes, Tulare DHIA Kathy Sackman, Washington State DHIA Ray West, Southeast DHIA Jared Means, Southeast DHIA George Cudoc, Dairy One Cooperative, Inc. & Chair, QCS Advisory Committee Jamie Zimmerman, Dairy One Cooperative, Inc. Jere High, Lancaster DHIA Julee O’Reilly, DHI Cooperative Inc. Virginia Sheridan, NorthStar Cooperative Services Mark Eisenga, NorthStar Cooperative Services Todd Byrem, AntelBio Systems Steve Frank, United DHIA Anita Quesenberry, United DHIA Susan Lee, Idaho DHIA Tom DeMuth, AgSource Cooperative Services Pat Baier, AgSource Cooperative Services Mark Witherspoon, Mid-South Dairy Records Neil Petreny, CanWest DHI Cathy Myers, DHI-Provo Dennis Marsh, Texas DHIA Steven Smith, DHI-Provo Robin Andrews, Dairy Records Management Systems Phil Dukas, Dairy Records Management Systems Erinn Evangelista, Dairy Records Management Systems Steven Sievert, National DHIA/QCS Jay Mattison, National DHIA/QCS Invited Guests John Cole, USDA-ARS-AIPL Duane Norman, Interim Director, CDCB Dan Sheldon, National DHIA President & CDCB Director Kent Buttars, National DHIA Vice President & CDCB Director Uffe Lauritsen, RYK (Denmark) Jens Chr. Mathiasen, RYK (Denmark) Nick Kunkel, DeLaval USA Ben Smink, Lely North America Neil Hammerschmidt, USDA-APHIS-VS The 2014 FSAC meeting called to order at 8:00 a.m. by Terry Hopper, Chair. Terry Hopper asked for introductions of attendees and invited guests.


The following two items were added to the agenda.

1. Update on the Uniform Operating Procedures Task Force and approved revisions from Steven Sievert

2. Update on AM/PM Factors from Duane Norman Steven Sievert, QCS, distributed the minutes from the March 12, 2013 FSAC meeting. Minutes were approved as printed. Steven Sievert was appointed to take minutes for the 2014 meeting. Steven Sievert, QCS, presented the following:

1. Field Service Report (attached to the minutes). The auditor did not propose any changes to the audit guidelines for field service providers.

2. Meter Center and Technician Report (attached to the minutes). The auditor did not propose any changes to the audit guidelines for meter centers or meter technicians.

Steven Sievert discussed the importance of accurate test-day characteristics and use of supervision codes at the AIPL/CDCB level (attached to the minutes).

Susan Lee discussed the National DHIA strategic planning process and shared with attendees that the Quality Certification Services is one the three key focus areas. A survey of QC program participants will be conducted within the next six months. The need for development of training materials for DHI field technicians and the need for a unified ‘release and use’ of records document was also discussed. Nick Kunkel, DeLaval USA provided DHI managers and DRPC personnel updates on the DeLaval VMS and sampling shuttles. Terry Hopper and Steven Sievert reviewed the process for changes to the auditing guidelines and called for proposals from the floor. There were no changes in the Auditing Procedures for Field Services or Auditing Procedures for Meter Centers and Technicians brought from the floor. Steven Sievert presented the report of the Uniform Operating Procedures Task Force and highlighted key changes in the document. The UOP, as approved by the National DHIA Board of Directors on March 9, 2014, were distributed to all attendees (copy attached to the minutes) Jay Mattison highlighted frontline topics facing the DHI providers with discussion on:

1. Animal ID (with additional comments from Neil Hammerschmidt, USDA-APHIS-VS) a. Review of current ADT rule from USDA-APHIS-VS b. Comments from USDA-ARS-AIPL on acceptability of ID for genetic evaluations c. Discussion on DHI program adopting the 840 AIN as the number for DHI programs

2. Release and Use of Records a. Update nomenclature b. Importance as data handling transfers from AIPL to CDCB c. Target completion within 120 days

3. Collection of Health Trait Data Ben Smink, Lely North America provided DHI managers and DRPC personnel updates on the Lely AMS automatic milking systems and sampling shuttles.


Duane Norman, Interim CDCB Administrator, and Pat Baier, CDCB Director, presented an updated on CDCB activities to attendees related to overall CDCB role and activities to data. Jay Mattison, CDCB Vice-Chair, provided an update on operational points specific to the Dairy Records Provider sector. It is anticipated that the CDCB will reimburse National DHIA/QCS for discovery costs of $18,500 and this will be refunded to paid participants at a rate approximating 0.5 cents per cow. Duane Norman provided an update on the AM/PM factors research. FSAC meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully recorded, Steven Sievert QC Program Manager/Field Service and Meter Center Auditor Quality Certification Services Inc.


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting March 12, 2013 Trade Winds Island Grand, St. Pete Beach, FL Attendees Terry Hopper, Dairy Lab Services & Chair, FSAC Alfred Duran, California DHIA Bill verBoort, AgriTech Analytics Robert Albrecht, Indiana State Dairy Association Bruce Dokkebakken, Minnesota DHIA Brian Winters, DHI Cooperative Inc. Chris Tucker, Rocky Mountain DHIA Daniel Lefebvre, Valacta David Brown, Tulare DHIA Frank Nunes, Tulare DHIA George Cudoc, Dairy One Cooperative, Inc. & Chair, QCS Advisory Committee Jamie Zimmerman, Dairy One Cooperative, Inc. Jere High, Lancaster DHIA Julee O’Reilly, DHI Cooperative Inc. Lee Maassen, Past Chair, QCS Advisory Committee Mark Adam, NorthStar Cooperative DHI Services Michael Gallenberger, Gallenberger Dairy Records Steve Frank, United DHIA Susan Lee, Idaho DHIA Tom DeMuth, AgSource Cooperative Services Steven Sievert, National DHIA/QCS Jay Mattison, National DHIA/QCS Invited Guests Andrea Rosati, ICAR (Italy) Daniel Abernathy, ADHIS (Australia) Gordon Doak, NAAB Ole Meland, Chair, Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding Pierre-Louis Gastinel, France Genetique Elevage (France) Uffe Lauritsen, RYK (Denmark) The 2013 FSAC meeting called to order at 8:10 a.m. by Terry Hopper, Chair. The election of the FSAC Chair was added to the agenda. Steven Sievert, QCS, distributed the minutes from the March 6, 2012 FSAC meeting. Minutes were approved as printed. Steven Sievert was appointed to take minutes for the 2013 meeting. Steven Sievert, QCS, presented the following

1. Field Service Report (attached to the minutes). There are no proposed changes to the audit guidelines.

2. Meter Center and Technician Report (attached to the minutes). There are no proposed

changes to the audit guidelines.


3. Update on the ICAR Sample Carry-Over working group (attached to the minutes).

A welcome from ICAR was presented by Andrea Rosati. The ICAR Executive Board met adjacent to the National DHIA Annual Meeting and FSAC meeting. Members of the Executive Board were invited guests at the 2013 FSAC meeting. Jay Mattison distributed an update (attached) on the AM-PM factors project. The 2x factors were completed in 2012. It is anticipated that the 3x factors will be completed by Mike Schutz and forwarded to Duane Norman on March 25, 2013. The present work plan will include completion of the project by Duane Norman in 2013. Terry Hopper moderated an open discussion on the challenges facing DHI service affiliates when testing larger or modern dairies. Steven Sievert moderated an open discussion about concerns associated with test day and sampling procedures in herds using automated milking systems (robots). After an extended discussion on the training needs and requirements of field service managers, it was recommended that the Field Service Auditor (Steven Sievert) document manager training (or lack thereof) during the 2013 audit year and provide a summary to the FSAC at the 2014 meeting. There were no changes in the Auditing Procedures for Field Services or Auditing Procedures for Meter Centers and Technicians brought from the floor. Terry Hopper reported that the NADMA checking account had a balance of approximately $1700. It was moved, seconded, and passed that these funds be used to pay the 2014 FSAC meeting registration fee for those DHI managers that attended the 2013 FSAC meeting. The list of attendees is included in these minutes and is based on the sign-in sheet circulated during the 2013 FSAC meeting. Terry Hopper was unanimously elected FSAC chair for another two year term. FSAC meeting adjourned at 11:32 a.m. Respectfully recorded, Steven Sievert QC Program Manager/Field Service and Meter Center Auditor Quality Certification Services Inc.

QCS SIEVERT FSAC 03.10.2014

Field Service Advisory Committee March 10, 2014


Components of Field Service Certification

Certified Field Service

Affiliate

Mandatory Annual Audit

Compliance with Code of Ethics &

Uniform Operating

Procedures

Payment of Fees Compliance

with General and Field Service Auditing

Guidelines

2


Most affiliates meet the minimum

Training documentation is dated for many organizations • No updates to training programs since 2000-2003 • We need to provide the tools for new technicians to succeed • Most likely more training than reported to the auditor • QCS recognizes variances between affiliates – just document what

training you provided

What support is needed? Templates? On-line training modules? Other?

3


Number of Field Service Affiliate Managers do not attend any organized training meetings

Increases challenges and increases costs of support • Not aware of industry changes • Tend to have higher non-compliance issues during field service and

meter center audits • Concern also exist in the laboratory sector

QCS Auditor was asked to report to FSAC on attendance 2013 – 7 of 24 Field Service Managers did not attend National DHIA

Annual Meeting, FSAC, NALMA or DPRC training meeting 2012 – 8 of 25 did not attend any training meeting

4


Meters need to be calibrated at least once every 12 months

5

Best Service Provider

Poorest Service Provider

2013 Weighted

Mean

2012 Weighted

Mean Not

Calibrated 0% 12.9% 0.7% 0.3%

% <365 days 100% 0% 40.8% 47.9%

% 365-425 days 0% 0% 49.8% 46.1%

>425 days 0% 47.5% 8.7% 5.7%


Electronic meters need to be calibrated at least once every 12 months • Water Test Calibration • Parlor Report/EMMR/Manufacturer’s Software Report

demonstrating that meters are accurately weighing milk

Growing number of dairy-owned meters used for DHI

Don’t forget to update make, model and number of meters as parlors expand or refurbish

Myths about electronic meters

• Meters will always be in calibration • A 10-day average takes care of all individual cow errors

6

QCS SIEVERT FSAC 03.10.2014 7

• Approved Models Afiflo 2000 Afiflo 9000 Full Flow (MM 85/MM95) Afilite (Germania’s Essential) Afi 155 & 155i (Sheep & Goat)

• Low-Line Installation Only

• Must Use Afikim Sampler

• There is no meter performance report

available in the current version of the Afifarm software


• This portable configuration of the Afikim meter is not approved for recording milk weights or obtaining milk samples • Never been tested

• Does not matter if used in high-

line, mid-line or low-line application


• Model under test at ICAR Smart Control (Boumetrix)

• Did not pass 1st ICAR test in 2011,

Passed in 2012 after modification

• Must retrofit deflector • Must upgrade software


• Approved Models Weighall

• Both high line and low-line

installations are approved

• No meter performance report in current Dairymaster Milk Manager software

• Dairymaster recently changed the dump cycle in software – affects accuracy of meter

• Weighall meter could be decertified if Dairymaster does not retest it in a timely fashion


• Approved Models Flomaster MM15 (Flomaster Pro) MM25/MM25W/MM27 SG (Sheep & Goat) Delpro MU480

• Must use proper DeLaval

sampler for each model

• All meters are low-line except for Delpro MU480

• New meter performance report in Delpro software


• DeLaval VMS System

• Must use the DeLaval Shuttle for DHI sampling

• Provide a dealer calibration

report annually


• Metatron Meter

• Approved Controllers Metatron 12 S21/P21 Dematron 70 Dematron 75

• Low-Line Installation Only

• Must Use GEA/Westfalia Sampler

• Reports of Sampler Flooding with

Higher Milk Flow Rates


• MIone AMS System

• Must use the MIone sampler

• Provide a dealer calibration report annually

• There is no meter performance report available in the current software for the MIone


• Approved AMS Models Astronaut/Astronaut A2 Astronaut A3/A3 Next Astronaut A4

• Must be dealer calibrated on an annual basis

• Milk weight measuring uses a weigh jar on a load cell

• Lely Shuttle A for DHI sampling – ICAR approved

Shuttle A Shuttle B


• Unapproved Meter from SCR FFS 30 Sensor ED 200 Display MC 200 Controller

• Marketed by Dairy Micro Logic

• Part of Semex ai-24 program

• SCR has not tested or applied for

ICAR testing/approval


Common Problem • Blocked Meter • Missing one or

more milkings • This report

cannot be used for QCS as all meters are linked in the calculation of individual performance

17


Identified Meters out of tolerance on DC305 report • Float not working

properly • Focused service on

specific meter saves the dairyman time & money

18


Identified Meters out of tolerance • Three stall with malfunctioning displays • One stall with air leak • One with bad wire • One stall with bad valve • Three stalls needed electrodes cleaned

19


Required for all herds All test plans are included – even 40’s and 70’s Data is used for genetic and management research

Good business practice, even for non-processed herds Herds may convert from non-processed to processed Record of herd code assignment Release and use of records

About 6% of New or Restarted Herds Missing Agreement Common Issues

• Never obtained agreement for new herd • Missing signature(s) • Herd restarts DHI but member agreement is missing

20


Field Service Advisory Committee March 10, 2014


Service providers are required to notify the auditor of:

• Changes in business name, address, phone, email, contacts • Changes in authorized personnel – i.e. meter technicians • Changes in equipment/instrumentation

Notification within 30 days of change

Send changes to QCS Program Manager – Steven Sievert

Assures accuracy in billing, website listings, and monitoring

instrument performance

Allows for cost-efficient scheduling of on-site discretionary audits

2


No proposed changes in guidelines

No new ICAR-approved manual meters to add to the list of approved models

Still significant number of older Tru-Test standard bore (yellow) & FOSS Milko-Scope meters in service

3


Equipment is aging in many meter centers

• Vacuum pumps/gauges are failing (8 in 2012, 8 in 2013) • Receiver jars showing some age – air leaks, buildup

Unapproved meter modification • Modification of parts so the meter samples faster resulting in inaccurate

samples. • Removal of ball in valve of the Tru-Test Ezi-Test meter • Cutting the tap of the Waikato MKV meter • Modification of the sampler opening in the Tru-Test Auto Sampler

meter

• Glues, cement, etc. to repair cracked body or caps - weakens the meter and is not approved for Grade A dairies

4


Use of adapters that are not compliant with PMO & FDA 3A Sanitary Standards • This is not part of QC – but rather a ‘heads-up’ • Non-approved plastics • Barbed adapters

5


Many affiliates calibrate more often • QCS can handle multiple calibration dates • Use the latest two dates for the interval

Helpful hints

• Don’t forget to record meter center and technician • Don’t forget second calibration checks when required • No alphanumeric numbers if possible

• 16A one year and 16-A next year creates need for manual edits

• Use the manufacturer’s serial number for QCS reporting whenever possible

6


7


8


Model Model 2010 2011 2012 2013 Percent

FOSS Milko-Scope 224 186 108 96 <0.1%

TeSa Milk-O-Meter *Decertified 12/31/10 168 *0 *0 *0

Tru-Test Auto Sampler (SB & WB Models) 25,114 21,478 20,141 18,518 22.0%

Tru-Test Economy (SB) 2,934 2,048 1,947 1,881 2.2%

Tru-Test Electronic Milk Meter 528 915 893 426 0.5%

Tru-Test Ezi-Test (SB & WB Models) 8,123 8,224 8,101 8,418 10.0%

Tru-Test Farmer (SB) 6,845 4,517 4,229 3,918 4.6%

Tru-Test Pullout (SB & WB Models) 51,136 46,748 43,947 41,902 49.7%

Waikato MK V (includes farmer-owned) 12,013 7,897 8,012 8,916 10.5%

Waikato SpeedSampler 284 276 208 186 0.2%

Total 107,369 92,289 87,586 84,261 100.0

*not for distribution


10

2014

Hosted by Tulare DHIA Registration now open April 29-30, 2014 Auto Sampler Training only Special Ezi-Test and Waikato Session ahead of school


A simple, yet vital mission….

Providing a reliable source of information to people interested in the U.S. dairy records industry.

Thank you for your cooperation, support and

commitment to the quality certification process!

11

Accurately Describing the Test Day

Steven J. Sievert Technical Director, National DHIA

Manager, Quality Certification Services Inc.

• Milking Frequency • What milkings are weighed? • What milkings are sampled? • Who did the work? • Technician? • Dairyman? • Combination?

• Milking Times • Electronic Meters or Portable Meters? • Verification Test?

What to Change if needed What not to Change

• Milking Frequency • Who did the work • Milking Times • Which milkings

weighed • Which milkings

sampled • Milk Shipped weights • Comments to DRPC

• Test Plan • Make sure test plan is

right • Use test plan that

describes the majority of test days

• Herd Code

SUPERVISED TEST: All test day production data and cow identification has been recorded by the DHI technician who is expected to collect data as accurately as possible and to use approved procedures when taking milk samples. The DHI technician may employ assistants to perform these tasks when the facilities or milking processes do not permit a single DHI technician to observe identification, milk weights, and sample collection as they occur. (Supervision Code 1) UNSUPERVISED TEST: Test day production data and/or cow identification has been recorded by someone other than the DHI technician. (Supervision Code 2) PARTIALLY SUPERVISED TEST: The DHI technician collected production data and/or cow identification information for at least one milking on test day and someone else collected production information and cow identification for other milking(s) on test day. The DHI technician certifies that the test day information is believed to be correct and accurate. (Supervision Code 3)

AUTOMATIC MILKING SYSTEM TEST: Test day production data and/or cow identification has been recorded by an automatic/robotic milking system. Milk has been sampled using an automatic sampling device approved to provide representative samples when used with the automatic milking system. (Supervision Code 4)

The most common questions are: • Are the milk weights supervised? • Is the sampling supervised? • What test plan do I put robotic herds on?


The most common questions are: • Are the milk weights supervised? • Is the sampling supervised?

• Is the yield recording is electronic by an approved device?

• All milkings are weighed • Yes if using the system software and transferring 24-hour

weights • Is the sampling is automatic by an approved device?

• Less than all milkings are sampled (usually one milking) • Yes if using an approved shuttle


The most common questions are: • What test plan do I put robotic herds on?

SUPERVISED ELECTRONIC TEST: The DHI technician performed a supervised test using the electronic recording of production data and cow identification together with appropriate verification that equipment for cow identification, weighing milk, and obtaining milk samples is in proper operating condition and is accurate. (Supervision Code 5) UNSUPERVISED ELECTRONIC TEST: Test day production and cow identification has been collected using electronic recording and is submitted for processing without verification by a DHI technician. (Supervision Code 6) PARTIALLY SUPERVISED ELECTRONIC TEST: The DHI technician performed a Supervised Electronic Test, but cow identification was manually entered by farm employees. (Supervision Code 7)

Errors in reporting:

Milkings weighed

Milkings sampled

EMM use

Recording days

Is this herd milked 2x or 3x – it changes each month? Did the tech sample all the milkings?

Errors in reporting:

Milkings weighed

Milkings sampled

EMM use

Recording days

Did the technician really weigh all 3 milkings or was this electronic meters? Did the technician really sample all 3 milkings on this 3400-cow herd?

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS

1

Nick Kunkel, DeLaval, Inc, VMS Robotic Specialist

03/10/14

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS-Research

2


Research & data accuracy —our philosophy and practice Oldest continuously operating research Dairy in the world—since 1894

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS-Research & development

3


• 1x10 parallel parlor • 1x4 PP/1x3 HB lab. barn • 2x1 tandem – milking trials • 2x7 herringbone parlor • VMS – lab. + stand by • Tied Up/RTS • VMS-barn – high level

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS-historical view

4


Picture from open house July 30, 1903

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS-continuing

5


Picture from open house July 30, 2006

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS--view before robots

6


The standard …

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—VMS sampling

7


• ICAR-proven milk sampling • Easy connection of the sampler to the machine • Option between one-time sampling in 24h or

sampling of all milkings in 24h • capacity: 140 samples

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—the robot

8


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—with the hood up

9


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—under the hood--sampling

10


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—the meter--accuracy

11


• The most advanced Milk Meter in the market.

• Infrared reading of flow

• Especially designed for high yield cows.

• ICAR and DHIA approved

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS--deviations

12


MM25 statistical nature field data from many installations (during ICAR probe acceptance) proves that : 1) Individual MM25 standard deviation is typically less than 1.8% 2) No MM25 in the field have a long term standard deviation greater than 2.5% 3) Typical individual MM25 bias (after initial calibration) is below 1.5% and remains so over many years (Self testing done and recalibration for every cow milking) 4) No MM25 before initial calibration will have bias greater than about 3%

Standard deviation

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—continued accuracy

13


- Built- in self tests.

- On- line alert of faults).

- Remote controlled programming and calibration.

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS--analysis

14


milk meter test

-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

yield

devi

atio

n

• Error of total reference yield 0.2%

• Standard Deviation of mean reference yield 2.5%

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—results—yield deviation %

15


Official ICAR RESULTS DE-KONING 2002

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—results—yield deviation #

16


Official ICAR RESULTS DE-KONING 2002

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—meter capacity and accuracy

17


- Specially built for high flow rates (up to 15 Liter/min (33#/min)).

- Optimal hydrodynamic design: * Smooth inlet manifold * Short passage

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—milk quality with Infra-red blood detection

18


Conductivity, blood, yield, flow, measured per quarter at most accuracy possible


DeLaval VMS—for mastitis detection and abnormal milk

19


Blood Detection with Infra-Red •An additional management tool to help control milk quality

•Peace of mind—highest degree of detection of abnormal milk.

•A proactive step towards consumer confidence/food safety and future legislation

0-ppm 600-ppm 350-ppm 10,000-ppm


DeLaval VMS—installation calibration & certification

20


Calibration and yearly recertification

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—calibration procedure w/VPR-200

21


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—Calibration verification w VPR200

22


Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—calibration w/ documentation

23



DeLaval VMS—Computer import to meters & software

24


USING HERD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR BIAS CALCULATION ……..

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—periodic easy verification w Probe

25


• MM25W Service yearly: • Accuracy checked with the test probe • Use the test probe:

•Available on site for periodic verifications • with a serial number (serial # calibrated to meters)

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS—the sample tray for each VMS robot

26


• ICAR-proven milk sampling • Easy connection of the sampler to the machine • Option between one-time sampling in 24h or

sampling of all milkings in 24h • capacity: 140 samples

Title Sub-Title

• First level Arial 20 pt • Second level Arial 18 pt

• Third Level Arial 16 pt • Forth level Arial 14 pt

• Fith level Arial 12 pt

27

Internal

Field Service Advisory Committee (FSAC) Meeting DeLaval VMS

28


Thank You

www.lely.com

Best info services....

... to mutual customer

Ben Smink Lely North America Farm Management Support March 10 / 2014

In this presentation/discussion:

• Current state Lely robot sampling support

• Modern data exchange

• Future state and discussion

Current State: what happens in the field

• 200+ Lely shuttles in the field

• 600+ Lely Farms in NA, and counting

• In general sampling goes reasonably well, but:

1. DHIA Field techs lose too much time on sampling

2. Lely Field techs lose too much time on sampling support

• Due to:

1. Lack of knowledge

2. Lack of experience

3. Lack of maintenance

Get mutual field staff informed and trained!

Current State: what is available:

Available instructions:

1) Operators manual Lely Shuttle

2) Online T4C Your Guide

3) Set default reports for data export

Includes: Scheduled maintenance Shuttles and Robots

Current State: what we do

Training sessions (webinars) to our mutual field staff:

1) Connect DHIA tech and Lely Center tech

Short lines for support and spare parts

Quick interaction for starting DHIA/Lely customers

2) Show available tools and instructions

3) Share best practices and do’s/don’ts

Current State: some example learnings

• Shuttle not leveled

• Tube between shuttle and robot too long

• Shuttle sticky and dirty at arrival

Made producers go from one to another DHIA organization…..

• Shuttle not maintained

• Robot valve too high/low air pressure

• Robot valve not maintained: stuck in dirt.


• Current state and support robot sampling



Data exchange robot systems:

100% Lely robot systems connected to internet Technical support

Lely InHerd mobile apps

90% Lely robot systems connected to Benchmark

Data cloud on the Internet

Robot producers compare results with each other

Advisors can assess farmers robot and herd results

Data stream from cow to stake holders (old):

Current data stream:

DHI tech

Dairy Farm

Data stream from cow to stake holders (new):

Dairy Farm

Internet Lely Cloud

Farmers & Robot Advisors

Future stream: = exists = future?

Benefits modern data stream:

• Customer: Gets data back in shortest time possible • DHIA Field tech: Save time handling data • DHIA: Automatic validation of the data • DHIA: Single data line to Lely Cloud for all robots no individual farm maintenance on data connections versions and support on a high level

Nothing new: …. Other industries have done this for years …. Europe has done this for years….

Herd Information Management

• Robotic vs. Conventional milking: Different cow contact: Parlor <=> Barn

More ‘Quality Time’ with ‘natural’ behaving cows

More sensor technology

Much more Real Time info!

Independent cows!!! ….

…. do we have a trait for that??

+ combinations of all of the above ...

+ combinations with calendar + health events.

> 120 Values/cow/day from the robot:

Feed intake

Activity* Rumination*

Weight*

Milk Yield Milk Fat Milk Protein Milk Lactose Milk Speed Milk Temperature SCC class* Robot visits Box times Per Quarter: - Yield contribution - Teat position - Pre Milk Time - Milk Time - Conductivity - Color * = option

Sensor + calendar info:

Automatic Analysis of:

√ Udder health

√ Body health

√ Reproduction

Real time analysis ….

Which Data valuable for Herd Improvement?

Feed Efficiency

Activity Rumination

Body Weight

Per Quarter: - Yield contribution - Teat position - Pre Milk Time - Milk Time - Conductivity - Color

Black = Existing / Red = Future? Milk Yield Milk Fat Milk Protein Milk Lactose Milk Temperature Milk Speed SCC class Robot visits Box times

Fertility, Health and milk separation events

Which Data valuable for Herd Improvement?

Keep in mind: • Data points every milking

• Milking temperament parlor ≠ Independent robot cow

• Current traits like Milk Speed are subjective appraisals

• More often milking => Different udder shape

Producer requirements in future(1):

Accurate traits to breed robot cows: • Cow Robot Efficiency:

Visit Behavior (# voluntary visits/day)

Milk Yield per Box time (1 kg/min or 4 kg/min to tank)

Square quarter milk speed, (not too high, so not too vulnerable)

Quick attachment (Udder shape throughout the lactation)

• Economics (Money Corrected Milk?): Real Feed efficiency Real Lactation persistency heifers Real Negative energy balance early lactation Real Vulnerability locomotion / mastitis

• Cull reasons for robot suitability


And.. a bit further out of the box:

• Automatic feeding systems coming up Dry matter intake / Feed efficiency

• Cow response to heat detection systems Does cow show heat cycles Optimum insemination moment (less OvSync ?)

• Warning system Dairy Suppliers (Vet/Breeder) Attentions based on combination of sensor and calendar (DNB) E.g.: Automatic attention message “cow to treat / breed”

• No doubt: additional sensors coming up…..

History is already available on robot farms started 10 years ago!


Efficient sampling and data exchange robot systems: • Automatic Data export at the end of sample event:

sample records

cow calendar and cull records

• Automatic Data import of sample results

lab records

• Infrastructure data exchange is ready for Lely systems

currently testing DNL/STF files

used in all EU countries already for I&R (national herd books)





Take Home Messages

Lely wants to cooperate to improve mutual customers’ results

Robot data readily available on Internet: = Opportunity herd improvement organizations:

to be more efficient (and more accurate)

add traits for better genetic decisions

combine data flow

How can National DHIA ‘connect’ with Lely?

Take Home Messages:

Uniform Operating Procedures

Report of the Task Force and

Proposed Revisions

March 2014

Uniform Operating Procedures was last reviewed in 2002 and is currently made up of: ◦ Code of Ethics ◦ Uniform Data Collection Procedures ◦ Records Disclosure Policy

The Records Disclosure Policy will be moved into a separate

document and reviewed by the Release & Use of Records Task Force

The UOP Task Force was charged with revisions to Code of Ethics & Uniform Data Collection Procedures sections

The Task Force focused on: ◦ Uniform reference to DHI data and programs

◦ Relevance to today’s DHI program

◦ Inclusion of new technology and data Organization and program needs Electronic identification Automatic milking systems and newer recording devices Health and diagnostic screening data

◦ George Cudoc, Dairy One Cooperative ◦ Tom DeMuth, AgSource Cooperative Services ◦ Steve Frank, United Federation of DHIAs ◦ Kevin Haase, NorthStar Cooperative ◦ Steve Hershey, Lancaster DHIA ◦ Steve Toone, Idaho DHIA ◦ Bill verBoort, AgriTech Analytics ◦ Steven Sievert, National DHIA, Facilitator

◦ Additional input from multiple field service and DRPC

personnel was solicited by task force members for specific topics

Current UOP Revised UOP

DHIA TECHNICIAN – This and equivalent terms such as supervisor, tester, independent service provider, etc. define the person approved by the DHIA Service Affiliate to certify production information collected at the farm. DHIA technicians may employ others to assist them in data collection, but the DHIA technician must provide supervision and assume responsibility for the work of their assistants.

DHI TECHNICIAN This and equivalent terms such as supervisor, tester, independent service provider, etc. defines persons approved by the DHI Field Service Provider responsible for data collection that meets the standards described in the Uniform Operating Procedures.

DHI SAMPLE TAKER – This and equivalent terms such as assistants, technicians, helpers, etc. defines persons supervised by and responsible to the DHI Technician, and ultimately to the DHI Field Service Provider, that assist in data collections on farms. DHI Sample Takers should be trained by the DHI Field Service Provider in a fashion equivalent to the DHI Technician for the job functions they perform such as recording milk weight information and collection of a proper sample.

This change does not affect QC requirements for Field Services unless the FSAC would recommend changes to the auditing guidelines. Rather, it more clearly defines the roles of DHI personnel and encourages training of Sample Takers by the Field Service Provider.


Must be of a model and type approved by National DHIA for use in DHIA testing.

Recording devices, including associated samplers and integrated software programs, must be of a model and type approved by International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) and accepted by National DHIA for use in DHI programs.

This change reflects that modern recording devices include multiple components including samplers and integrated software (i.e. Afifarm, Delpro, DairyPlan) for the estimation and recording of milk yields and obtaining samples. Also, National DHIA does not test and approve devices – that is the role of ICAR and benefit of membership It does not affect external software like PCDart, DC305, DHI-Plus, etc.


A. Test day milk weights shall be obtained as 24 x (milk/hour) obtained from the robotic milking system software. B. Milk samples shall be obtained using National DHIA approved sampling devices for one or more milkings during test day.

A. Test day milk weights will be obtained as 24-hour yield obtained from the automatic (robotic) milking system software. The average 24-hour milk yield reported should represent a minimum of three consecutive days and not to exceed ten consecutive days. There will be no application of AM/PM factors on milk yields. B. Milk samples shall be obtained using National DHIA accepted sampling devices for one of the milkings during the test day. There will be no application of AM/PM factors on milk component results. C. Data obtained from automatic (robotic) milking system software may not be used in genetic evaluations unless the system meets National DHIA/Quality Certification Services standards for on-farm, in-line analyzers.

This change more clearly defines data parameters for AMS (Robotic) systems. It also addresses concerns on AM/PM factoring of component results.


NONE NEW PROCEDURES PROPOSED

This new section addresses a common concern from dairy producers and field service providers. Extended philosophical discussion and input went into development. The task force and other parties recognize the need to have a guidelines and a standard procedure when adjustment is necessary. This procedure is preferred to the adjustment of milking times to more closely approximate milk shipped totals as the adjustment of milking times directly affects the application of AM/PM factors to milk components. It is recognized that education will be a component of this change and that DRPCs may elect to incorporate ‘checks and balances’ into software to ensure proper application.

Revised UOP

• If the DHI Field Service Provider has verifiable source for both milk shipped and milk not shipped, the test day milk weights are adjusted at the herd level to sum of both milk shipped and milk not shipped. • If the DHI Field Service Provider has verifiable source for milk shipped but cannot account for milk not shipped, the test day milk weights are adjusted at the herd level to 102.8% of the milk shipped weights.

The first two points deal directly with situations where milk shipped and milk not shipped are known and are adjusted at the herd level – not the cow level or string level. For cases where milk not shipped is unknown, the 102.8% level reflects the current mean test day/milk shipped percentage.

90 95 100 105 110 115

Revised UOP

• In the absence of both milk shipped and milk not shipped, the DHI Field Service Provider shall not adjust the test day milk weights. The normal application of both the 24-hour adjustment and AM/PM adjustment factors by the DRPC shall apply. • Test day milk weights adjusted at the dairy should not be further adjusted by the DRPC or other entity. The DRPC may recalculate a test day milk weight using the raw milk data if changes in the parameters used in the calculation of the adjusted test milk weight warrant such recalculation.

Point three deals with situations where milk shipped and milk not shipped are unknown and reflect the current procedures used by the DRPCs. Point four clarifies that milk weights are only to be adjusted one time but also recognizes the potential need for reprocessing (same as current procedure) if parameters change and warrant recalculation.

Adopted the revised Uniform Operating Procedures as presented to the Board of Directors on March 9, 2014.

Resolution to support the National DHIA Board of Directors’ approval of the revised Uniform Operating Procedures and to thank the Uniform Operating Task Force members for their work.

Whereas the National Dairy Herd Improvement Program Uniform Operating Procedures, including the Code of Ethics and the Uniform Data Collection Procedures, are a key component of the DHI Program to assure the uniformity and accuracy of DHI data; be it resolved that the National DHIA delegate body support the adoption of the revised Uniform Operating Procedures adopted by the National DHIA Board of Directors on March 9, 2014 and extend their thanks and appreciation to the members of Uniform Operating Procedures Task Force for their time, contributions, and leadership in this revision process.

National DHIA Management Team and Board Quality Certification Services

1

Animal ID Collection of Health and Fitness Data Release and Use of Records ◦ Data flow

CDCB Actions – specific to DRP Sector

2

3

Administrator's Message: Animal Disease Traceability— Next Phase of Implementation

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service sent this bulletin at 03/04/2014 11:55 AM EST Dear Stakeholders: When I started my role as APHIS’ Administrator, I shared with you my belief that one of the Agency’s most important jobs is to help ensure the health and profitability of your industries. We know responding quickly to a disease outbreak and lessening its impact is an essential part of protecting those markets and your profitability, and that was a driving force behind our finalization of the Animal Disease Traceability program in March 2013.

Tamper evident Imprinted with An official identification number Official eartag shield

• All tags manufactured after March 11, 2014 • All tags applied after March 11, 2015 • State postal abbreviation may be used

instead of “US” inside the shield − Applicable to tags purchased by the State

from approved tag manufacturers

Official Eartags

4

• Animal Identification Number (AIN) Tags - 15 characters with 840 as the first 3 digits

Example: 840 003 123 456 789 - USA and Mfr. code (900 series) prefixes

also official through a transition period • Manufactured before March 11, 2014 and applied before

March 11, 2015 • Tags that meet this criteria are official for the life of the

animal

5

Note: AIN tags with the 840 and Mfr. codes may contain a radio frequency (electronic) transponder

Official ID Numbers / Eartags

• Animal Identification Number (AIN) Tags - 15 characters with 840 as the first 3 digits

Example: 840 003 123 456 789 - USA and Mfr. code (900 series) prefixes

also official through a transition period • Manufactured before March 11, 2014 and applied before

March 11, 2015 • Tags that meet this criteria are official for the life of the

animal

6

Note: AIN tags with the 840 and Mfr. codes may contain a radio frequency (electronic) transponder

Official ID Numbers / Eartags

AIPL to CDCB Updated to reflect current nomenclature and

use References to Herd Profile and other unused

tools Need to have as comprehensive definitions

and uses covered ◦ Desire to cover as much data as possible

Have it done in next 120 days

7

Traits of management and economic importance

Delivery of management and value for management to famers (short and mid term)

Need to have farmers and data flow understand the situation and potential

Require understanding and data flow conduit of the DHI system

Major work area in coming months

8

Capitalization of the DRP sector ◦ Who is in and who isn’t from DRP sector and

CDCB levels ◦ Might only be $75,000 required per sector Might be early payback and no call for 2nd

capitalization payment Demonstrates commitment to the effort

It is dairy producers’ dollar$ Don’t know at this point

10

Discussion Point ◦ CDCB Board reviewed CDCB financial standing in

Feb 2014 ◦ $20,000/sector committed by old CDCB for

discovery ◦ NAAB and QCS/NDHIA only entities that have

expenses ◦ CDCB Board took action that these expenses

should come from CDCB rather than sectors ◦ $18,500 at QCS/NDHIA

It is dairy producers’ dollar$

11

Discussion Point ◦ $20,000 committed by old CDCB is coming from

CDCB rather than sectors ◦ Has been assessed by QCS, money will come

from CDCB to QCS/NDHIA $18,500

What needs to be considered? ◦ About 0.5 cents (half a cent) a cow

12

Discussion Points ◦ Research Fund ◦ Credit in prepayment account amount ◦ Issue a refund

13

Discussion Points ◦Issue a refund ◦Check back to participant

14

Communications within the sector

Moving forward

Questions

15

…..are the stewards and facilitators of the quality and flow of the dairy production and management trait

system in the USA for dairy producers

16

Thank you

17

Norman and Baier, 2014 Field Service Advisory Committee Meeting, Mar. 10, 2014 (1)

H. Duane Norman Interim Administrator Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 301-525-2006 (voice) [email protected]

Pat Baier CDCB Director AgSource Cooperative Services Verona, WI 53593 608-845-1900 (voice) [email protected]

“What’s Happening” at the CDCB?


Organizational roles

Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory (AIPL) responsible for research and development of programs to improve U.S. genetic evaluations

Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) responsible for managing database, computing and delivering the genetic evaluations to the dairy industry

CDCB and AIPL employees are co-located in Beltsville


Funding

CDCB participants agreed to provide start-up loans to initiate the CDCB operation.

On-going CDCB operations are funded through a fee system

• Assessed on animals genotyped

• About 80% of revenue planned to come from bull fees

• Higher fees to herds that have not contributed to the system (see https://www.cdcb.us)


Funding

A “crude overview” of CDCB fees:

US DHI herds on breed type appraisal, pay $0 per female genotyped

US DHI herds not on breed type appraisal pay $2 per female genotyped

US herds not on DHI or breed type program pay $5 per female genotyped

Actually, fees are more complicated, DHI herds need usable records (>20%, >50%) for lower fees.


Information sources for evaluations

Traditional evaluations of bulls and cows genotyped used to derive genomic predictors

Combined final evaluation • Traditional evaluation • Sum of SNP effects for an animal’s alleles • Polygenetic effect, what’s left over

Pedigree data used and validated by genotypes


Genomic Nominators (15)

Animal nominated for genomic evaluation by breed associations, AI organizations, & others

Breeds: Brown Swiss, Holstein-Canada, Holstein-USA, Jersey

AI: ABS, Alta, Genex, NAAB, Select Sires, Semex, Taurus

Others: Canadian Data Network, Genetic Visions, New Generation Genetics, Zoetis


Genotyping Laboratories (6)

Bio-Genesys Diagnostics, Oxford Genom. Center, UK

DNA Landmarks, Quebec, Canada

GeneSeek, Minneapolis, MN

Genetic Visions, Middleton, WI

Weatherbys, Johnstown, Ireland

Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MI


Evaluation flow

Hair or other DNA source (blood or tissue) sent to genotyping lab

DNA extracted and placed on chip for the 3-day genotyping process

Genotypes sent from genotyping lab to AIPL/CDCB for accuracy review. Many of those with problems are fixed so they can get a prediction.


Discovery of missing ancestors

Ancestor Discovered (if genotyped)

Sire MGS MGGS Breed % Correct* % Correct % Correct

Holstein 100 97 92

Jersey 100 95 95

Brown Swiss 100 97 85

* % Correct = Top ranked candidate ancestor matches the true ancestor. In 2013, >50,000 missing or incorrect sires were discovered and reported to breeders


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Aug S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M

Mal

e g

enot

ypes

rece

ived

(no.

)

Evaluation date

Brown SwissJerseyHolstein

Usable genotypes received (male)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Aug S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M A M J J A S O N D Jan F M

Fem

ale

gen

otyp

es re

ceiv

ed (n

o.)

Evaluation date

Brown SwissJerseyHolstein

Usable genotypes received (female)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014


Genotypes received (other breeds)

Breed Male Female All animals Ayrshire 1,216 1,421 2,637 Guernsey 104 9 113 Milking Shorthorn 9 7 16 Crossbred 0 6 6


Evaluation flow (continued)

Genotype calls modified as necessary

Genotypes loaded into database

Nominators receive reports of parentage and other conflicts

Pedigree or animal assignments usually corrected

Genotypes extracted and imputed to 61K

SNP effects re-estimated every month


Evaluation flow (continued)

Final evaluations calculated

Evaluations released to dairy industry

• Download from CDCB FTP server with separate files for each nominator

• Monthly release of new animals genotyped

• All genomic evaluations updated 3 times each year during official runs (Apr., Aug., & Dec.)


Embryo transfer calves, by year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

ET a

nim

als (

thou

sand

s)

Year of birth

Female Male


Genetic choices in service bulls

Before genomics two choices:

Proven bull with milking daughters (PTA)

Young bulls with parent average (PA)

After genomics have a third choice:

Young males with DNA test (GPTA)

Reliability of GPTA ~70% compared to PA ~35% and PTA ~85% for Holstein NM$


Genomic reliability by breed

Breed Reliability AY BS JE1 HO Genomic REL (%) 37 54 61 70 PA REL (%) 28 30 30 30 Difference +9 +24 +31 +40

Bulls in reference 680 5,767 4,207 24,547 Animals genotyped 1,788 9,016 59,923 469,960 Exchange partners CAN Interbull,

CAN CAN, DNK CAN, ITA,

GBR

1Jersey statistics include 2% REL gain from 1,068 DNK bulls added in January


Genomic reliability by trait for HO

Trait Reliability Yield SCS PL DPR Genomic REL (%) 76 72 69 68 PA REL (%) 38 34 30 29 Difference +38 +39 +39 +39

Type Stature Ud Dep DCE Genomic REL (%) 75 77 77 60 PA REL (%) 35 39 38 38 Difference +40 +38 +39 +22


Proven bulls: 2013 NM$ vs. 2010 NM$

-500

-300

-100

100

300

500

700

900

-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900

Net

Mer

it, D

ec. 2

013

Net Merit, April 2010


Young bulls: 2013 NM$ vs. 2010 NM$

-500

-300

-100

100

300

500

700

900

-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900

Net

Mer

it, D

ec. 2

013

Net Merit, April 2010


Young bulls: 2013 NM$ vs. 2010 PA$

-500

-300

-100

100

300

500

700

900

-500 -300 -100 100 300 500 700 900

Net

Mer

it, D

ec. 2

013

PA Net Merit, April 2010


Acknowledgement

Some of these slides were originally prepared by Paul VanRaden or George Wiggans, prior to modification by Norman.

Jan Wright and Suzanne Hubbard assisted in obtaining some information.

Zoetis, Kalamazoo, MInd




Switch to Pat


CDCB Composition

CDCB became a non-profit organization with a board of 12 voting members from the following:

Artificial Insemination Industry (3)

Dairy Herd Service Providers (3)

Dairy Records Processing Centers (3)

Purebred Dairy Cattle Associations (3)


CDCB Composition (continued)

CDCB invited allied industry to apply for 2 non-voting representative (1 yr. term) to participate in the CDCB. These application were received and the participants accepted were:

Doug Ricke, Zoetis

Juan Tricarico, Innovation Center for US Dairy


CDCB Composition - 2014

CDCB officers through 2014 are:

Ole Meland, Chair

Jay Mattison, Vice Chair

John Clay, Secretary

Neal Smith, Treasurer

Gordon Doak, Recording Secretary



Artificial Insemination Industry (3)

Keith Heikes, Ole Meland, Chuck Sattler

Dairy Herd Service Providers (3)

Kent Buttars, Jay Mattison, Dan Sheldon



Dairy Records Processing Centers (3)

Pat Baier, John Clay, Lee Day

Purebred Dairy Cattle Associations (3)

Glen Brown, John Meyer, Neal Smith


Results

An organized business model that has the opportunity for long term success

We have four sectors of the dairy industry meeting on a monthly basis

A number of assignments are currently underway. Now hiring a CEO and will follow with 5 or 6 more employees.

Working to finalize Material Transfer Agreements


Routine processing

CDCB server stayed up during the Government shutdown. Continuous access critical because:

breeds use queries while processing daily registrations; submit pedigree records regularly

genomic nominators process daily; genotypes are processed upon arrival

DRPCs submit yield and breeding records; send birth and parentage information routinely


Results

Avenue available for organized industry research

Organization makes a statement about US Industry

Maintains leadership position

We have data secured and can be a good working/research partner




Thank You


Genetic Trend in Pregnancy Rate


Genetic trend in Somatic Cell Score


Expected and realized NM$ progress

Actual progress $80 / year vs. $90 in theory

Female selection has largest genomic benefit

• Shorter generation interval and higher REL

• Embryo transfer now more valuable

Male selection has reduced age and REL

• 3% of sons in AI had young sires in 2008 compared to 81% in 2012, >90% in theory


Haplotype tests, then lab tests

Frequency Lab tests1

Genotypes JH1 HH1 JH1 HH1 Normal 76.5 97.2 9,867 113,792 Carrier 21.3 2.4 2,750 2,793 Homozygous 0.0 0.0 0 0 No call 2.1 0.4 276 464 Total 100.0 100.0 12,893 117,049

1Data from the Geneseek Genomic Profiler (GGP) and GGP-HD for causative mutations (JH1 = CWC15 and HH1 = APAF1)


Estimation of Daily Yield

Mike Schutz’s research at Purdue University

Norman’s confirmed validity and simplified presentation of materials for DRPC.

DRMS is providing data on milking time on individual cows. Some results.

field service advisory committee (fsac) meeting · 2014-08-14 · field service advisory committee...

Documents